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!
Masse Mysteria wrote:
I vaguely recall seeing some statistic saying that slightly more women than men immigrate to Finland. Then again, slightly more women also emigrate from Finland.
More importantly, I have a hunch that the majority-women immigration streams mainly come from within Europe, and from East/Southeast Asia. (I don’t generally mean mail order brides, though that does happen sometimes, too.) These streams constitute a huge portion of the overall immigration to Finland.
Meanwhile, the immigration streams from Africa and Middle East – the main rightwing bogaboo – might be actually majority male. It could also be that conservative Muslim cultures actually seriously discourage “their” women from marrying outsiders.
Anyway, probably the most important factor is indeed that hetero male tribalistic assholes are fixated on the occurrence of intermarriage between in-tribe women and out-tribe men, channeling their general insecurity about sexual competition into said out-tribe men. The presence of out-tribe women is generally ignored at least in male-dominated discourse.
@Naglfar:
I’ve always suspected that another, possibly unconscious, reason for the focus on trans women is that if you genuinely believe that trans people are just pretending, then trans men make sense. After all, why wouldn’t women want to be men? Whether it’s because you’re a misogynist and think that men are just inherently better than women, or if you just acknowledge that men have it better, it seems logical, whereas with trans women the only possible reason is to sneak into bathrooms and get access to women to rape. Add to that the fact that at the very broadest level, women (in the West) are allowed a certain level of “masculine” presentation anyway – they can have short hair! they can wear trousers! – and trans men seem like less of an issue. Though undoubtedly there are some straight men out there outraged at those who have top surgery (the bewbies! How dare you deprive me of your bewbies?!?).
(Actually, now I’m curious, though I’m also not sure I want to know. Are there gay TERFs out there who worry about trans men trying to “trap” them, as in “I was making out with this hot guy, then I put my hand down his pants and it turned out he didn’t have a dick!”, the way straight men are terrified of trans women?)
@Rabid Rabbit
There are definitely gay male TERFs (see: Fred Sargeant, Simon Fanshawe, etc) but I don’t think they see trans* men trying to “trap” them (though a few seem annoyed that former partners of theirs came out as trans* women and transitioned).
I have heard some TERFs concern trolling about how maybe trans* men are transitioning because they think it’s better to be a man. In fact, JK Rowling mentioned this in her little manifesto where she said something somewhat incoherent about how if she were growing up now she would be a trans* man because she could (I know, that’s not actually how gender identity works, but that’s what JK thinks).
Anglin isn’t telling men to resort to trickery, he’s telling them to resort to rape.
Completely OT but it looks like no-knock warrants are getting banned entirely in my town. This is a surprising but happy turn.
@Rabid Rabbit,
An article/interview I read years ago about Australian TERF Shelia Jeffries presented a more novel theory about transwomen. Basically, she said that it was the only way for cis guys to get to wear dresses and other feminine things without criticism.
That’s right, she thinks/thought that a cis guy who really wanted to wear dresses whenever he likes would indeed spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on hormones and surgery to rearrange their body to become ‘female’ instead of looking into alternatives like cross dressing and drag queens at a fraction of the cost.
Don’t know how many other folks in the TERFy circles think that, but she did, at least at one point.
@Redsilkphoenix
I’ve heard a similar theory from other TERFs that trans* women transition because we want soft skin but think it’s unmanly to use lotion so we transition so we can moisturize our skin. I don’t know if this theory is directly related to Jeffries, but it’s at least as ridiculous if not more so.
@Policy of Madness:
Extremely unlikely. The most publicized version of this story relates to Louisville, yet even that ordinance
1) has exceptions for certain crimes – the big win here is that it excludes drug manufacture, possession, & distribution which were previously responsible for the vast majority of no-knock warrants, including the one in the specific case of the murder of Breonna Taylor. So it’s not nothing. Except, see #2:
2) it doesn’t forbid acting in concert with people from other agencies when those other agencies execute a no-knock warrant. State cops, ATF, FBI, DEA, and who knows who else can still get a no-knock warrant for any address in any city that bans no-knock warrants. Also, even sheriff’s offices can get them for those addresses in most cases because there are very few cities that have a shared government with the county. (New York City, I think. I’m not sure of any others.)
Being free of no-knock raids from local cops is important. And you’ll maybe possibly be **largely** free of such things when the major source of those warrants (drug-related search warrants & arrest warrants for drug-related offenses) is trashed by the city government.
However, if the city cops want to circumvent that ban, they can always ask friends in the sheriff’s office to get the warrant, then they take over the case. Or a federal agency, like the DEA.
In short, this is all dependent on the PD actively following the spirit of the new city ordinance.
What’s really needed is a new city ordinance banning use of money for prosecuting any case in which a no-knock warrant is used AND requiring the firing of any city cop who supports such a raid AND a state law making it a felony for any city cop from a city with such a ban to support a raid by an agency still authorized to make such raids.
It’s a fucked up thing. They have to be banned at the state level AND the federal level to really get rid of them. City ordinances will have only a tiny effect, and if my pessimism is correct about the city cops, the effect will be tiny ***even within the city limits***.
I mean, sure, it’s a thing that’s important for cities to do, but it doesn’t remotely solve the problem.
@Crip Dyke
There’s about 40 in the United States, though some have slightly different arrangements than New York does.
@Crip Dyke
The original ordinance was replaced by substitution by a much simpler one that outright bans no-knock warrants. I just watched the council meeting and the new ordinance was read in full.
It also mandates body cams be present and ON during all warrant executions, although the penalty for not doing that is just “subject to disciplinary action” which is pretty weaksauce.
ETA: Here is the ordinance that was actually adopted:
https://louisville.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8604954&GUID=4E4FE420-3997-466F-BC08-AAD8FD1CB130
@ crip dyke
Emailed you about something
@Policy of Madness
Really, it should just be understood that a cop turning off a body camera is evidence of premeditation on their part. (Turn off a body camera and shoot someone? Sorry, evidence of premeditation; first degree murder it is…)
@Rabid Rabbit
For the killing of David McAtee, the cops had body cams on them but didn’t bother to turn them on before opening fire (it turns out that the actual shot that killed him came from the National Guard, but having body cam footage would have helped to unravel the narrative around his murder).
For the killing of Breonna Taylor, the unit executing the warrant wasn’t required to wear body cams and didn’t. This law eliminates that loophole and says that all warrants must be executed with operating body cams.
Body cams are not foolproof. They inevitably give you the perspective of the person wearing the cam, and it’s easy to sympathize with the cam wearer because you are seeing through that person’s eyes, so to speak; you are getting their perspective and not the perspective of the other party. But they’re better than no body cams.
Some people in the city are asking why we even have body cams that can be turned off, and that’s a damned good question to which I have not heard a good answer.
Crip Dyke mentioned the county sheriff; while we do have a sheriff’s department, they are not as numerous nor as active as the PD. I honestly don’t know what they do other than inspecting out-of-state cars and evicting people. I’m sure there is some kind of duty they have in addition, but the PD is the big executor of warrants. Of bigger concern than the sheriff’s office is the small-city PDs. Louisville has a number of “small cities” within the county boundaries which have their own police forces and regulatory authority. The Jeffersontown and Shivley PDs, for instance, are big departments and are not bound by this ordinance, and they can still get and execute no-knock raids unless the respective small cities pass similar ordinances.
@ rabid rabbit
Bodycams here and in California* reduced complaints about the police by 93%.
Depending on your cynicism/benefit of the doubt ratio you could put that down to lack of false complaints or better behaviour.
The weird thing is when they trialed the cameras, the reduction was the same for officers not wearing them as well. They called it “contagious accountability”.
The reductions also only occurred when there was an explicit warning that the encounter was being recorded. Again though, we can ponder whether that made all parties to the encounter watch their behaviour.
(*the study looked at a number of locations in the UK and CA for some reason)
@Policy:
Thanks so much for the extra information!
That is indeed a much better ordinance than I thought would be passed based on initial drafts that excepted warrants related to certain crimes.
Unfortunately, it does not in any way prevent non-“Louisville Metro” law enforcement officers from executing no-knock warrants within city limits.
I get that this is a good thing, and you’re right (and I was wrong) that this is a ban rather than just a narrowing of justifying circumstances. I’m glad about all that.
But I don’t want anyone sleeping in a Louisville residence to think that that means that no-knock raids won’t happen anymore. They just won’t be conducted by locals.
Far, far better than nothing, but we still need state and federal protections.
FSM, I hate no-knocks.
========
@Alan: I’ll check my e-mail now. Thanks for the heads up.
@Cyborgette
Aww thanks, I do realize how incredibly lucky I am. Not to mention the kiddo for being born to the precise opposite kind of father this dickhead prescribes.
@Kat <3!
@Policy of Madness
And you’d think that would make the cops in favor of them, seeing as one of their arguments is that hindsight is 20/20 and civilians who aren’t in the actual situation can’t understand what the cops were going through. Which, in high-stress situations, is actually a valid argument, and body cam footage would demonstrate that. Unless – gasp! – it turned out that sometimes, cops who claim they were fearing for their safety lie.
@Policy of Madness & @Rabid Rabbit
Except the default that they have known is not “one person said one thing, the other said the other, and the result was that nothing could be proved”.
The default that they have known is “whenever something a cop says is in conflict with someone someone else says, the cop’s word always wins”.
So they’ve been free to make stories up unchallenged, in whatever way and with whatever context best suits their current goal. Even if the body cam tells the story from their perspective, it still limits them to only one story. The expansive and powerful freedom to make shit up and have the courts accept it as fact is what body cams demand they give up in order to be protected from possibly-frivolous complaints.
Since they win all their complaints anyway by sticking with their made up stories, and since they lose a lot of power, it’s no wonder that so many police unions strongly oppose body cams unless their members are free to turn them off at will.
Sure, it’s a horribly corrupt way to view body cameras, but if the cops’ unions didn’t have a horribly corrupt view, they wouldn’t have any view at all.
I came across this video a year or two back that really illustrates how easy it is for the police to screw people over. The lecturer gives the cops the benefit of the doubt, talking about “innocent misunderstandings or mistaken recollections”, but the information is pretty damning. And the advice he gives is useful.
http://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
@Lumipuna
I suspect it’s also the same old story where proper Finnish men get wives from other countries because Finnish women are just so damn choosy/annoying/generally bad, while Finnish women only want “non-Finnish” boyfriends to look hip and cool (and now apparently also just to stick it to the Finnish men?). In this story the men are always logical, the women are always frivolous, and no one ever falls in love.
In a sad way, it’s pretty funny to read some Finnish men complain about how Finnish women are so horrible and ugly (IIRC compared to Russian and Estonian women), and then others complain about the foreigners coming in just to get to “our” Nordic beauties. There’s just no way there’s no overlap between the two groups.
Re: Conversation about no-knock warrants – but also slightly off topic.
The US appears to have a very, and possibly overly, complex policing system. Why do you need ‘city’ police, and county sheriffs, and state police? Why not just one constabulary that covers the entire state or region of a state? It seems like a recipe for confusion, arguments and one-up-man-ship and corruption. Is it political, or a result of history? These are rhetorical questions.
It seems like because of the complex and overlapping police system, if officers want to get around a particular ordinance they can just get someone from a different police force to request permission and then hand it over to them. It’s got corruption built in.
Masse Mysteria:
I don’t much read the comments from Finnish chauvinists these days, but my main impression is that people rarely brag about having “foreign brides” (at least much less often that they simply complain about Finnish women). Besides, it seems that in the eyes of “immigration critics”, someone from Estonia isn’t nearly as “foreign” as someone from Somalia.
Notably, I don’t generally hear loud complaining about foreign sexual competition from Finnish heterosexual women. Maybe women are less likely to channel their sexual insecurity into ethnic tribalism? Or maybe women just feel less entitled to blaming their insecurity on someone else?
@Lumipuna
In general, women are less likely to be conservative than men, so that probably has something to do with it. As well, women are less likely to buy into the manosphere sexual market BS, so that’s another part.
More of them tend to channel their insecurity through religion. Which has it’s own set of flaws and problems.
@Lumipuna
Generally all of the “critique” is towards immigrants who aren’t (white) Westerners, so in that way I don’t think the proximity of the country of origin is that important, not to mention that the stereotypes about Estonians can be pretty harsh too.
This could be a socialization thing. A lot of popular culture treats women as trophies men get for doing all the right things, and there doesn’t seem to be much the other way around.