By David Futrelle
Nazis have a bit of an obsession about babies, forever urging white couples to pump out a many of them as humanly possible. Even the infamous “14 words” neo-Nazi catechism is all about “secur[ing] … a future for white children.”
So what happens if you, a Nazi, just don’t like babies very much? Consider the case of Andrew Anglin, head boy at the Daily Stormer, who hates babies as much as any anti-natalist but also thinks that other white people should be out there making new ones in huge quantities.
In a Daily Stormer post today, Anglin tries to square this particular circle. He begins by setting forth his own extreme hatred of babies and children in no uncertain terms, denouncing them as “loud, stinky … terrorists.”
Anglin, who is neither married nor with children, declares
There is no sound more vile than the screech of a child. It is even more vile than the crying of an infant. Their smells come in all sorts and all of them are foul. Their cruelty is nigh as boundless as that of a woman – for they destroy with impunity.
But by the end of his little essay, he is ordering his fellow Nazi males to transform their (mostly hypothetical) wives into non-stop baby producing machines — whether the wives want this or not.
[T]he solution to the woman problem is to get her pregnant and keep her pregnant. Traditionally – all the way up through the early 2000s – divorces didn’t happen until the youngest child was 10-12. The divorce rate is still much, much, much, much lower for people with small children. So, you need to keep her pregnant until she can’t get pregnant anymore.
He urges white men to resort to trickery
Do it by hook or by crook. Refuse to allow her to take birth control and if she gets it anyway then replace the pills with placebos. Learn her menstruation cycle, Google when she’s most fertile, seduce her and tell her you’ll pull out and don’t. Do whatever you have to do, just keep her pregnant until she can’t get pregnant anymore.
So how does Anglin square this with his own hatred of the little buggers? By advocating perhaps the least-involved version of fatherhood short of just up and disappearing — one in which the father takes part in zero actual child rearing duties beyond a vague promise to protect the family from evil black rioters and, presumably, bears.
He dismisses men who have basically any physical interactions with their children as thoroughly emasculated husks of manhood.
There is nothing more pathetic than a man holding a small child. I feel utterly repulsed by such a scene. But millennial men have received so little instruction and no mentoring whatsoever from their loafing boomer fathers that these freaks apparently believe that holding an infant is part of being a father. Some of them will even change the diapers of their little brats – or feed them with a bottle! …
Men have never done this stuff with babies, ever, in all of history, and you shouldn’t be doing it. So, just tell your wife she will be doing it from now on. Tell her you’ll do some other task, which is manly, such as mowing the lawn, working to make money or GUARDING THE DOOR WITH A GUN TO KEEP THE RIOTING BLACKS FROM KICKING IT IN AND RAPING HER AND SLITTING HER THROAT, SOMETHING THAT SHE SHOULD PROBABLY BE A LOT MORE GRATEFUL FOR THAN SHE IS.
Fathers should rather just remain in the shadows, a bit like Batman, functioning as
the thing in [the child’s] environment that maybe doesn’t like it that much, maybe yells at it now and again, but would give his life to keep it safe if he had to, but who would never have to because he is so strong … .
Apparently, Anglin’s ideal father is not so much a loving parent as a vague hostile presence in the life of a child that he refers to as an “it.”
It’s really not hard to see why the contemporary alt right has such incredible trouble recruiting women.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!