alt-right andrew anglin creepy daily stormer entitled babies irony alert literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism sex

Daily Stormer: Girlfriends are for sissies! Real Neo-Nazis only use women for sex and/or babies

Not quite sure it works like this in real life

By David Futrelle

Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer isn’t just some dude who spews out seemingly dozens of posts a day for his rancid neo-Nazi website; he also fancies himself a bit of a self-help guru, regularly offering his male readers (and they’re almost all male) advice on how to live their best lives.

Yesterday, Anglin dropped a lengthy post filled with advice on how his readers could be, as he put it,  good men. Many of his specific suggestions were surprisingly anodyne — eat healthy food, don;t dress like a slob, keep your word — though some of the seemingly uncontroversial assertions reflected something of a Machiavellian spirit. In a section urging men to “Be Generous,” for example, he declared that

[p]aying for people’s meals is a demonstration of power, and it is something that is respected. Being stingy is a sign of weakness, and is viewed as pathetic.

And then there’s his advice on women. Let’s just say he’s not much of a romantic. In one section of the piece, he tells his readers they should “Not Ever Believe That Any Woman is Above You.” After all, he says,

Biology has determined that all men are superior to all women. You should never view a woman as above you. You are better than she is because you are a man, and men are superior to women. …

Do not ever believe that you need any woman. …

Women exist only to serve men. They have no other purpose. 

Worst. Tinder. Bio. Ever.

In another section, Anglin offers advice on dating: don’t. As he sees it, men have no need for girlfriends, and should view women only as portable sex holes … or as white baby factories. (It goes without saying that he doesn’t want his readers getting involved in any way with women who aren’t white.)

In Anglin’s view,

“Romantic love” is a hormonal function of young teenagers. Grown men engaging in this behavior is on the same level as grown men playing with toy trucks. …

You do not need a woman to be your friend and roommate, as is generally the modern concept of a “girlfriend.” This is pathetic.

It’s far better, in Anglin’s mind, for men to see women not as partners or friends but as biological resources to be exploited. As he sees it, the only time it’s appropriate for men to interact with women is when they are either

  1. Trying to have sex with her with as little energy expenditure as possible
  2. Interviewing her as a potential mother of your children

I’m not quite sure how Anglin handles, say, talking with his mom, or asking a question of Siri, or what he does when he has to mail a package at the post office and the clerk happens to be a woman. I can only wonder: would he turn down life-saving emergency surgery if the only doctor available to treat him was a woman he didn’t want to bang?

Somehow I suspect Anglin hasn’t thought this one through all the way.

But he has given a bit more thought to the issue of what to do about dudes who are already living with women — at least if it looks like they’ll ultimately marry.

I understand that part of the modern social paradigm is that a woman becomes your girlfriend and then may potentially become your wife. I obviously do not approve of this, and would prefer a traditional framework wherein a father gives you his virgin daughter for marriage, but I am not so silly as to believe such a thing is possible.

So then, if you do the live-in girlfriend thing as part of the process of working toward marriage, as is now the custom, there is no shame in this. But you should only do this in situations where you genuinely believe that there is a high chance that this relationship will result in marriage and children.

Not that marriage is without its perils. In an aside, Anglin urges his fans to take whatever steps they need to in order to protect themselves financially and otherwise from evil golddiggers trying to seize their assets (and their children) in a divorce. This includes collecting what Anglin calls “kompromat” to blackmail any woman with the gall to file for divorce.

Yes, that’s right: don’t marry a woman unless you can blackmail her.

He then takes up the question of how exactly a non-dating man might be able to get his dick wet once in a while.

Satisfying basic sexual needs outside of marriage is best done through the use of prostitutes, although I understand that this is illegal in all feminist countries.

I’ve rarely seen a Madonna/Whore complex expressed quite this literally.

Anglin ends with a bit of advice for any of his readers who might somehow manage to convince non-prostitutes/non-future-wives to have sex with them.

Casual sexual encounters with non-prostitutes should not involve any more emotion than is involved with a sexual encounter with a prostitute.

In other words: keep yourself from developing any human feelings towards women you sleep with by thinking of them as basically less than human. (These guys hate literal prostitutes even more than they hate the sexually active women they so regularly call “whores.”)

Anglin’s post is just another example of why, despite the fact that this country is filled with racist white women, the alt-right has a devil of a time actually recruiting any of them.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago

But “Once you get past your prejudices sex isn’t really different from other activities you do with your body, like nursing people or giving them massages” isn’t a good argument because it’s just false.

Thank you for saying this. I feel profoundly uncomfortable when such arguments are made because I feel they put down all the suffering of victims of sexual abuse that is not “violent” enough. Having sex solely because your partner insisted, is not an irksome chore, it’s abuse.

It also denies the many testimonies of women who entred prostitution voluntarily only to find out -always when it was too late- that constantly having sex without desiring it eats you from the inside.

Finally, I simply can’t buy the “sex is like anything else” from feminism, because then we’re denying that patriarchy operates through sexual stereotypes and sexual violence.

In Argentina we have a law decriminalizing prostitution since 1921 (before that there was a disastrous attempt to regulate it), but only today (like, a few hours ago) we finally got a law passed in the Province of Buenos Aires to derogate an article of the offences code that penalized the offering of prostitution with jail. There are still simmilar articles in other provinces’ codes, even though they are both iligal and inconstitutional. So decriminalizing is sometimes easier said than done.

We have a pretty decent sex trafficking law, but it’s really hard to get the State to follow through with the reinsertion of victims into education, work and society in general once they are rescued. Many end up going back to prostitution because they lack other choices and have families to support. Not to mention trans women, who are sistematically excluded and pushed into prostitution as well.

And then we have a “sex workers union” which is mostly a half assed cover for exploiters and traffickers. They claim they are being criminalized for excercizing autonomous sex work. They blatantly lie. They came up with this “cooperative” system, which sometimes is real but often it’s -again- just a cover for the fact that there’s one person controlling all the work and money. Usually that person belongs to the “union”.

So I’m usually extremely wary of both the “sex work” discourse and “sex work” organizations.

We had a really big trial we had by the end of 2015, in which for the first time a victim sued both the exploiters and the State, and won. She told how she herself was taught the “sex work” discourse by her pimps, and how believing in it prevented her from recognizing herself s a victim. In fact, when she was rescued she refused to leave and claimed she was a woker. It took her years and therapy to process everything that happened to her, and to understand the link between her symptoms of PTSD and the years she spent in prostitution.

She turned out to also be a TERF, so I distanced myself after working with her for a few months. Still, her insights of the sex industry remain invaluable to many of us.

I’ve been working with sex exploitation victims and women in protitution for a few years now and I find it very hard to believe that anything good can come out of normalizing prostitution. Although I do not oppose regulation per se, I have yet to come across a proposal that garantees rights for sex workes AND victims of trafficking AND potential victims of trafficking.

To support the idea of prostitution being a job while at the same time preventing women, teenagers and kids from being sucked into the sx industry seems impracticable to me, from my experience.

I’m open to being proved wrong, of course. I swear I tried many times. I read every bill presented in the National and Provincial congresses by the “union”. I interviewed lawyers and lawmekers from different parts of the world. But there’s always the chance I’m overlooking something.

3 years ago

but if sex work is what pays your rent you better put out anyway.

Woah, woah, woah, I thought we were talking about a socialist utopia here. Why the hell are we still charging rent?

@Luxbelitx: If the unions are corrupt, surely that’s an argument for cleaning up the unions, rather than prohibiting the industry? There’s corruption in a lot of industries – on the sides of capital and labour alike, sadly – but sex work seems to be the only one where the go-to response seems to be “burn the whole thing to the ground and imprison or impoverish everyone involved”.

3 years ago


I have never spoken about prohibiting, in fact I even mentioned today we made a big step for decriminalization, which took a lot of hard work.

If what you get of what I said is “burn the whole thing to the ground and imprison or impoverish everyone involved”, I really don’t know what to say.

I didn’t mean that *at all*. And I kindly apologize if it came off that way.

3 years ago

I do beg your pardon; I was thinking abstractly, and didn’t realise I appeared to be accusing you in specific. I apologise; I should have thought more carefully about how I communicated.

3 years ago

No need to apologize! Interneting correctly is hard. 😀

%d bloggers like this: