These are strange times indeed in the imaginary world inside Davis Aurini’s bald head.
Last week, the failed filmmaker and white nationalist (on paper) posted a response, of sorts, to the Orlando massacre that tells us very little about the tragic event itself — but quite a bit about Davis Aurini, including his exceedingly creepy thoughts on the sexual fantasies of teenage girls.
As you might imagine, the bald bigot has little sympathy for the mostly gay victims of the massacre — he describes them, in present tense, as “a group who predominantly work against our interests.” But he still wishes he could have been there to shoot the shooter himself, because “pragmatic, honourable, loving, and rule-following wolves” like himself “do not tolerate people who break the rules.”
Apparently the problem with Omar Mateen wasn’t so much that he murdered 49 people but that he broke some rules in the process. I shudder to think what Aurini thinks the penalty should be for jaywalking, or peeking at someone else’s cards while playing Go Fish.
So that’s strange enough. But what’s this thing about “rule-following wolves?”
Aurini is drawing on a notion — explicated in detail in Anonymous Conservative’s book The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics and promoted heavily by far-right “thinkers” like Vox Day — that conservatives are steely “K-selected” reproducers well-suited for harsh environments while liberals are a bunch of irresponsible, resource-guzzling “r-selected” losers who practice free love and single motherhood.
Or, in furrier terms: Liberals are rule-bending rabbits, while conservatives are wolves who “prefer explicit hierarchies and distinct rules.”
Brace yourself, fellow rabbits, because we’re about to go deep into the mind of Aurini.
“The morals of a Liberal,” he declares, “are the morals of a prey animal; cowardice, treachery, appeasement, irresponsibility, crowding.”
Crowding?
They promote social chaos so as to hide themselves in its milieu. When society has no clearly defined boundaries, or families, or communities, then it has no customs or rules. The Liberal is able to seek out their immediate benefit without censure or consequence – aside from the natural consequences of Mother Nature and the Gods of the Marketplace – but by the time the collapse occurs, they will have out-bred and cheated their way into dominance of the genome. They’ll have the most iligitimate children, they’ll form the bulk of the mob, and though many of them will be culled once winters hit, their genome will survive.
Fascinating, though completely wrong. Conservatives actually have about 40 percent more children than liberals, according to a 2006 study that seems to be backed up by voting preferences in presidential elections. As Amanda Marcotte notes in Slate:
Higher fertility in red states … is the product of the societal pressure on women there to marry young, have more children, and put less of their energy into developing careers. In blue states, on the other hand, women tend to limit their family size and have kids later in life. …
But don’t buy the conservative hype linking ideology to family stability. Red states have higher incidences of teen births and divorce … .
Let’s ignore the fact that Aurini’s rickety theoretical framework is totally and completely wrong in every way it could possibly be wrong, and let him explain more about the rabbits.
“The only emotions I’ve ever seen them display are lust and terror,” Aurini writes.
The rabbit – upon suffering abuse, violence, and threat – this is the closest they ever come to feeling love.
I really, really, really hope that Aurini has never had actual pet rabbits.
He continues, getting creepier by the sentence:
Their terror morphs into something that’s downright spiritual – a spirituality that’s utterly demonic – and they find the same catharsis in Islamic murderers as they do in bug chasing and sharing their wives. The overwhelming fear snaps their amygdala, and for the first time in their life they are at peace.
Apparently us liberals are all murder-loving, AIDS-wanting wife swappers?
The rabbits love the pedophile, the single mother, the graffiti artist, the tyrant, and the drug addict; of course they’ll love the terrorist.
I spoke too soon! Apparently we liberals are single-mother enabling, tyrant-obeying, drug-addict coddling, murder-loving, terrorist adoring, AIDS-wanting, wife swapping, pedophile-phile graffiti art enthusiasts.
And I haven’t even gotten to the bit about the sexual fantasies of teenage girls. Brace yourself again, dear readers, because, well, this is Davis Aurini writing about what he thinks are the sexual fantasies of teenage girls.
Raised on narcissism, solipsism, and social media, your average girl graduating High School has been inundated with images of American Soldiers marching in cherry-red high-heeled shoes; of weak White men bowing down before the dictates of the diversity crowd.
The red shoes bit, in case you’re wondering, is a reference to the fact that last year several college ROTC programs encouraged (or forced, depending on whose account you believe) male cadets to participate in a Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event during Sexual Assault Awareness month.
And you gotta love the capital “W” for “white.”
Aurini — *shudder* — continues:
Her erotic fantasies have been focused on pretty-boy homosexuals and yaoi porn, and having never suffered any adversity in her life, she cannot begin to fathom the threat that exists.
Oh, but it gets worse:
Compare her mental image of Western masculinity to that of the the Orlando shooter – the Boston Bombers – the Paris attackers – or the jihadis who behead innocents: instead of graduating from pretty-boy Luke Skywalker to bad-boy Han Solo, her first tingles will happen when she matures beyond the safe sexuality of anime characters to the blood-dripping blade of a third-world savage.
Even if we set aside from the odd (and oddly dated) Star Wars reference — I’m pretty sure that very few teenage girls in the US today have posters of Mark Hamill hanging over their bed — this is almost incomprehensible.
Is Aurini really suggesting that teenage girls — or young women, or older women, or even Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford — are getting off on videos of terrorists beheading people?
Who the hell knows. What we do know, though, is that Davis Aurini is getting off on the idea of killing a whole bunch of Muslims. He ends his post with this chilling declaration:
Our mission as Men of the West – as men of God, of Civilization, of Honour, and Beauty – is to take upon ourselves the task of building ourselves up so that we might rebuild civilization. To reclaim the potency and virility of the Crusading Knight, and to be prepared at all times to fight these heretics and give them an ignoble death. …
If we are to die, let us die as heroes, slaughtering the forces of darkness that are railed against us. Pray for the strength of ten men during your final hour, because one of us is worth a hundred of them.
Wrong again. Davis Aurini isn’t even worth a cat poop.
I’m afraid to google yaoi porn.
why, that sounds just like a euphemism for dominance-oriented right wing authoritarians.
how odd.
Well, insofar as the wealthy white wolves tend to prey on the disenfranchised female/POC rabbits, he might have a point… Just, as usual, not the one he’s trying to make.
Aurini might not be totally wrong here. My younger brother claims his main erotic roleplay partner is a woman who does get off on blood-soaked fantasies of Muslim terrorists visiting all kinds of terrible fates upon western women. The thing is though, he also says this woman is extremely conservative and from a military family, possessing a fascistic worship of the US military and contempt for civilians, and when she’s not engaged in violent erotic roleplay she’s ranting about how Daesh should be bombed into oblivion. In other words, not supporting Aurini’s claims very much.
Also, Aurini thinks conservatives “prefer explicit hierarchies and distinct rules” but that liberals love “the tyrant”? Sounds like he can’t get enough of the tyrant himself.
I love the assumption that women have never faced adversity before in this culture.
I suspect if the chance to “die as a hero” came up this guy would run the other way as fast as possible.
The only man who gives me tingles is named Chuck. Aurini gives me more of a full body shudder, followed by throwing up in my mouth a little.
So many things wrong with Aurini.
I don’t get why people like Davis Aurini talk about teenage girls being pampered princesses. It’s like he’s thinking of some kind of prom queen stereotype and not about real girls. Teenage girls go through a whole lot of crap in high school from bullying from peers to pressure to do drugs to body image problems to sex (which can open up a whole can of worms like abusive boyfriends, teen pregnancies, STDs etc.).
Gods of the Marketplace? So the “invincible hand” is a kind of law of the universe to these people. That’s a really big fetish.
And is it just me or when Aurini talks about how “rabbits” need to be abused before feeling love and all that other stuff he sounds like he’s talking about abused women.
So when he says “Men of God”, he means tools of capitalism?! (Because higher up in the article he says that Gods are “the marketplace”. But that is not the only part of this that is confusing. It’s a good thing that guy has no actual clue what teenage girls think about though…
So on top of all his other bullshit, Aurini equates single mothers, graffiti artists and drug addicts with pedophiles, tyrants and terrorists. Good to know!
Perhaps someone needs to have a chat with MacArthur?
Aurini always loses the thread when he tries to analyze anything beyond his skull collection.
Stick to what you know, son!
Aurini would hate me…a rebel with a cause but sometimes I don’t know what it is. Not that I care…from what I’ve seen I’m not too fond of the guy either. Also, cute how he assumes what every feeemale wants. Oh, did I say cute? I meant infuriating…
I might need a drink.
So, what I got from that is that he is ever so bravely ready to go to war against wrongheaded teenage girls. Nubile, fresh young girls who dare to have fantasies that do not include him.
Girls who have been rolling their eyes at him his entire life, no doubt.
@Iseult: Pffffttt…even though I’m a teen at heart, he doesn’t scare me.
> Calls himself a “rule-following wolf”
> Speculates on the sexual fantasies of teenaged girls
> Doesn’t see how this crosses over into pedophile territory
Okay then.
Also: Graffiti artists have more talent in their pinky toe than Aurini does in his whole body and skull collection combined.
Look who’s talking about no “boundaries,” no “customs or rules”!
How about you consult a dictionary, Davis Aurini, and learn how to spell illegitimate! Or, you know, run spell check.
Of course, the word illegitimate, when applied to children, is all kinds of awful. But that’s a matter of sensitivity. Not to mention decency.
By the time a guy is old enough to be bald, he should already be both sensitive and decent. It’s entirely possible that you’re a hopeless case.
OT but timely
A sit-in? On the floor of the House? I blame Bernie — in the nicest way possible.
It’s macho man on twink porn that often borderlines on rape made in Japan for the consumption of women, although there are parts made for actual gay men that will have actual consensual sex. It’s like lesbian porn made for men in the US.
Why yaoi tho? I mean I get that he’s a homophobe, so why not yaoi. It’s just… Is yuri fine? Is it just bishie stuff that’s bad? Is bara yaoi manly enough? Like… huh?
Hmmm…just a tweak or two:
Yep, I suppose their hyperviolent, hyper-ideological bigots are bad, but our hyperviolent, hyper-ideological bigots are good?
That sounds a lot more like the manosphere/alt right/gamergate than it does us.
I’m sick of saying it.
Projection again!
What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
The word railed? It has a meaning, a very specific meaning. Here’s how your friend Merriam-Webster puts it:
to scold or complain in harsh or bitter language
So maybe you mean “forces of darkness that rail against us”?
Or “forces of darkness that are aligned against us”?
Davis Aurini, pray for the strength to consult the effin’ dictionary.
Huh. I thought we left-wing types all wanted a communist dictatorship? I’m confused now.
(I’m actually genuinely confused, because I thought Davis Aurini was a libertarian, but here he seems to be in favour of rules and hierarchies? I haven’t been following him terribly closely though so maybe I was wrong about that.)
Wait, he thinks political views are genetically transmitted? I mean, maybe there are some genetic effects, I wouldn’t rule the possibility out, but has there actually been any research done to establish it with the certainty he seems to have here?
Also, the “cheated” part implies that liberals will be having more children because they are breaking what Aurini considers to be the social rules. As I can’t see how breaking rules would allow a woman to have any more children than following them (she can only have one pregnancy at a time, whether she’s faithfully married or enthusiastically polyamorous), I assume he means specifically liberal men will have had more children by “cheating”. But that doesn’t make sense because liberal men are all weak, limp betas whom women reject (despite their supporting feminism with the specific aim of getting all the action) – they certainly sound a far cry from the knife-wielding savage who’s apparently giving all the women the tingles. Unless the liberal men are succeeding in spreading their seed by engaging in an onslaught of rape? That sort of sounds more (stereotypical) wolf than (stereotypical) rabbit though…
Ok, I understand where the bit about finding catharsis in Islamic murderers comes from: it’s because Aurini can’t grasp an idea as complex as understanding that just because a small number of people commit atrocities in the name of a religion or ideology it doesn’t mean that committing atrocities is an integral part of the religion or ideology or that the vast majority of its adherents are anything other than decent human beings who are similarly shocked and appalled by these incidents, and so he explains people who don’t adhere to the religion/ideology expressing sentiments along lines other than “ban the religion/ideology!” or “kill/deport the adherents” as getting some enjoyment from the atrocities.
But where the hell does he get the idea that liberals don’t feel love exactly the same way that anybody else does?
Purple exchange rate mechanisms sleep furiously.
Well, whatever religion it is that these “Crusading” wolf-“men of God” adhere to as they “fight […] heretics”, I gather that it isn’t one that centres around the idea one should love all one’s fellow men.
[Wow, there’s just so much in this one, but I think I’ll stop there before this comment gets any longer!]
@Kat
While he’s at it he could look up “morals”, because I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.
Edit: @Tulse – wow, so well put!
Ok, actually I will just add:
Is the idea that if they pray for the strength of ten men, they become worth a thousand of us?
Or is it that, being worth a hundred of us, this is clearly an unfair fight, so as rule-following men of honour they’re morally obligated to pray to only become worth ten of us, so as to even things out a little?
And:
How did we get from “Liberals are out-reproducing us!” to “Kill the heretics!”?