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!
Amusingly, the intersection of white nationalism and misogyny is right now a hot topic on Finnish news. The following summary is mainly based on this story by the Finnish national broadcaster:
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11395718
There’s a socially conservative think tank named Suomen Perusta (hereafter SP), which is closely affiliated with the major anti-immigration political party Perussuomalaiset (hereafter PS). SP purports to publish materials that interpret social science data for the benefit of (rightwing) political decision making. Recently, they published a book described as “philosophical study” by a guy named Jukka Hankamäki, who seems to have been previously known as a rightwing blogger. Something like our own favorite “philosopher king” Stephan Molyneux.
I’ve seen only very limited excerpts/summaries, but he book apparently purports to explain white male anger, blaming it on feminism/women and sexy male immigrants. Apparently, the book mainly consists of the author’s own not-very-scholarly media analysis couched in political philosophy jargon. It was picked out for social media criticism mainly for its rape apologia. It seems to be mostly pretty familiar fare for the regulars here. Now, its online publication has been revoked for “re-evaluation”.
(to be continued)
(continued)
As it turns out, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture has been giving out grants to Suomen Perusta for its stated purpose of assisting political decision-making by connecting research and researchers with educators and politicians. Now, the ministry is effectively obligated to review Hankamäki’s book, and will likely revoke some of the grant money, because the grant rules require any grant funded work to “advance equality”.
Spokespeople of the Perussuomalaiset have tried to generally distance the party from the content published by SP. At the same time, they’ve made some accusations of “politically targeted” investigations, regarding the possible revocation of ministry grant money. They promise to have some “stern talk” about publishing guidelines with the SP bigwigs.
At SP, of the three editors who participated in the process, one claims he only saw early drafts and “hasn’t really read the book”. Another editor admits that mistakes were made, particularly that he failed to weed out “vulgar expressions” from the final draft (as if that’s the main problem). Third editor, who gave the final approval, says the book is great, but he didn’t really “participate in the process”.
(to be continued)
So, it’s good for fathers to have as little as possible to do with their kids, but this kind of distant fathering has led “millennial men” to spend a lot of time with their kids, and this is bad.
(continued)
In an interview, Hankamäki himself leans strongly toward the opinion that SP has been singled out for “shameless political extortion”, which is why the abovementioned SP bigwigs are now backpedaling and trying to distance themselves from the book they approved. Hankamäki whines about academic freedom and opines that any genuine support for research shouldn’t be conditional on ideological goals such as “advancing equality”. He pulls the “everyone’s attacking me because they can’t dismiss my argument” argument. He claims his observations on heterosexual dating dynamics have some added objectivity because he’s personally gay.
The interviewer questions Hankamäki on some book excerpts. He claims women often say no when they mean yes, to inflate their own value on the sexual market (he literally uses this language). He seems to think feminism is generally anti-sex and portrays women as innocent victims, therefore discouraging women from expressing sexual desire. There’s handwringing on false rape accusations, sexual harassment accusations and unspecified “dating market imbalance”. Hankamäki claims that so-called sexual harassment is a natural part of male dating behavior, and a matter of free personal expression. He claims, as a side note, that groping people’s ass is no big deal in gay men’s party culture, therefore something something.
Hankamäki uses the word “grooming” rather confusingly to mean young adult women’s sugar daddy/sugar dating culture, which is apparently more urgent a problem than child sexual grooming. He blames feminism on empowering young white women’s improper sexual choices. He claims Finnish women sometimes date immigrant men as a deliberate “fuck you” to Finnish society at large, or young Finnish men in particular. Not because these women have some legitimate grudge, of course, but just because brown men happen to be present in Finland. Hankamäki talks about lonely white men, who take it as a huge offense (as is apparently natural) if their female peers choose a brown boyfriend. OTOH, he also refers to “rape wave from abroad”, apparently meaning that feminist concern about rape is a response to immigrant men’s behavior. He blathers in pretentious language about immigration and the demise of healthy ethnic nationalism.
@Johanna
This is a key part of cult recruitment tactics. Love bombing people and telling them that they’re right and it’s everyone else who is wrong reinforces and makes people double down like JK did, separating her further from everyone else. I am a little surprised how quickly this all happened, although we knew she was a TERF for a couple years now, she was relatively quiet until these past couple weeks when it seems she kicked into high gear about her transphobia. I had been expecting it would be a slower shift à la Graham Linehan, but right out of the gate she’s lost 78,000 followers in under a month.
I give her a year max until she finds herself in the same position as Graham, unable to find publication deals, rambling incoherently about the cotton ceiling and puberty blockers.
Re: periods
One of the parts of this week’s TERF breakdown was her getting upset about a Washington Post article that used non gendered language to talk about period poverty. Andrew Anglin’s head would probably explode if he realized that some men give birth to babies.
O/T: Incels are once again speculating about how their lives are worse than those of enslaved people.
Someone made this comment on a leftist UK subreddit about JK Rowling.
Sounds like a good idea!
Funny when I imagine manly men I see my uncle cradling my born at 28 weeks cousin in his arms while it was uncertain that my aunt would recover from scepsis. Or my father plaiting my hair and getting my school uniform ready when my mother was ill. Then there is my friend who bought up two kids, both pre schoolers, when his wife died suddenly. Yeah, my manly o meter must definitely be off. Or something. My aunt recovered and said cousin is doing well.
@Sarity
OMG. That is such an amazing photo. And I’m so glad you found a guy who’s so gentle and caring – I wish those weren’t so rare.
Reading through these notions Anglin has about fatherhood, I start to get terrible ideas about his childhood. He’s an adult, he can (and should) take responsibility for what is going on inside his head and coming out of his mouth, but I still think that for his own sake (and the sake of the rest of the world) he should get himself to the nearest therapist STAT. Projection much?
Not that there’s much chance of that, though… That’s only for “cucks” and “soyboys”. And fathers who love their children.
@Varalys
I can’t find any statues of Rowling, so I think we ought to go with the latter. Maybe Against Me! can play their sixth album in full outside her house on repeat. Or Alexander J. Adams can do a show.
@Thijsf: I’ve gone to movie theaters that did less projecting than Anglin.
Sorry if this is OT and unwelcome, but I just wanted to point out that anti-natalist does not mean hate babies. Anti-natalism is the view that procreation is morally wrong. This can be for a variety of reasons (and I guess hating babies can be one of them), and an absurd view for many people, but most often is concerned with the effect birth has on the newborn (i.e. ‘Is it right to bring someone into this world, considering global warming/excesses of capitalism/war/etc’).
One example would be medieval Arab philosopher Abu al Ala al-Ma’ari (I’m pretty sure I misspelled that, Abulola Moarrensis in latin).
While generally an unpopular stance, comparing it to human-effigy-of-excrement Andrew Anglin is unfair. Especially since he is pro (white) procreation.
That’s funny. I’m not aware that any of the BLM protesters have been kicking in doors and then raping and murdering any women they find. On the other hand, Nazis have been known to do that sort of thing from time to time … Project much, Mr. Anglin?
Perhaps Anglin’s stance could be summarized as “I want to have as many children on my name as possible – not because I love children, but because I hate my fellow adults”
@Lumipuna
A lot of right wing ideology cares more about hurting others than helping the self, so that fits right in with his ideology.
@Surplus
Fox News has lately been running footage of protestors entering homes that they were INVITED into and claiming that the protestors broke in. Anglin might have seen that. Or he could just have left his projection running again.
The silver lining here seems to be that Anglin’s not telling men to pretend they like babies and charms all the women with their baby-handling prowess to rope them in and then leave them alone with the kids barefoot in the kitchen. Hopefully the “SO tries to tell me not to use birth control even though I’ve said I want to use it” stage will have everyone nope’ing out of there.
@Moggie
It’s also great to know that receiving “so little instruction and no mentoring whatsoever” from boomer fathers has young men thinking holding a baby is a good thing. How is that fixed by being a distant figure who sometimes yells stuff and hypothetically kills anyone who forcibly enters the house?
@Lumipuna
I’m pretty puzzled by the fact that Hankamäki seems to think no men ever date or marry foreign women in Finland. I also appreciate how he seems annoyed that he apparently shouldn’t be allowed to entertain these ideas, even though they’re so important and no one’s talking about them. Seeing as the snippets seem to have been from one chapter of the book, it should’ve been easy for him to go down the “taken out of context” route or saying that this is just a small part of the book.
Also, “GUARDING THE DOOR WITH A GUN” to ostensibly protect a woman from some hypothetical potential threat that is not really likely to materialize is an awfully convenient excuse for getting out of doing any actual work.
“Sorry honey, can’t share any of the housework today, I have to stay right here on the alert and guard the door with this gun! Yes, I’ve got my videogaming setup all arranged so I can continue to watch the door while practice-shooting to keep my trigger reflexes honed. You’ll have to be periodically bringing me snacks and drinks, I can’t get up from the recliner because that would leave the door unguarded!”
(Of course, if home security really is just a matter of staying by the door with a gun to repel potential invaders, there’s no reason why a firearm-savvy woman can’t do that herself while hubby’s upstairs changing diapers.)
Once again Nazis and their ilk prove that they only care about babies as a means to control women and as a means to trap them in relationships. I hope he stays single, I see a very high risk of reproductive abuse for every woman who gets involved with him. Not to mention the risk his followers pose to their partners.
@Kimstu
I’m sure Andrew has some sort of response about how women can’t shoot or something like that. In reality I’m sure he wouldn’t want his wife to have a gun because if she did she’d probably blow his abusive ass away.
My family never owned guns when I was growing up and didn’t guard the door with a gun, but if they had I’m sure it would have been my mother at the door with a gun while my father changed my diapers upstairs.
Catalpa-
Seriously?! I am at a loss for words.
Sarity-She is adorable!
So her rapist is at the door guarding her from other rapists. Why isn’t she more grateful? Women are so mysterious.
@Amtep
And, seeing as the protestors are probably not going to rape her at all, he’s actually guarding her from being rescued. He’s not trying to keep attackers out, he’s trying to keep her in. This reminds me of some really awful rapey fantasy books I read years ago.
@Naglfar:
I saw a post on Tumblr earlier today that asked why TERFs always seem to focus their blame on transwomen even when complaining about this kind of thing, dramatizing the scenario thusly:
Transmasc: Please don’t call pregnancy or menstruation women’s issues, I’m not a woman
Transphobe: I’m SICK of my womanhood being ERASED for the likes of YOU! [she points PAST the transmasc person]
Transfemme: (looking up from her Nintendo Switch) Wait what
@Moon Custafer
Other commenters have already said things to this effect in other threads, but it seems like they fixate on trans* women for sexist reasons: they think trans* women are men and that men are powerful and predators, so they attack trans* women. They think that trans* men are women and therefore infantilize them, assuming they’re just confused butch lesbian teens (whilst hating on actual butch lesbians). This is obviously extremely misogynistic in addition to transphobic, and really antifeminist (and erases gay, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual trans* men).
I remember a post from Bev Jackson, “political lesbian” and one of the founders of TERF (and general anti LGBT) group LGB Alliance, who rambled about how trans* men exist because there aren’t enough lesbian groups so they decide to join trans* groups and become trans*. This seems to be what TERFs actually think.
Guess we can now add “rape-by-deception advocate” to our description of Andrew. Also I like how he criticizes boomer parents for being insufficiently involved in their children’s development while also saying millennial parents shouldn’t be involved in their children’s development.