Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
April 1, 2015
This will be long. I intend to clear up all confusion about my position on feminism and the need for masculinity.
I think the best way to deal with this is through a FAQ.
We will begin with some of the more ridiculous ones, then more into things which are a bit more serious. None of it was especially serious, as none of it actually addressed anything I had actually said, but some of it was more serious than the rest and some of it may have genuinely been based on a misunderstanding. Again, this should make it so that from this point onward, no one can purposefully or out of a misunderstanding distort what I have said in order to argue with something I have never believed.
You should probably read this in parts. Turned into a bloody manifesto.
Why do you hate women?
I do not hate women. I simply believe they are different than men, and should have a different role in society.
Are you a homosexual?
No.
Do you have a small penis?
No.
Are you simply bitter at women because you cannot get laid?
No.
Are you a secret agent?
No.
Are you a Jew?
No.
Do you hate your mother, and believe that all women are your mother?
No. I have an excellent relationship with my mother, I would do absolutely anything for her and I have not a single negative word to say about her.
Why do you keep calling women “cunts” and “bitches”?
I have no idea why I keep seeing comments accusing me of calling women “cunts” and “bitches.” I have never called a woman a “cunt” in my life, and the only time I have used the word “bitch” on this site is in reference to obvious enemies.
I do not agree with calling women mean names, or disrespecting women in any way. At the same time, I am not going to go through and delete every comment where such a slur is used; I don’t have the time and people say all sorts of things I don’t agree with on the comments section of this site.
There are some men here who are extremely angry with women, but they are the minority. Though I am able to understand where they are coming from, it is nonsense to blame everyone who is anti-feminist for the attitudes of a few angry men.
Did you have a bad personal experience with women which made you project your own feelings onto all of them?
This question is very much similar to all of the above questions, in that it refuses to acknowledge the actual arguments I have made, and instead places blame on me as an individual for holding these views. It is the equivalent of refusing to discuss the scientific basis of racialism, and continuing to refer to race realists as “inbred hicks.”
None of these insults aimed at me personally have any intrinsic value. They are are lodged, presumably mainly by women and “manginas” – that is, males who have taken on feminine characteristics and a largely female identity – for the purpose of attempting to distract from what I am actually saying.
Manginas are also known as “male feminists,” “Self-hating males” and “white knights.”
I am not attacking these men defending feminism, I am simply noting that it is not a masculine behavior pattern to avoid a discussion of ideas in favor of engaging in personal insults. The logical response to an argument which is claiming to be logical is to respond logically. If you can logically disprove what I’ve said, then yes, maybe that means I hold these views due to personal issues. Even in that case, after you have logically disproved what I have said, there is little need to assert that I must have personal problems.
If there was an ability to disagree with the arguments I have made on a logical basis, there would be no need for bringing up childish insults against me as a person. Personal insults serve no purpose in a discussion of ideas and it is shameful that if you are a man I would even have to tell you that.
Thus far, we have two basic groups of people involved in this discussion: people who understand and agree with what I am saying, completely, and people who disagree, but refuse to formulate logical arguments, and instead attack me personally or distort what I am saying.
How can we have a movement without women?
I have never argued for a movement without women.
The Daily Stormer is not a movement. It is a website. My personal prerogative is to work in media, and I do not wish to be a political leader. As such, there is no need for me to take some type of politically soft angle. I have absolutely nothing to lose here, personally, by clearly stating the conclusions that I have drawn. And that is all I am doing.
I am not a leader of anything. I am just a guy with a website who is taking other people’s ideas, putting them in his own words and posting them on the internet. My view on women, for instance, is the exact same view that men held throughout the entire history of European civilization up until about a hundred years ago. I am generally against reinventing the wheel.
The only people who ever got anything done were men, and so the focus of any political movement should be on men.
Even if what you are saying is true, doesn’t this alienate women from the movement?
I am not clear on what particular movement women would be alienated from. If you are referring to this website as a movement, then yes, it is obviously going to alienate women from this website. Because women are emotionally volatile and they tend to misconstrue the statement of plain facts about female nature as insults, even when they are not intended to be.
If we are referring to a larger political movement, then I fail to see how the opinions I express here on this website are going to affect what these people do or do not do. It is possible that the memes I am attempting to spread here could spread to people within political parties and almost certainly are now spreading to young people who will someday be involved in political parties, but I wouldn’t advise a political party to say the things I am saying here how I am saying them here.
Let me repeat that again: I wouldn’t advise a political party to say the things I am saying here how I am saying them here.
It is only at the level of the political party that women’s support is necessary. Women reading or not reading this website because they do or do not feel alienated by it means absolutely nothing in the larger scope of things.
The goal of this website is to educate people. I have decided that it is much more important to do what I can to address the feminization of society in very straight-forward and explicit terms than to save the feelings of the odd female reader.
So you think women have no place in the movement?
In the sense of the general pro-White movement, which involves websites, online activism, real-life activism and in Europe – and hopefully soon in America – politics, I would say that they absolutely have a place – in a supporting role for men.
I have never had an issue with women posting comments on the site, and theoretically still don’t. I certainly don’t have a problem with them reading it, but a lot of these male issues are going to involve a dissection of feminism and they aren’t going to like that. I tried to put a note on the last article that it was intended exclusively for men and women just ignored it.
With our online activities, such as the various trolling operations, I have no problem at all with women participating. They can troll just as well as a man, I’m quite certain.
With real life activism, if there is a plan for a demonstration, girlfriends and wives can make the signs. They are good at things like that. Whether women are out there standing and shouting would depend on the decisions of whoever is organizing it, but one thing I would say is that if you do allow that, it should be women who are either the girlfriend or wife of the men involved. Inviting single women to a political rally, thereby turning it into a singles meet-up, is blatantly ridiculous.
That said, I would agree with groups of young single men who are involved in political activism together making it part of their routine to go out and chat-up women.
But you’re dividing the movement!!!!!
I am doing no such thing. The odd woman who reads this site might be turned off, sure, but that is the extent of my “dividing.”
Any women who are serious and concerned about these issues are going to understand my position, understand the need for exclusive male space, and understand that my goal here is to provide information which will help men be better men, and thus better protectors of women.
Why did you change your position all of the sudden?
I did not change my position. Going all the way back to when I was a conspiracy theorist, and then when I lived in the jungle in Asia, I held the same views on the role of women in society. Much of what appealed to me about primitive, tribal people was their gender norms. And before “Anglin wants primitive jungle norms enforced on modern progressive Western White society!!!!!!11111” – the fact is, they are the same as those that we held throughout history up until a hundred years ago. Saying “primitive people and Moslems don’t have feminism so we should have it to prove we’re better than them” is no different than saying “primitive people and Moslems don’t have homosexual rights so we should have them to prove we’re better than them.”
The reason that I decided to talk about it more is slightly more complicated.
Firstly, I had been looking recently at the Men’s Rights and anti-feminist movements which are currently happening, mainly on YouTube, and saw how many young men were drawn to this. I decided then that I needed to try my best to have these issues play a more prominent role on the website, for the purpose of drawing in more people, as clearly traditional views on women will generally line up with traditional views on race. Having decided I needed to work on how to do that, I let the issue be, mostly, as I didn’t have much time to deal with it.
Then, the drama happened.
Why did you purposefully cause all of this drama?
The drama began with a contributor to the site, Marcus Cicero, inviting a woman, Crimson Tide, on to a radio show to engage in what I and many others felt like was an attempt to lecture men.
Just to note here once again, I am not attacking nor have I attacked nor will I ever attack in the future either this host or the woman he invited on, and I have no negative feelings toward either of them on any level. Neither were aware of my position on these issues, and I had not given any policy on the topic because I had not foreseen it happening. Thus the policy was formed in response to the event, and it would be ridiculous to retroactively blame these individuals for their actions. I disagree with each, ideologically, but that is all, and I am very happy to see that both have been adults about this and simply stated their opinions on the matter without engaging in further drama.
Drama did start, because after having seen in comments how severely the host’s opinions differed from my own on the issue of feminism and women’s role in society, I felt obligated to end the relationship, which I announced in a way which I thought was appropriate and tactful.
Throughout this process, I began to realize that a large number of commenters on this site believe in some form of feminism. Thus, the already mentioned desire to make men’s issues more of a focal point of the site became an immediate necessity. Commenters make up significantly less than 1% of the site’s total readership, and commenters tend to be more up on things than casual readers, so the fact that about 35-40% of those commenting were expressing feminist beliefs was shocking.
At the same time, I was being questioned about my decision to ban women from producing content for the site, so I felt that those asking deserved a further explanation. Maybe I should have taken more time and let this trickle out slower; looking back, I am about 75% sure this would have been a better way to do it, but what’s done is done.
The benefit to the drama is that we can all become clear on these issues – throw it all out there and let everyone who wishes to express themselves do so – and then we can move forward.
What about losing donations from females?
As soon as I began saying these things, I understood, beyond any doubt, that the vast majority of female readers would be offended. These are all things which would have, traditionally, been said amongst men outside of the presence of women.
Several women have commented or emailed and said that though they had donated in the past, they won’t any more, as they are bothered by the recent articles and comments I’ve posted. Regrettably, given the present lack of an ability to donate through PayPal, this will probably have a significant effect. Women were much more likely to take the time to send money through the mail, as they are much better at remembering to do such things.
That said, I don’t do this for money. I assure you, it would not be a good investment of time if that were the goal.
What I was much more concerned about – and a big reason I held off for so long – is that I knew this would hurt women’s feelings, and as a gentleman, I have no desire to hurt women’s feelings. This bothers me quite a bit, on a personal level. But the reality is that there is no way to say these things which men need to be aware of without hurting women’s feelings.
On both accounts, however, I made the decision that what needed to be done needed to be done, and so I did it. It is up to you whether or not you believe I made the right decision.
Why do you believe women should not be allowed to be involved in politics or even vote?
I would turn that around and ask “what possible benefit could come from allowing women in politics or allowing them to vote?”
I am being accused of backward barbarism for taking the position that everyone at any point in all of recorded history (and before) would have taken, so by thus accusing me people are condemning the entirety of European history. Meanwhile, there has been absolutely no attempt by any of the promoters of feminism to explain why you would ever think it was a good idea to allow women in politics – and by allowing them to vote you are obviously allowing them to participate in politics as the act of voting is a political act.
Women are, by their very most basic nature, emotional beings. Many people seem to be willing to agree with that statement, but they do not appear to understand what that means.
This is the key:
Their decision-making process is based entirely on emotion. That means that they are not engaging in any form of logical thinking.
Because they recognize that men will ask for logical explanations for their behavior and decisions, they will often come up with some seemingly logical explanation, but this is simply provided for the sake of the man.
Another issue which confuses men, and makes them believe that a woman possesses the capacity for logic, is that the emotional decisions a woman makes very often line up with a logical decision a man would have made.
But wait, men make stupid emotional decisions all the time – what about that?
Men do naturally possess a certain amount of emotions, just as a woman naturally possesses a certain amount of logic (she knows if she puts her hand in a fire she will get burned, etc.), however the modern man is much more like a woman than an historical man. And this is the real problem of all of this. As women have been placed in the role of men, men have begun to adopt female character traits, one of which is a high level of emotionality (they also carry more body fat, fear physical conflict, refuse to be assertive and so on).
There are different factors in this, not the least of which is diet and the sedentary lifestyle – holding body fat actually increases your estrogen levels – but the main factor seems to be that when men accept that women are serious, equal players in society – peers – they then naturally take on feminine traits, as all mammals are prone to taking on the behavior patterns of their peers. It also makes it easier to get along with women if you behave like them – masculinity is always viewed as threatening by modern women (or sexually arousing, and neither is appropriate in a workplace other other public situation).
At no point in history would men have been susceptible to the level emotional manipulation they are now undergoing, and even with all of this propaganda, if men still possessed masculinity they would be immune to it. Men should not have a “feminine side,” and if they do they are pathetic and have absolutely no purpose in a civilized society, or anywhere else outside of a hair salon.
That doesn’t mean you don’t feel anything, it doesn’t even mean that once every few years you don’t break down in tears (as long as you are completely alone, as there is absolutely no reason for doing so in front of anyone else unless it is at your one of your parents’ or children’s funerals), but it means that you recognize that femininity is the opposite of masculinity and that there should be nothing at all “feminine” about who you are as a man.
You need to regain your masculinity. We are going to go into this in detail, but the very first part of this is to stop making decisions based on emotion. There should be absolutely no time in your life when you do this, and first and foremost this should be considered in your interactions with women.
You need to know what you want from her and have logical reasons for wanting it, and you need to know that everything she does is an attempt to get you to play her game by entering into the realm of the emotional. Even if you are completely smitten with her – and that is very much an okay emotion to feel – you must never allow that emotion to drive your decision making process when you interact with her.
As soon as you enter into that emotional game, you have lost her – and much more importantly, brothers, you have lost yourself.
If any aspect of how you view yourself is determined by what she thinks of you, she’s not going to be interested.
For a lot of us, women served as authority figures in our lives, so we have learned to play this game by default. When you are raised that way, there is no blame on you and no shame in realizing that you have this issue and need to work on it.
This is not going to become a dating advice site, but these are things men need to know, and I am going to tell them.
But not all women are like that – I know this because some women support nationalism.
This is the third reason why a woman may appear to have a logical belief system: they adopt and repeat the beliefs of men or institutions which they view as powerful enough to protect them and provide them and their children with resources. Or, if they are single, they attach themselves to groups of men wherein they think they can find good genes and then begin mimicking their belief system.
This is not malicious. No female behavior is malicious. It is all just based on evolutionary biology, the way their minds developed to work in order to protect and support themselves and their children.
The default position of a woman will always be to support the status quo, as that is where the generally accepted base of power lies. However, various factors can influence them to go in a different direction.
If we want more women to support nationalism, then we need to show that we are real men capable of protecting them and providing them with resources. We don’t show them that by pandering to them, just as you don’t get a girlfriend by pandering to a woman. So while I get accused of “alienating women and pushing them away from the movement,” the manginas who wish to pander to women are in fact responsible for this exact thing that they are accusing me of. That is the irony here: my strategy will lead to more women supporting us and our agenda, while at the same time expanding support from men, while the accepted strategy is one of wallowing in failure for infinity.
Why did you say that women cannot feel empathy? That is horribly insulting to women’s honor.
I am not going to be bullied into denying known realities with claims that I am insulting women. This is in itself just another insult against me. Just because it is not something that women like to hear does not make it an insult, nor does it make it untrue. Regrettable as it may be, objective reality is not dependent on the emotions of women.
That having been said, saying “women can’t feel empathy” is not entirely correct as they certainly can feel it, it is simply that they can turn it off like a switch at any time, meaning the emotion itself has no objective value.
You see this at divorce court. The idea of a man simply going totally cold toward a woman he’s been married to for twenty years is absurd on the face of it, and would only be possible if he had a psychopathic personality disorder. On the other hand, every single woman does exactly this: shuts off emotion toward a man she’s been with for decades, as if she is flipping a switch.
In nature, women would often get captured by other men, and be forced to emotionally attach themselves to them in order to keep from being killed. As such, women had to have the capacity to flip off their empathy for their previous lover and their previous tribe in a relatively immediate period.
Even if I am wrong in my perception of this, I don’t think it can be considered an insult, as it is merely a conclusion I have drawn based on personal observation, recorded data, evolutionary biology, historical perceptions and logic. Thus far, no logical argument has been presented to refute this, but simply a bunch of emotional rhetoric. As I have said, I have absolutely no interest in emotional rhetoric.
If a fact is distasteful to you it does not mean that it is an insult, nor does it mean that it is untrue.
But you said women don’t have any inherent morality! That’s sick!
Not to break down all of reality too much here, but what actually is morality? It is often framed as some type of metaphysical concept, and though it may also be that, it is most importantly for our purposes here an aspect of neurobiology, a combination of empathy and logic – meaning it is a masculine, rather than a feminine trait.
This is not to say that a woman is naturally immoral – she is naturally amoral. Meaning she has no moral compass inside of her. The idea is for a man to guide a woman morally, as he does his children, and thus the woman will act morally due to that influence from the man.
Beyond the influence of the individual men, a woman’s morality is drawn from the norms of the society, and thus ideally, in the modern age, you would have a state which reinforces morality.
When both individual male and institutionalized male morality are absent, as they usually are in our present society, the woman will tend to revert to a state of amorality. The amoral state of a woman allows her to exclusively seek after resources for her and her children, meaning she will abandon a man at any time, shutting off her emotions towards him, and go for what she views as a better deal. These days, this often involves divorcing the man and attaching herself to the state for support, at the same time using the divorced husband for alimony and child support money, while also leeching emotional resources from anyone she can get her hooks into.
This tendency of women is why the no-fault divorce laws we have in our country are absolutely insane. The mere concept of a legal contract which can be broken by either party at any time for no reason is insane, and designed to allow for the destructive behavior of women to be completely unregulated.
And it happens constantly. Saying these are just “bad women,” when it is happening on such a scale is nonsensical. Men are not abusing women on any such scale as this, even though we are living in the same age, dealing with similar stresses. The only logical conclusion to draw from all of this is that women do not posses an intrinsic moral compass, and must be morally guided from outside. The modern state is reinforcing their sociopathic behavior patterns as socially acceptable
I am fine to hear anyone disagree with what I have said here, if they are capable of presenting a logical counter-argument. But no one has. Maybe one exists and I just haven’t thought of it, but insults are not an argument. I understand that if you have grown up believing something different than this, it is extremely hard to process emotionally, but many aspects of the truth are.
However, the thing about the truth is that when you know it, it sets you free.
So you just think all women are bad?
No. I don’t think women should be held responsible for their own bad behavior. Their bad behavior is the result of the weakness and incompetence of their fathers, their brothers and their husbands who let this whole thing go to hell.
So you just think women are worthless and should be abused?
That is the diametric opposite of what I am trying to communicate here. Men should absolutely love, cherish and protect women. Without women, we don’t have a species. And just between me and you, brothers – things wouldn’t be too much fun either.
What I am attempting to communicate is that in order to properly care for women, a man has to understand what a woman is. Feminism is the ultimate collective display of women being completely uncared for by men. That is what the entire thing is about. It is women getting together and demanding that men man-up and deal with them, give them what they need which is male authority. But because men have accepted the idea that women’s thought-process has some form of similarity to their own, they’ve failed to deal with this issue.
I want to see good men. It is what the world needs and it’s what women need. A man who believes a load of Jewish nonsense about the nature of women cannot possibly meet her needs, because he fails to understand what her needs are.
Women should be an inspiration to men. They should be the reason men fight. And yet instead, they are a massive, horrible plight. And it is men’s job to fix that by becoming real men again.
I am absolutely against the abuse of women on every level, down to feeling bad about having to write all of this on the internet where I know they can read it and it will hurt their feelings.
But currently women are allowed to vote, so even if you believe all this, aren’t you destroying the chances of women voting nationalist by saying these things?
Again, I am not a political party and thus I am not looking for votes. I would think any political party which came out on a nationalist platform would not want to express the opinion that they didn’t believe women should vote, due to the obvious fact that women do vote.
The entire purpose of me saying these things is to give men the information they need in order to develop an understanding of what it means to be a man. And obviously, a real man would approach such a situation logically, and if he knew women could vote he probably wouldn’t tell them he was against women voting. Unless there was some reason he thought that would be a beneficial position to take.
But that isn’t really the purpose of that question. It is really just the same question as the one above, accusing me of “alienating women” by coming out in support of men and masculinity. And so I will give the same answer again: women are going to be much more attracted to a bunch of masculine men who look like they know what they’re doing than a bunch of beta fags trying to tailor a political message to their feminine sensibilities.
Women are not stupid. They instinctively understand quite a bit that men don’t currently understand. They know what power is and they know what role it plays in their survival.
Why do you believe that women should be barred from male occupations? Aren’t you holding back science and development by doing so?
This is basically the same as the politics question, and so I will respond with a question again: what exactly would we be missing out on by barring women from formerly male-dominated professions?
Simply implying that women are more capable in fields of science and engineering and so on than they actually are just because it feels good to believe that is an exercise in total idiocy. Some things which are true do not make you feel good.
The fact is, women are capable of a certain level of competence in these fields which in no way makes up for the negatives of removing them from the home or for the negatives of the disruption they cause when they are in a male workplace.
If anyone wants to disagree with this, present a list of all the scientific advancement we would be without if it wasn’t for women involved in the sciences. These feminist “female inventions” lists are like the “Black inventions” lists. The things they invented were either already invented by a man or so obvious that it was only a matter of weeks before some man invented them. Or they were actually invented by their husbands.
And the other reason for barring them from work – and this is the much more important one – is that women don’t actually have any desire to work. They say they do because they are testing you. They want you to tell them “no.”
But what about Hitler and the Nazis? Didn’t they believe in women’s rights?
A lot of different statements about women were made by NSDAP officials throughout the course of the Reich and before, the overwhelming majority of them being exactly in-line with my own views. There are exceptions, but these exceptions are being brought up for the purpose of distorting the fact that the whole of German society at the time was masculine with women playing a very small role in public life.
Hitler didn’t take away their right to vote (they already had it) because there was absolutely no practical reason to, given that he had established a one-party system anyway, and was also guiding them fully through the power he’d amassed so they would go along with whatever he told them to do (much more than men, even).
After the war started, women were used to defend the country, but this in no way relates to anything I am talking about. Every country in the world that has ever been invaded has used women in whatever role they are capable of serving in in order to defend the country. Since the advent of the gun, every country that I am aware of having been invaded has given weapons to pre-pubescent children. These countries do not then enact a policy of allowing pre-pubescent children to vote.
Some quotes:
The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world. This is not at all as unmodern as it sounds. The female bird pretties herself for her mate and hatches eggs for him. In exchange, the male takes care of gathering food, and stands guard and wards off the enemy.
-Joseph Goebbels
Woman’s world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.
-Adolf Hitler
An attempt to reshape the views of the NSDAP to fit feminism is clearly a hoax, but even if the NSDAP did have a different opinion about this than me, I would still take the traditional view on the matter, as there simply are no benefits at all to trying to tweak gender norms. And saying “someone you like disagrees with you” is not a real argument. You would have to go point-by-point and show where the NSDAP policy on women differs significantly than my own belief on the topic and then explain why they were correct in holding this view instead of mine, while factoring in the differences in our two situations.
What about all of these people coming out and attacking you all over the internet? Are you going to respond to them?
As I said above, I believe attacking me with insults is childish and ridiculous. And I haven’t read many of these blogs attacking me, but I’d imagine they are engaging in that exact behavior pattern, because I honestly don’t see any real arguments, in the comments section or elsewhere, dealing directly with anything that I’ve said. I have seen personal insults and distortions.
One blog which I saw – and others will no doubt take this same angle – was pushing the idea that I must be a secret agent trying to make nationalism look bad by saying these things. This is yet another refusal to address the ideas themselves, as well as a blaming of me for their own failures. I have never hindered anyone from doing anything, and if people disagree with my approach, they are absolutely welcome to use the internet to spread their own ideas – you would think I was in these peoples’ backyard every day cutting their internet cables. If they are better at doing what I’m doing now, I will bow out and retire to some peaceful place away from this noise and nonsense.
As with others “in the movement” who have attacked me and thrown around accusations, I have taken the position that it simply shows that these people are incapable of normal adult behavior, and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Of course, presenting an ideological disagreement in a logical manner is absolutely fine, and a sign of adult and masculine behavior; I have often done this with others who I disagreed with. But where is that happening in this situation?
If there is a blog which presents a serious and adult attempt to make rational arguments against what I am saying, I have no problem responding to the ideas presented. I will not respond to allegations of being a secret agent, being “afraid of women,” being a homosexual, having a small penis and so on anywhere other than in the above portion of this FAQ.
I am simply unwilling to lower myself to that level.
Isn’t the idea of an online male brotherhood stupid?
Yes, that is a stupid idea, and one which I have never argued for. What I have argued for is a reintroduction of the concept of a male brotherhood into Western society. The online aspect is simply the promotion of the idea.
Again, this is a website which spreads ideas which I believe are important for fixing society. And we as men are going to need to come together in real life if we hope to create a situation which is conducive for the survival of our people.
Yeah, but isn’t men coming together gay?
No, it is the opposite of gay. What is gay is heterosexual men spending time in the company of women they are not romantically involved with (or related to by blood), pretending they are interested in their streaming gibberish. The most masculine and heterosexual of all social interaction is men engaging one another in discussing concepts, building things, training to be warriors, fighting for what they believe is right and just.
This is a Jewish argument. They said that male bonding was gay and thereby effectively condemned masculinity as gay, even while gays do not tend to be masculine. They then encouraged men to have female “friends” which is goofy and emasculating – forcing yourself to pretend you can have some serious intellectual conversation with a woman.
The purpose of a woman is not to stimulate you intellectually, it is to offer you support. That is why I have continually condemned the idea of trying to find a woman “with similar interests.” I guess this is probably why all of these guys are coming on here saying “we need nationalist women involved” – they are hoping to get a date with a woman “with similar interests.” That is just not the way it works. If a woman is talking to you, she is interested in you, not what you are saying. She is listening to how you say things. She is then deciding if she is interested sexually, or if she will use you for some other purpose she has devised.
Male company is not simply where you get your intellectual stimulation, it is where you get your confirmation of your own value. A woman is not capable of confirming your value, you are supposed to do that for her. If you try to get her to do it for you, you look like a spineless fag, and she will resent you for it – because you are trying to get something from her she doesn’t have to give, while at the same time showing that you are incapable of giving her what she needs from you.
Men need to form groups with other men, to bond with one another, to think of each other as brothers. They need to engage in political action together, to train martial arts and other sports together, to discuss issues of importance with one another and to support each other, to be ready to die for each other. When you get used to doing that, you then are much more able to engage other men properly, as well as deal with women as you should.
This is what I mean when I say “brotherhood.”
This site being a platform for masculinity, it should teach this ideal, as this is a basis for masculinity.
That’s It for the FAQ, But This Saga Shall Continue
Just a final note here on some drama stuff:
I want to say that the comments section of the previous feminist drama post was probably filled with sockpuppets. At least one of the posters was one of the fake accounts created during the situation which happened a few days ago during the initial drama situation. For those who missed it, I had gone to sleep for a few hours, during which period at least eleven new accounts were created by the same person (or group of persons working together) for the purpose of attacking me and supporting the idea of having women involved in the site. You can read my note about that here (in the editor’s note at the bottom of the post), and see some of the actual comments made by these fake accounts here.
It is extremely uncomfortable for me to have to bring this up, but the fact that there was proven to be a comprehensive trolling operation for the purpose of accusing me of being a Jew, a homosexual, having a small penis, hating women, being afraid of women, and so on must be mentioned so that people understand what is going on here.
As this behavior is being engaged in either by a woman or a male feminist, I believe that this simply goes to further show that I am correct in my position of not allowing women to be involved in content production or determining the narrative of this site.
Once again, that decision is final, and if it means the end of the Daily Stormer due to not having enough people interested because they don’t think they’re going to be able to pick up girls in the comments section, then so be it. However, I don’t think that will be the case. We have strengthened the message by adding this dimension, and I will continue on this course.
Though most of the concepts were laid out here, I am planning on doing a series of articles further breaking these things down.
One last time, I encourage people to ask questions, or to present any logical counter-arguments to what I’ve said here, but I would much prefer if we did not have the situation which went on in the last comments section, as that kind of flame war not only makes the site look silly but also makes it so you can’t find the good comments. If you see someone making an accusation or insult, or spewing emotional nonsense, please just ask them to come back when they have a logical counter argument. If you feel like engaging in a flame war, just go post in that other thread.
Hail Victory.
