Categories
aggrieved entitlement alpha males alt-right anti-Semitism antifeminism bad science crackpottery daily stormer empathy deficit entitled babies f. roger devlin hypergamy irony alert literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA sexual assault trump

Daily Stormer: Women’s March participants all secretly want Trump to sexually assault them

Hey ladies!

The millions of women who marched yesterday don’t really hate Donald Trump, at least according to Andrew Anglin of the neo-Nazi tip sheet The Daily Stormer. No, they’re actually really into him.

Anglin, who apparently knows all the secrets lurking in the hearts of women, tells his readers in a post today (archived here) that women “generally say they opposite of what they want, especially when it comes to issues relating to sex.”

When marchers chant “this pussy grabs back,” or carry signs with mocking slogans like “we shall overcomb,” they’re just trying to cover up the fact that they want Trump to grab their own personal pussies.

“Hating on a man and talking about how awful he is is generally a sign that a woman wants to have sex with that man,” Anglin explains. The marchers wearing pink “pussy” hats were actually

demanding they be sexually assaulted by President Donald Trump.

Seriously, you don’t have to be a psychoanalyst to pick up on this. Every single one of these women is sexually fixated on Donald Trump. …

[T]his is what happens when you give women “freedoms.” They become outrageous – and dangerous.

So what is it about Trump that is allegedly so irresistible to so many women? Professor Anglin has an explanation.

To understand why all of these women want to have sex with a single man who is 70-years-old and slightly overweight, and wasn’t even explicitly handsome when he was young, one must understand the concept of hypergamy.

If you’re thinking that this sounds awfully familiar, it’s because Men’s Rights Activists and assorted other Manosphere types have a bit of an obsession with this pseudoscientific explanation of female psychology, which originally came from white nationalist F. Roger Devlin.

While the term itself means nothing more than “marrying up” as Anglin notes, in the minds of the internet’s misogynists it’s become the favorite explanation as to why women would rather sleep with dudes other than them. “Hypergamy” is the reason that women allegedly ignore perfectly decent hard-working beta males, hungering instead for the hottest, sexxxxxiest, most alpha dudes out there. And right now the world’s biggest alpha dog is none other than Donald Trump.

“[E]very woman on the planet is seeking the perfect male,” Anglin explains. And so, regardless of their politics, they find themselves secretly longing for an elderly man with artificially orange skin and the world’s most ludicrous hairstyle.

Donald Trump is the ultimate alpha male. He is an aggressive, hostile conqueror who became ruler of the world through force of will. As such, he is the object of sexual fixation of all women on the planet.

Hence, hundreds of thousands of women across the globe marching with the demand to have sex with him.

It’s just SCIENCE, Anglin insists. A woman

only has one womb, and it takes an extremely long time to produce and raise a child. Why would she not want that child to be the best possible child?

Apparently the women of the world look on the American-Psycho-looking Eric and Don Jr. and think to themselves: if only I could have sons just like that!

While Anglin himself has a giant man-crush on Trump, he think’s all this alleged Trump-lust amongst women is a sign that the sexual revolution that kicked off in the 1960s is ruining just about everything. In a “sexually liberated society,” Anglin writes,

where there is no obligation to marriage and monogamy, all women will seek sex with the highest-ranking males, and the other 90% of males will be left without sex partners, or at least without the prospect of a permanent partner. …

This is not conducive to civilization. At all. It creates an army of sexually frustrated men incapable of landing a partner, as average women seek out one-night stands with above average men that they believe they can somehow swoon, manipulate or otherwise trick into being with them forever.

Yep, Anglin is rehashing the same tired arguments made a thousand times before by MRAs and MGTOWs and assorted other lady haters.

As Anglin — and countless other internet misogynists — see it, the only solution here is some form of mandatory monogamy that can put “these dirty sluts in check.” Specifically, Anglin wants to ban abortion, get rid of child support, and end “affirmative action for women, making it impossible for women to support themselves (no, they can’t compete in the workplace without affirmative action).”

As Anglin sees it, the future of Western Civilization is at stake!

Only by restricting the deranged sex practices of women can we save our civilization. And a vow to fix this problem is a sure way to get young men on board with a war against the Jews.

I hereby vow that any system that I help to install will ensure that you all get wives. As long as you aren’t a complete weirdo and do spend some time in the gym.

Apparently the whole point of the alt-right is to find some nice ladies for the world’s lonely Nazis. Who knew?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

159 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Anarchonist

it’s not because white liberals didn’t listen to the ‘concerns’ of the fascists: it’s because we did, and thus allowed fascism to be normalized in everyday discussions

Yep, but also kinda worse. See, the fascists, fundamentalists, teaprtiers, et al keep telling White Liberals(tm) they’re no good. They keep on saying that LGBT+ folks should be rounded up, or that Obama should go back to Africa, or that rapists are only bad if they’re brown. Multiple times. Out loud, for all to hear. And the White Liberal will invent a ‘legitimate’ concern for them to fawn over. ‘Washington corruption’, ‘economic anxiety’, ‘national security’. Anything not to hafta admit that 25 out of their precious 99% minimum are vile, deplorable humans

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
3 years ago

As PI covered, we’re way past the “debate” stage and through no fault of our own. So I really don’t think a punch is illegitimate.

These are the people who have, throughout history both old and very fucking recent, done much, much worse to others every chance they got. And now ? For one, they’re poised to become much more influent and thus dangerous in the “big picture”, but they’re also extremely fucking deadly to individuals right now, due to the climate that they created and that enables them.

So if you need to escalate shit a bit to remind them that you damn won’t let them fuck everything up and party like it’s the 30s, then by all means punch all the nazis you want, and make all the nazi-punching memes that you want too. My favorite right now is this one.

It’s not about silencing their freeze peach and it’s not about making them feel unsafe. It’s about letting them know that they haven’t won and that they won’t, and that we’re fighting back.

@David

Heh, might that have something to do with Captain America ?

/shamelessly stereotyping americans

ryeash
ryeash
3 years ago

@Sinkable John

It isn’t stereotyping when every other pro-punching-Nazis meme right now has Cap or Indy in it. My partner is a huge Captain America fan, which is probably why he has no issue with it. That’s also his favorite version of the meme, by the way. I’m partial to this one.

Bryce
Bryce
3 years ago

@dlouwe

In making that assessment you are still speaking from what is ultimately opinion on the matter of which ideologies should be (begrudgingly) tolerated. And a few posters don’t appear to agree with the distinction and would rather see hate speech laws applied as a bare minimum in cases of religious fundamentalism/bigotry.

I‘ve no sympathy Richard Spencer, I’m uneasy with the idea of individuals being targeted for violence. Far-right groups trying to assemble in a public space is a different matter.

hyacinth
hyacinth
3 years ago

i can’t help but be a cynic about the nazi-punching thing, as much as it was satisfying to watch and as much as i believe that punching self-proclaimed white supremacists is not a bad thing

lately i’ve learned that the left is really prone to turning around and devouring our own

you can already be shut out and ostracized for, say, being the wrong kind of trans (in my experience), i’m not eager to add violence to the list of acceptable tactics

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
3 years ago

I was going to let this one go, but the last comments changed my mind.

Again, I do understand the concern some people may have for violence being more universally accepted, but again, we’re not talking about any violence at all: we’re talking about violence against Nazis. Nobody else. Nazism as an ideology cannot be peaceful, no matter how ‘peaceful’ an individual Nazi may act at the moment. The whole premise of Nazism is the complete eradication of certain racial and ethnic groups (not to mention sexual minorities). Nazism is a through and through despicable ideology, there is nothing “peaceful” about it, nor in any of its followers. You cannot, logically, draw a straight connection between someone punching a Nazi and someone punching a minority. They are, like, the almost complete opposite thing.

I’m sorry, hyacinth, that you’ve met leftist shitheads. You deserve better than to encounter assholes on both sides of the political spectrum. With friends like these, who needs the political right? I swear, if anyone starts punching minorities, I’m absolutely all for punching them at that point.

But again, it’s a whole different matter altogether. This has nothing to do with “acceptable tactics” against anyone but Nazis. Most people aren’t deliberately dense enough not to see the difference between someone attacking a member of a marginalized group (who, again, are already under attack in our society) and someone attacking a Nazi shithead who openly considers the genocide of a racial minority. If they are, well, then they would have probably found another reason to justify attacking marginalized people anyway, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Again, being more extreme against oppressors doesn’t make you “just as bad” as the oppressors, despite what feel-good turn-the-other-cheek be-content-with-being-victimized liberal bullshitters try to tell you. Nazis can’t be opposed with peaceful discussion, because Nazis don’t believe in peace or discussion. In fact, just trying to have a conversation with a Nazi already proves to them that you are weak and can be pushed around at will. The only things Nazis care about are having absolute power and supremacy, and anyone who disagrees is the enemy. You cannot be a good person and tolerate Nazism because freeze peach or some equally weak bullshit. Attacking someone who wants to strip you – or anyone else – of their basic human rights is, at its core, self-defense.

I don’t like the idea of anyone being punched, but bending back and not opposing the ones who have desire to do much worse things than just punching others would make me complicit in anything they end up doing because I didn’t stand in their way, violently or not. As Captain America said in The First Avenger: “I don’t want to kill anyone. I don’t like bullies; I don’t care where they’re from.”

@Axecalibur: Good point. The white liberal will find any reason to explain away the horrible views Nazis and other fascists try to incorporate into the mainstream, and tries to make any action to push back the far-right shitheads seem like ZOMGWORSTTHINGEVER!!!!!!

If anyone finds themselves doubting the actions they take against assholes, it’s worth remembering that any opposition to, say, Trump and his extremely harmful politics will always be criticized and condemned by the white liberal: Be it booing, not showing up at the inauguration, giving legit criticism on the social media, protesting peacefully, protesting violently, or, when nothing else works, punching Nazis. It doesn’t matter what you do, the white liberal thinks you should have been even more peaceful (preferably dead if you’re non-white). Bottom line: The white liberal thinks you should shut up and accept your fate, whatever it is, and let the bullies win. This speaks volumes about either how little the average white liberal cares about anything that doesn’t directly affect them, or how aware they are of their privilege and how much it benefits them personally when fascists are given free reign to strip marginalized groups of their human rights.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Anarchonist

It doesn’t matter what you do, the white liberal thinks you should have been even more peaceful

^This shit right here!!!

Mikki
Mikki
3 years ago

Meh, if they were saying this about JFK or Obama I might could see why they would think so many women could find the president sexually desirable. But TRUMP??? Come on now. No one wants his stock. Have you seen his sons, (besides Barron)?? Him, and his sires look like they’ve been constructed out of old balogna meat.