By David Futrelle
The original Nazis were not exactly what you’d call progressive thinkers on the “female question.” As Adolf Hitler saw it, the “world” of the German woman should be largely confined to “her husband, her family, her children, and her home.”
But, like many traditionalists, Hitler and his fellow Nazis tempered their misogyny — or at least tried to make it seem more palatable — with praise for the supposed purity and womanly honor of Aryan women who fit themselves neatly into their restricted roles.
Today’s neo-Nazis, or at least those who’ve come to Nazism through 4chan and the meme wars of the alt-right, have a much darker view of women, one influenced more by the bitter misogyny of “Red Pill” pickup artists and Men Going Their Own Way than by sentimental fantasies of “Kinder, Küche, Kirche.”
Reading posts and comments about women on The Daily Stormer, probably the most popular online hangout of today’s meme-happy neo-Nazis, it’s hard not to be struck by how thoroughly the discussions are permeated by “Red Pill” lingo. References to “alpha males,” “reproductive strategies” and “gina tingles” abound. (And there isn’t really anyone there to challenge the misogyny: As is the case in many manosphere communities, women are banned from commenting and “manginas” are quickly chased off.)
To see this convergence of the manosphere and the neo-Nazi movement in full effect, one need only to take a look at a recent debate, of sorts, on the Daily Stormer BBS on the question: ‘Are women naturally evil and immoral?”
A fellow calling himself jonholiver gets the discussion rolling by asking whether it’s “female nature” or “our degenerate culture that [makes] women act the way they do.”
Mr. Oliver, for his part, finds it “hard … to believe that women are actually evil by nature.” As he sees it, the
distinction is important because if we take the premise that women aren’t naturally evil and are neutral or virtuous then the patriarchy serves to guide women into having a family and to create an enviroment where men want to do it as well, while if we go from the premise that women are naturally imoral and sluts than the patriarchy as the purpose of opressing or supressing women’s nature and making them submit to men(i’m not saying opressing women is bad).
Of course you’re not, dude. You’re a freaking Nazi.
The most popular answer amongst Mr. Oliver’s peers? It’s a mixture of both.
“Women are shit by nature,” writes a commenter calling himself lordkekofkeking.
they are only good for making kids, cooking and cleaning. In a traditional society, women understood their place because men put them in their place and they would go against popular culture by doing otherwise.
Now, in this Kali Yuga, women are told they can be whores, they get away with it financially and legally and even worse males in their society have been femenized by constant (((brainwashing))).
As BillyRayJenkns sees it,
Women are led into evil and immorality by a lack of strong authority figures, If we stoned and staked them today, this would all end
SilverDawn makes the same repugnant argument in slightly more polite language:
They are a herd animal. If they see the herd walk one way they will follow it doesn’t matter what it is. The desire to be part of the herd out weighs any logical thinking.
Like all good herds they need fences/boundaries. And good stockmanship.
Cmartel offers an argument I’ve run across again and again on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit.
Females are not evil but they are part of nature which can often be cruel.
A woman is like a dog, a tiger or a tree, neither good or bad. A tiger might kill you but it’s just what tiger’s do, the tiger is not good or evil.
We’re often fooled by women because they can mimic understanding and regurgitate facts without understanding anything.
They themselves are unaware of this it seems, they think they understand but they only feel whatever they feel according to instinct.
If a man seems confident, has social standing, wealth, they feel secure and are drawn to him for reasons they cannot explain. Doesn’t really matter if the man is objectively good or bad.
Women are only here to reward the winners and punish the losers, just like nature.
Masteracist recites a variation of an old evolutionary psych fairy tale that has proven quite popular amongst the manospherians:
The female reproductive strategy evolved prior to civilization, and it is destructive to civilization.
An individual woman, at the instinctual level is attempting to secure the sperm of the most genetically fit man available, and to maximize the resources available to her. In order to accomplish this she will engage in all manner of socially destructive behavior.
Shit testing, instigating conflict between men and other men and men and the state, stealing men from other women, etc. She’ll vote for and encourage the mass importation of third worlders. These behaviors are a subconscious attempt to maximize the genetics available to her, and to create conflict between men in order to determine which men have superior genetics.
Her desire for resources will cause her to manipulate men sexually and emotionally. These men become demoralized, depressed, jaded and scornful of women. This negatively effects their productive output. She will vote for and encourage the theft of productive (white) men’s resources to be guaranteed to the less productive. Her hindbrain has herself and her (potential) children in mind, but in practice this results in the subsidization of brown babies and baby mammas …
She isn’t evil, she’s just ill equipped to make decisions that effect the health of a civilization, and for that reason she should be oppressed, for her own good and ours.
Only the over-the-top racism distinguishes this comment from the evo-psych-influenced explanations of “female nature” one finds everywhere on manosphere blogs and the MGTOW subreddit. (And of course there are evo-psych obsessed manosphere writers who are every bit as racist as Mr. Masterracist, most notably the grandiloquent racist shitbag Heartiste.)
Tompanz offers a vision of human history that leans heavily on the alleged evils of “kikes.”
Women aren’t evil; they aren’t children; and they aren’t immoral. They are women. They are fundamentally different than men and fill different roles. Kikes used a deep knowledge of human psychology and history to start the time bomb that is feminism. Women are eternal followers, and need strong men to guide them. You cannot build society around the tiny minority (if any exist at all) of women who are capable of leading anything but toddlers. …
“[T]he better things get, the more bored women are. Bored women want to play make believe as men, since times are good and men love women they let them. Then women make things go to shit and men keep then locked up until times are better.” Rinse repeat for 12,500 years.
Remove the overt anti-Semitism and you have an “argument” that will be familiar to any longtime student of the manosphere (and/or reader of this blog).
General_Pinochet offers a somewhat more concise explanation of “female nature,” using a familiar cringey catchphrase popular with Red Pillers and MRAs alike, declaring simply that “[w]omen are controlled by ‘gina tingles.”
Amongst all those commenting in the thread, only one seems to feel much real sympathy for women — albeit “sympathy” of a particularly Hitlarian kind. As agoodgoy88 sees it
Women are the victims of Jews and so are men, but it’s our job as men to protect women and children from monsters like Jews instead of blaming them because we won’t fulfill our guardian role. I’m not saying white men should be blamed, but once we start reasserting our role as patriarchs en masse our women will submit almost instantaneously.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s going to be happening any time soon, buddy. But I do think the convergence of the manosphere and the already heavily male alt-right will continue. Both movements are borne of bitterness and aggrieved entitlement, and today’s neo-Nazis seem to be as angry at empowered women as they are at the mythical elders of Zion who supposedly run the world.
Thank you peevee! I will have sweet
Dreams ????
OT
Amid uproar, Southern Baptists condemn ‘alt-right’ movement
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20170614/3ff401e3-75e0-484f-8f47-c1f50ec170fd
@virgin mary
I relate to you somewhat. As a trans agender person, let me tell you that you will never turn out to be one of those douchebags.
Reading your post, I can somewhat sense how what they say disgusts you. You have a sense of empathy. Something those fuckers don’t have.
If you don’t identify as a man or woman, I can see why you feel disgusted. Hinestly, it sounds like gender dysphoria. The thing is, you didn’t turn out the way yoy thought you would. You seem like a kind person.
Sorry for my lameness, you just seemed to need a kind word.
Please ignore my spelling mistakes.
Whatever you identify as, that is who you are.
This reminds me of this racist shit I’ve seen alt-right neonazis talking about.
They like to say that ‘cucks’ who have wives allow their wives to carry the babies of their black male bulls to completion, and then raise the child.
Google “my wife’s black son” if you want to see the little scrips they write about shit like that.
In a nutshell, the biggest fear these guys have is the mental picture of a pure Aryan White Superhuman giving birth to a colored baby.
@Kat, Oh boy, the Southern Baptists have finally done something right… though they sort of had to be cajoled by member churches to take care of it. The first resolution language looked like it might apply to some conservative organizations like… the Southern Baptists. The second was more specific. I’d say it’s the beginning of the SBC becoming less conservative, but nope, they’ll only do things like that if they’re forced by enough churches, and kick out the ones that aren’t “SBC Enough” for them. They’re still not LGBT friendly for leadership positions like Deacon or above.
Our Baptist Church committed the heresy (no, not really, see “priesthood of the believer” and “local church autonomy” doctrines) of electing and ordaining an openly gay Deacon, and performing gay marriages in the sanctuary. So we can’t vote at the SBC any more, but every once in a long while, they do something that seems correct.
Uh, which magical civilization of 12,500 years ago granted full rights to bored women? He’s acting like this is some ongoing historical dialectic.
Several wrong assumptions to unpack here. First, “productive” is not remotely synonymous with white, male, or wealthy. If you’re talking about people who actually make things with their hands, historically that’s not the upper class. Slaves and underpaid immigrant labor built a lot of the civilized world.
Second, absolutely everybody on earth, including these alt-right skidmarks, spends some portion of their lives being a nonproductive “parasite” dependent on others to feed them, clothe them, educate them, and take care of them. They may sneer at altruism all they want, but it’s the reason none of them were abandoned in the shrubbery as babies.
I’ll make them a deal, though. They can keep every penny they earn, but in return, they must forego using anything that was produced by someone else. No driving on roads. No going to school. No calling the fire department if their house catches fire, or the police department if someone mugs them. No eating any food that someone else grew, picked, processed, or cooked. No wearing clothes made by 8-year old girls in China. No living in a house that they didn’t design and build. No electronics that they didn’t personally mine, refine, and assemble. We wouldn’t want to be “thieving” resources from others, now, would we?
Seriously, it’s annoying how ignorant and dismissive they are of how much non-white, non-male workers contribute to their daily comfort. It doesn’t fit their narrative of superiority to credit others with any sort of achievement. It’s the same reason “tingles” are silly when a woman has them, but Serious Business if a man has them (especially if they go unfulfilled).
Also, for people who put so much stock in evo psych, it’s remarkable how bad they are at adapting to their environment. No other species goes around demanding that the entire world be rearranged in order for them to succeed reproductively. I guess in the long run, the fact that these Darwinian snowflakes are such poor mating material will eventually work in humanity’s favor. But first, the rest of have to put up with an awful lot of whining and shitty behavior.
As opposed to Donald Trump, who has been magnificently successful in rallying Congress, the media, and the public around his agenda…oh, wait. No. The exact opposite of that. He’s despised around the globe. He’s weakened our standing with NATO, set a land speed record for sub-40% approval ratings, issued unconstitutional executive orders that were promptly blocked by the courts, is the laughingstock of a thousand late-night comedy routines, and a craven bootlicker of strongmen dictators around the world. He doesn’t even have an agenda, other than “Everybody tell me how great I am, and destroy Obama’s legacy because he was mean to me once at a dinner party”. He’s a failed businessman and a lousy negotiator. Yeah, that’s real leadership. Such alpha. Much winning.
As for being ill-equipped to make decisions affecting society, that perfectly describes every single Trump supporter who slurped up fake news from Breitbart/Infowars/RT and voted this criminal family of corrupt incompetents into office. Projection, as usual.
Ugh. Reading through so much misogyny at once completely stalled my brain. I got so caught up trying to follow their deranged logic, it actually impaired my ability to process David’s commentary.
Wading through their dreck is one thing, but I can’t even fathom how you manage to write cogently on the experience afterwards. You have my respect, Mr. Futrelle.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
This made me laugh. And it should very much be a thing!
@Bekabot your comment is brilliant. Cognitive dissonance in the manosphere. I hope they all read it somehow and then stagger around going “Malfunction, Malfunction, does not compute…”
It was utterly revolting to read wasn’t it @A5pect. After reading it I was struck with a strong urge to oppose fascism using force. No convenient fascists were present though and the red mist soon passed.
Re the London fire (with apologies if this doesn’t work):
And part 2 (no surprises as to who proposed the safety law and who opposed it):
Caveat: I do not personally have background on this, nor have I checked the sources.
I expect the independent do and did though. It is utterly damning. There will be political bloodletting over this.
I saw this “second-hand” as it were, so I don’t know for sure if all of it came directly from the Independent (if it did, then yes, absolutely, I would regard them as a reliable source).
I think most of it is from the Independent, yes; just not sure if all of it is.
Oh WHO has been watching A Handmaid’s Tale?!
Top tip bozo – if anyone has to be forced to do something it is a pretty clear indication that you are not going to build a good society.
@opposablethumb : I am screaming. How is that even possible in 2017? I supposed the various mortal fires in the 60′ had made reglementation sane !
Gr8Dane – yes, sadly I found this out a few years ago via youtube. I have met quite a few transmen, and had never encountered this, but a video on youtube by a transitioning man highlighted that it is a common feature amongst transmen. He thought it was a form of overcompensation and a very misguided (but understandable in our culture) way of being a ‘real’ man.
On the subject of Grenfell Tower. I live in an ugly council block in London. Fortunately I am surrounded by other ugly council blocks, so no one has tried prettifying my home and making it much more likely to burn entirely. Never have I been so glad to live somewhere aesthetically unpleasing.
Omg the Conservatives are such scum! HOW is it possible to sleep at night knowing that you every day deliberately make the lives of ordinary people less safe?
@ScarlettAthena
The so-called ‘real-world’ has a well-known left-wing bias.
Yes, it is unbelievably fucked up. It should have been made impossible to get round fire safety decades ago. All the news reports are mentioning that the residents had been raising fire safety issues for (iirc) 3 or 4 years and getting dismissed by the property management company; one report I saw also mentioned that there had been questions raised by the Fire service (though I’m not sure if wrt this block specifically, or to blocks in general).
Thanks Fujimoto (and ChimericMind, for trying).
Uh, does he forget the (misinterpreted) 2nd Amendment?
And that women can pull triggers, too?
99% of these dorks can’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag, or hit the broad side of a barn with a bullet, but they think they will prevail in a civil war/revolutionary type of situation. Ell Oh Ell.