Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
March 17, 2020
It’s early morning and you know what that means: it’s “responding to neo-Nazis” time.
Despite the fact that I am referred to as a “neo-Nazi” by the media, I have always opposed neo-Nazism on the grounds that it is goofy and a cult, and that it is a feminist movement. Neo-Nazis have alternately tried to cozy up to me because they want friendly coverage, and attacked me because I don’t support them. Right now, they appear to be trying to get people to stop supporting the reasonable anti-Semitic, pro-white, nationalist agenda that I represent and get involved in their cult by highlighting the fact that they are feminists. They are sending a message to everyone on the internet that if they are dissatisfied with the agenda of normal nationalists, and want to get involved in a movement that both hates Jews AND believes all women, the neo-Nazi scene is the place to be.
I personally don’t think there is any issue more important than how men (particularly white men) are treated by women in this society we live in. Rape hoaxes are a way to hand over total power in our society to women, so they can just do whatever they want to men. So this issue really, really matters a lot to me.
This debate is really hurting the neo-Nazi movement, as it is driving off anyone with any ability for critical thinking whatsoever.
I support people dissociating from the neo-Nazi movement, because it’s very important to me to help young men – that is in fact the bottom line of everything I do – and I think that the neo-Nazi movement can be really damaging to young men in a lot of different ways. I’m having a lot of fun breaking down these arguments that they’re putting out there, because they are just so dumb, and so clearly intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I think others are enjoying these articles.
For those of you who think I’m spending too much time on this: go check the news. It’s Corona, Corona, Corona. We all need a break from that. The implosion of the neo-Nazi movement, as they struggle to explain why exactly it is that they would try to defend the honor of women who had sex with Harvey Weinstein, is a good, light-hearted distraction during a time when people are probably pretty stressed.
On Sunday, a high-level neo-Nazi leader responded to me directly, and I will be breaking down his arguments.
But first…
One More Time: No, I am Not “Defending” Harvey Weinstein
The basis of the argument of the neo-Nazis on Twitter is that I am personally defending Harvey Weinstein as a person. Everyone with an IQ above 85 already understands that this is not what is happening. I believe that Harvey Weinstein should be in prison for making the film “Good Will Hunting.” As everyone is aware, I am also of the opinion that Jews should not be allowed into America. At the very least, they need to be entirely banned from engaging in most professions, including the film industry, and they should be banned from amassing wealth.
Regrettably, we live in a country that has Jews, and the idea of allowing Jewish lawyers and the federal justice system to toss individual Jews in prison for fake crimes so they can establish rulings which allow for the prosecution of anyone for these fake crimes is absolute lunacy. Weinstein is NOT the issue here.
Just to further crystallize this concept, let’s make some comparisons:
- Journalism: If Glenn Greenwald were thrown in prison for doing journalism, would it be good that he went to prison, because it is always good whenever a Jew goes to prison? Would the precedent of jailing a journalist not matter, because “at least a Jew went to prison”?
- Anti-Semitism: If Gilad Atzmon were to be thrown in prison for anti-Semitism, would it be good that he went to prison, because it is always good whenever a Jew goes to prison? Would the precedent of jailing someone for anti-Semitism not matter, because “at least a Jew went to prison”?
They have to support that, because what they are saying is that it is literally impossible for a Jew to be unjustly prosecuted. They are saying that the Jew lawyers, and the entire Jew media that convicted Weinstein, were actually fighting for justice.
I am saying that Weinstein was unjustly prosecuted and sentenced to 23 years in prison for a fake crime. Neo-Nazis will first defend the women, then say “oh no, it wasn’t justice, but who cares, he’s Jewish.”
They are pretending as if Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted because he was Jewish. If Harvey Weinstein had actually been sent to prison for being a Jew that had sex with white women, I would be 100% in support of that verdict. I would be shouting it from the rooftops. But that isn’t what he was sent to prison for; he was sent to prison for having sex with women who voluntarily had sex with him after they years later decided they regretted it. Because of this case, that is now something that can happen to anyone, and based on what is being said now by lawyers, federal prosecutors and the media, it will begin happening to a lot of people in the wake of this case.
Saying “I don’t care about the larger implications and ramifications, I just care about a single Jew going to prison” is no different than playing a game of chess and saying “I don’t care who wins as long as my opponent sacrifices a pawn.”
What the neo-Nazis are trying to do is exploit the emotion of revulsion that people have when they see Harvey Weinstein. And obviously, that was what the entire feminist movement did with this case. The relevance of Weinstein being a Jew is that you are not ever going to find another person who is as disgusting as him who is not Jewish and is having sex with attractive young women. An utterly disgusting individual having sex with young and attractive women was the only way they were ever going to get “believe women” established as legal precedent. The neo-Nazis are actually doing exactly what the mainstream media is doing in their marketing of this case.
These people have not only said that I am personally a fan of Weinstein – which makes absolutely no sense at all, on any level – some of them have also said that I am secretly being paid by Weinstein. None of this makes any sense. I have been arguing the same thing since this began.
Some neo-Nazi:
Firstly, you can’t just use “simp” to describe someone who is arguing that women who had sex with Harvey Weinstein are whores. That isn’t what the term means. This is like when boomers tried to appropriate the “cuck” meme, with stuff like “look at this cuck over here, saying we should cut aid to Israel!”
Secondly, this is what I wrote on November 4, 2017 (two and a half years ago), when Harvey was first being investigated by the NYPD:
Personally, I doubt that Weinstein actually did anything illegal.
I think this is just feminism eating the kikes who created it.
…
Unless a rape is done by a black, Arab or Mexican, I just assume it’s a hoax. The idea of a “date rape” is in itself a hoax and goofy.
Maybe a Jew would rape a woman if he could, but they are all so physically weak. Harvey Weinstein couldn’t overpower a cat.
But he and his kin are the ones who pushed feminism on the people. They drove our women to revolt against us. The demonized white men as evil for being the leaders of healthy families.
You can agree or disagree with my positions on issues, but you cannot accuse me of being inconsistent.
The Feminist Gibberish of a High-Ranking Leader in the Neo-Nazi Movement
I’m not going to name this neo-Nazi leader. Some of you know who he is, most of you probably don’t because this stuff is pretty niche. You can go find him if you want, but who he is doesn’t really matter and I don’t have any desire for what should be a battle of ideas to be tainted by personalities. These arguments being made are the arguments being made by the entire Jewish media and the entire neo-Nazi movement, and I only want to deal with the arguments.
I will be quoting him extensively, and I will include this avatar (which actually looks quite a bit like him) on the posts:
Everyone else’s name and avatar will simply be removed.
Here are the arguments, in their entirety:
You’re in for a helluva trip here. I’m going to break down everything he is saying, much of which is simply outright lies. I am going to do it piece by piece, so that no one can continue to make these claims without looking like an absolute shill who wants men to be wrongfully imprisoned on rape hoax charges.
“Cope”?
The term “cope” is used as a noun in meme language when referring to someone trying to cope with a situation that is otherwise bad.
So for example, if a person is crippled and in a wheelchair, he might say “it’s better to roll than to walk anyway, and I get to sit down all the time – all these non-cripples are forced to walk and stand all day.” That is a “cope,” because the person is trying to cope with a bad situation by making it seem like it’s a good situation.
We also often talk about how people who believe in QAnon are trying to cope with the fact that Donald Trump hasn’t done anything that he said he would do by inventing complex conspiracies surrounding everything he does. QAnon posts are often referred to as “copes.”
Just as with the neo-Nazi quoted above misusing the term “simp,” this neo-Nazi is apparently trying to be “hip” with the “cool kids” and is using meme words wrong. No one has been forced into a situation of saying that Weinstein’s rape trial was a sham, they are doing it voluntarily. We could all simply say “yes, the entire mainstream media, Gloria Allred and the federal courts are right.” So the arguments are not “copes.” I guess he just thinks that a “cope” is just a “bad argument.”
Just wanted to clear that up, as it may be confusing for some people.
Third-Degree Rape
On the face of it, the term “third-degree rape” sounds nuts. But this neo-Nazi pretends it is some kind of normal thing, that is regularly employed.
Because he is appealing to dumb people, he apparently doesn’t think anyone will Google the “third-degree rape” charge that Weinstein was hit with. Many articles were written about this after the conviction, and none of them says anything relating to the “power dynamics” of Weinstein and Mann.
This is the big lie of that entire rant. He claims the “power dynamics” of an employer-employee relationship were the reason for the charge. In actual fact, Mann was not employed by Weinstein at all, so he is just outright making things up whole cloth in order to support his anti-male position.
Notice that he does not give any links. He can’t give any links, because he is lying.
Let’s look at a couple of the explainers on this case, from leftist publications who, like neo-Nazis, are 100% supportive of this verdict.
Vox:
And, most importantly, here is the definition of “third-degree rape” from the New York penal code:
So, it appears that “third-degree rape” is in fact a kind of mystery. What it apparently means is that a woman has sex with you against her will, but you don’t have to physically force her to do it. It is “rape without force,” which is a kind of oxymoron. One thing is for sure: none of it says anything about an employer-employee relationship.
All of these things said by the neo-Nazi are false:
- Threat of loss of job or career to elicit sex has always been considered rape in the third degree
- Weinstein defenders have acknowledged there was a sex for favors “agreement,” which means no sex, no job, therefore third degree rape. So they believe women too.
- You believe that Weinstein committed the crime of which he was found guilty
- Jessica Mann also accused Weinstein of one count of forcibly raping her, which is first degree rape, and he was acquitted of the charge. So if the courts must believe women, why was he not found guilty?
- Third degree rape means having sex with a person unable to give consent. Threat of job loss or blackballing is considered a situation in which a person cannot give consent.
- But the question is, did she think that if she refused sex with Weinstein her career would be over? If so, that’s how the charge actually works.
In actual fact, it doesn’t appear that “loss of employment” is ever related to “third-degree rape.” So clearly, he is not stupid or confused – he just outright made up a legal definition to use as the basis of his argument.
When you Google “third degree rape employment,” all of the results are about Weinstein and Google tries to remove the word “employment.”
But did we really even need to look that up? He is saying that any time someone tells someone “I’ll only give you a job if you have sex with me,” it’s classified as rape. Why would he even think this is a lie he could get away with? How stupid does he think his followers are?
Again, I think it is important to really drive home the fact that these people are lying to promote the “believe all women” nonsense.
Let’s focus briefly on this statement:
Jessica Mann also accused Weinstein of one count of forcibly raping her, which is first degree rape, and he was acquitted of the charge. So if the courts must believe women, why was he not found guilty?
Look at that sentence. Jessica Mann did not “accuse” Weinstein of counts of various degrees of rape, because that is not how criminal prosecution works. In a criminal case, the prosecutor brings a series of charges which he thinks might stick, based on the allegations. They don’t give the victim a book of charges and ask them to check which ones they want to charge the defendant with. Come on. Surely people know this?
The court believed her story exactly as she told it. The reason he was not convicted of first degree rape is that her testimony did not involve force. She even described laying on the bed of the hotel room alone, waiting for him while he was in the bathroom injecting himself with something to give him an erection.
I can’t find the full text of the testimony and it doesn’t appear to be available online, but you can read about her testimony in these articles:
- Harvey Weinstein accuser Jessica Mann’s dramatic testimony is a new kind of test in sex-crime trials – Washington Post (This one is especially good, as it has her texts, from long after the rape, saying things like, “I love you, I always do. But I hate feeling like a booty call. ;),” as well as her telling her psychic that Harvey had “never crossed any boundaries” with her – when she was questioned on that, she said she was lying to the psychic.)
- Rape accuser in Weinstein case faces tough questions on cross-examination – Washington Post
- Jessica Mann Is Raw, Wounded, and Angry. Will Her Testimony Convict Harvey Weinstein? – Variety
- Weinstein accuser Jessica Mann tells court his genitalia looked ‘like a vagina’ – New York Post (This includes the part about laying in bed waiting for him to inject himself with erection drugs.)
Nowhere did she say force was used. That’s why he wasn’t convicted of using force. She says she didn’t want the sex in her heart. She removed consent in her heart, but didn’t tell him she’d removed consent.
The biggest issue is actually the fact that Weinstein was convicted on nothing other than this woman’s word alone. The nature of the alleged “rape,” this idea of “removing consent in your heart” was the second most important issue. But by making up this fake definition of “third-degree rape,” he shifted his entire response away from the “believe all women” issue and into a claim of how the event she described was actually rape somehow.
However, this idea of “removing consent in your heart” is one of the elements of precedent being set here. So let’s get into the fact that the neo-Nazis claim there will be “no precedent.”
Pretending to Not Know What “Precedent” Means
In our common law system, there is such a thing as “binding precedent,” meaning that it is established fact that things must be ruled on in a specific way (Roe v. Wade is an example – no state can ban abortion because that case established binding precedent). This can only be established in an appellate court. This appears to be the word game these people are playing when they claim this case does not “set precedent.” So no, this case has not yet set binding precedent.
However, no one, including me, is making that claim. When we say “this case sets precedent,” what we are saying is that this case will be cited in future legal cases as precedent. And of course that is true. It is obviously true. An army of lawyers, including Gloria Allred herself and Tina Tchen, the head of the metoo group “Time’s Up” and Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, are saying that. Federal prosecutors are saying that. The entire media is saying that.
It is simply an obvious and not even remotely controversial fact that moving forward, every single rape case in this country is going to cite “People of the State of New York v. Harvey Weinstein.”
How could they not?
This is absolutely pure gold for anyone filing a rape hoax:
- You do not have to have any evidence of the rape beyond the woman’s word
- You can have had a long-term relationship with the accused, in which you said “I love you” and referred to him as your boyfriend
- You can accuse someone of rape even if you did not resist and they didn’t have any way of knowing you considered it rape
This is a trifecta that means any man can be convicted of raping any woman.
Will all men be convicted? There is no way to know. But there is absolutely zero chance that there will not be a whole lot of new cases, and that all of those new cases will cite some aspect of the Weinstein case.
If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying to you because they think you’re stupid. Period.
Furthermore, it is entirely possible that this case will set “official” legal precedent. An appellate court may well decide things like:
- Evidence is never necessary in a rape case
- A years-long relationship after the rape is not defense from a rape charge
- A woman does not have to resist or inform you in any way that she considers the sex rape for it to be rape
We don’t know that yet, so no one is making the claim that binding precedent exists yet.
The point is: the damage is already done, and this case will absolutely be used to bring criminal rape cases against normal men who are being falsely charged with rape.
Yes, Non-Jews Get Rape Hoaxed
This statement from the neo-Nazi:
Is absolutely staggering.
Aside from demonizing me as a “Weinstein defender,” making up his own definition of “third-degree rape” and manipulating the use of the term “precedent” to baffle uninformed people, he is actually, literally, saying that rape hoaxes ALWAYS involve Jews.
No one else has ever been rape hoaxed.
You might as well believe all women, because the only men who EVER get accused of rape are Jews.
I don’t even know what to say in response to that. I’m left thunderstruck.
Because in normal reality where people live, false rape allegations come up all the time. He wants to talk about Jews – well, both Mattress Girl’s hoax victim and Brock Turner were white men who were rape hoaxed by half-Jewish, half-Asian women.
Brock Turner was actually convicted. There were a lot of aggravating circumstances in that case, such as that there were two witnesses, Brock ran away from the scene, he changed his story when talking to the cops without a lawyer. It was still a hoax, but it wasn’t near Weinstein level.
In the case of Mattress Girl, her victim (who is still unnamed) would have been convicted under the Weinstein standard. The main reason he was let off was that he had texts from her saying that she loved the sex and wanted him to “fuck me in the butt.” Her case was much, much more solid than Jessica Mann’s. And if she were making the accusation now, her lawyers would cite the Weinstein case, and the prosecutors might take it up and convict him. Hell, she might try to press charges again, now that the Weinstein verdict is in.
The Duke Lacrosse players were accused by a black woman.
So even if you believed that pure Aryan princesses would never, ever lie about anything, it is insane to claim that a white man will not be the victim of a rape hoax that cites this case.
Of course, white women do rape hoax white men. It happens every day, and most of us know at least one man it has happened to. Anyone who went to college probably knows of a dozen women who regretted a sexual encounter and publicly accused a man of rape. Charges probably were not brought – because it was pre-Weinstein!
These neo-Nazis and their followers tend to have very little experience with women. And I don’t say that to shame them, I just say it as a fact. Anyone who has experience with women knows that women will get drunk and cheat on their boyfriends and get caught and then say it was rape. Or they get drunk and have sex with a low-status male and word of that gets around so they say it was rape. Women will always resort to claiming rape whenever they feel their public honor is being tarnished. It is just standard behavior. And before “People of the State of New York v. Harvey Weinstein,” this didn’t mean much. It would ruin the man’s reputation, maybe, or maybe people wouldn’t believe her. But he wouldn’t end up in prison over it. Now, in the post-Weinstein era, he has a very good chance of going to prison for decades over it.
And neo-Nazis don’t care. Because the only thing they care about is doing whatever makes women feel good.
A Call to Emotional Outrage and Irrational Thinking
This right here:
Is absolutely shameful.
Ostensibly the big “gotcha,” that is just a naked call for people to become emotionally outraged over the disgusting image of Harvey Weinstein having sex with a pretty girl and not think rationally about what this case actually means.
The idea that I am just a Jew-lover who wants to see white women having sex with Jews is low-IQ claptrap, and anyone who reads that should feel personally insulted that this man believes you are this stupid.
I have “celebrated” nothing. I have continually offered actual solutions to the problem, and I’ve laid them out in meticulous detail. The neo-Nazi solution is: “just give total power to the federal government to lock up any man they want on fake sex charges and I promise they’ll only ever use that power on Jews.”
Furthermore, claiming that a woman who moves to Hollywood and has sex with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for a role in a film was “groomed” is an insult to little girls who actually are groomed. If you’re going to claim that women literally have absolutely no ability to control their own decisions, and the men around them are responsible for every decision they make, then we are going to have to completely reorganize our society and remove all rights from women. If you make a law that it is illegal for men to have sex with women before marriage, okay. Fine. But the neo-Nazis will never allow that, because they simply want to maximize the ability for women to do whatever they want while removing any and all consequences.
Of course having sex with a fat Jew is “debasement,” but hey, guess what – women debase themselves by using sex to gain money and fame. They debase themselves for a lot less than that. The solution to the problem of women acting like absolute whores is to call them out for being whores, not tell them they are victims of their own behavior. If this actually was all about stopping women from having sex with fat Jew perverts, the response would be to publicly shame women who do that.
As I wrote in an earlier piece on this topic, this image of perfect female sexual innocence is a creation of feminism. Anyone who has any experience at all with women knows this isn’t reality. Women are wanton creatures, and you have to control their behavior, or they will engage in the most disgusting imaginable acts.
Remember that the 50 Shades of Gray trilogy, porno books about a woman engaging in BDSM sex, claimed all three of the top selling spots for the entire decade. Imagine knowing that, and continuing to believe that women are innocent and heavenly creatures who don’t know what sex is. It is mental illness.
No one wants white women having sex with fat Jews. It is disgusting to think about. Everyone is repulsed by this image. But only someone who wants that to continue happening would incentivize the behavior.
Appendix: Gloria Allred is Fighting for Justice, This is All Just About Justice, It’s Exactly What the Media Says
We’ve come this far, lads. We might as well look at the white knight’s replies, as he flopped around, saying “hit me” at 20.
The underlying argument to all of this is that the Jews who manufactured this rape hoax against Harvey Weinstein were just looking for justice. There is no other potential explanation for supporting the verdict. It was this completely insane new standard of rape, that prosecutors could have just refused, but they went ahead with it. Gloria Allred, the top feminist rape-hoaxing Jew, was the lawyer for all of these women.
If Gloria Allred hates the Jews and wants to prevent Jews from having sex with white women, why didn’t she push for Weinstein to be charged with Jew-on-goy sex? And why is she out there saying that the purpose of this case was to set a precedent for future cases?
When the backlash came down on the neo-Nazi leader who posted all of this stuff, he started making increasingly bizarre arguments and openly contradicting himself. Someone pointed out to him that lawyers and prosecutors are going to use this case as precedent, and he said it was “cope posting for feminists.”
What does it mean?
The article quotes a whole list of lawyers and the actual District Attorney from New York saying that they’re going to start pumping out rape cases.
“This is a new day,” [Manhattan Dist. Atty. Cyrus R. Vance Jr. ] said after the verdict was announced. “Rape is rape whether the survivor reports within an hour, within a year or perhaps never. It’s rape despite the complicated dynamics of power and consent after an assault. It’s rape even if there is no physical evidence.”
According to the neo-Nazis, all of these new cases will be against Jews. Every single one. Because feminists have an anti-Semitic agenda.
Look at the absolutely unhinged nature of these posts…! Everyone is “defending” Weinstein!
Again: the claim that he was legally found guilty of using power to get sex. I just can’t even believe that you can make people believe there is a law that says it is rape to use money and power to get sex. If that were true, it would mean that the only time a man could have sex and have it not be rape is if he is destitute and powerless. Otherwise, it could always be suggested that a woman had sex with the man because of his money and/or power, which would make it rape.
You have to think: if these neo-Nazis think their followers are this absolutely retarded, then how can they possibly believe in their own movement? I am proud of the fact that the people who read me are intelligent and can follow my logic when I lay it out. I’m also proud of the fact that I know that if I say something stupid, my readers won’t just believe it because I said it, but they’ll call me out on it.
How can you actually believe in anything you say, if you know your followers are so stupid they will believe anything you say? What would even be the point? I suppose unlike me, neo-Nazis still have the ability to collect money. They can’t think of any other reason you would put yourself in this position. But if you can’t use the money to impress women without it being rape, then what is even the point of having money?
Here’s another bizarre reply.
I’m saying “Weinstein literally did nothing wrong.” Even though I’m like the most famous person on earth who has called for everyone involved in the production of “Good Will Hunting” to be thrown in prison for life.
And again he lies about third-degree rape.
Get this – he then says he understands my argument, but he just disagrees!
So which is it, guy? Do you disagree with my argument? Or do you believe I’m “defending Weinstein” because I just love the Jews so much?
At his lowest point (other than the point where he decided to invent his own definition of “third-degree rape”), our brave knight actually made the completely unbelievable statement that “the personal characteristics of the woman really don’t matter.”
Even when we are talking about a woman who has initiated a rape charge, and has a case that is entirely based on believing her word. It doesn’t matter if she is the scum of the earth, who spent five years voluntarily having sex with Harvey Weinstein, sending him cute “I love you” messages. You still have to believe her.
So it truly is “believe all women, in every case, no matter what.”
When you’ve got neo-Nazis, who even needs Jews?
You Decide!
I’ve done three articles now giving the neo-Nazi position on this issue a full hearing, in what I think is a fair way. I actually want people to see their words, whereas they of course just lie about what I’m saying and when too many people read what I actually said they tell more lies.
This case changes the entire landscape of male-female relations in the United States, and it means that if you have sex with a woman, you are guilty until proven innocent. And you can’t be proven innocent. I can’t stress how important this is.
Of course, we do not have the ability to change the ruling. However, we do have the ability to resist what the media is shoving down our throats and stand up to these narratives. Why on earth alleged “right-wing political dissidents” would be supporting the largest feminist coup in all of legal history is beyond me.
The other big issue here is letting guys know that they are at risk. What the neo-Nazis are telling people is: “hey, don’t worry about it, this only applies to Jews.” In actual fact, as we have seen, that is absolutely nonsensical. The real shocker is that if you look at these neo-Nazis, they’re likely to be targets of this first. Most of them are fat and unkempt, and they are hated by all of society.
New rape cases are coming. Men need to be aware of that fact, and do their best to protect themselves.
Godspeed, my friends.
