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!
So yesterday my town voted to ban no-knock warrants, and today the Kentucky Historic Properties Advisory Commission voted to remove the statue of Jefferson Davis from the Capitol rotunda.
Yes, there is currently a statue of Jefferson Fucking Davis in the rotunda, but it won’t be there much longer!
This is not a substantive change, but it’s an important symbolic one, and one that Kentucky has resisted for years and years. Kentucky has an interesting cultural history; it joined the Union in the Civil War, but was a slave-holding state. After the war, because Kentucky never joined the Confederacy, it wasn’t subject to Reconstruction or martial law. A lot of upper-class former-slaveholders from the South came to Kentucky to escape Reconstruction, which for a couple of years threatened to make black people actually equal in fact to white people, something that ex-slaveholders couldn’t stomach. So they came to Kentucky, where established upper-class ex-slaveholder whites found a lot in common with the Southern migrants, and that’s why Kentucky is geographically mid-west but culturally aligned with the South.
There are still towns in Kentucky which aren’t officially sundowners, but which still reject forcefully non-white people who try to move in.
So I anticipate a lot of people getting really pissed off that Jefferson Fucking Davis is not going to be honored in the rotunda anymore, and I plan to drink their tears.
People keep saying that removing statues and other monuments is “erasing history” and that others have no right to complain about statues of people they think were bad because “it’s there to teach people how to avoid doing what they did.”
So I have a suggestion: Let’s add to the monuments.
We can start by filling Georgia with statues of General Sherman. After all, he was an important part of Georgia’s history, right? They don’t want to “deny history” by saying you can only have monuments to certain people, right?
“Muh freeze peach!”
Indeed, let’s add some monuments of John Brown in Virginia. And line the Mississippi with those of Ulysses S. Grant. And next to each Confederate statue, put up a bigger one of a Black Union Soldier. That seems like a good idea.
My best counter arguments to the “statues = history” argument are:
a) There aren’t any statues of Hitler in Germany anymore, but they still seem to remember who he was.
b) I’ve been in many history courses over the years, and none of them had statues in the room. In fact, my grandmother was a history teacher for 40 years and she never used any statues during that time.
My counter to your counter:
If statues aren’t history, why the rush to tear them down after a revolution?
Because we don’t want to keep them around anymore?
This is a pretty great analysis of the problems with video evidence. (CW: police violence) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/06/13/anatomy-of-an-arrest-heres-what-experts-see-in-the-altercation-between-an-alberta-chief-and-the-rcmp.html
For some reason, the number to Louisville’s local 311 has been publicized nationally, and I’m hearing reports that 311 is getting inundated with calls regarding Breonna Taylor. My contact says that a lot of people want to speak with the mayor personally and get irate when told that they can’t, and that they often read off a list of demands which is out of date, because a ban on no-knock warrants is on the list even though they were banned on Thursday.
I don’t know quite what to think. It’s nice that her murder is getting widespread attention, but it’s also pretty arrogant for someone in, let’s say, Los Angeles to think that they can get straight through to our mayor and berate him, and that the city isn’t going to have some kind of mechanism to screen calls. It’s also pretty uncool to unload on the unlucky 311 operator who took the call and had nothing to do with Breonna Taylor’s death or anything having to do with the aftermath.
The obvious answer is that the dudes who complain about how Finnish women are too uppity these days are misogynistic assholes, and Finnish women didn’t want to date them to begin with. So there’s no loss if they fuck off somewhere else to look for a spouse.
It’s not like they even have to fuck off very far, since a lot of the complaining is about Finnish women getting it on with immigrants. In the sense where “immigrants” is often used also to mean people who are for all intents and purposes Finnish but whose parents or even grandparents immigrated to Finland.
I did notice Hankamäki was using the term “foreigner”, which is classic salt-of-the-earth racist parlance when referring to naturalized immigrants and people with recent immigrant ancestry. Especially those with non-European origin.
A more common, still somewhat problematic expression would be “immigrants”, contrasted with “Finns”, or “immigrants vs. native Finns”. I think a proper expression would be “immigrant Finns” or alternatively “new Finns” contrasted with native Finns. Not that I always manage to be consistent in my own use of language.
Using the word foreigners kind of sounds like he’d have preferred to say “matu” instead…
I once read a magazine article where a woman whose parents had immigrated to Finland said she despised the term “second generation immigrant” (and no wonder!) and said she preferred to call herself a first-generation Finn. That sounded neat.