NaGTOW: It's not funny — Rape Advocacy and the Right Wing [Content Advisory]

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
[#ContentAdvisory | #nagtow]​


Poe's Law in Effect: Or, not. I assure you, this bit was sincere when it arrived in my twitfeed.​

David Futrelle↱, whose self-appointed mission is to track and mock misogyny, advises, "Nazis Going Their Own Way: The Daily Stormer embraces celibacy because women are worse than dogs, apparently".

We might wish that was some sort of sick joke, but it is not Futrelle's:

Andrew Anglin of the The Daily Stormer used to give his mostly-male readers Nazi dating tips. (Rule Number 1: Don't talk too much about Hitler on the first date.)

But Anglin seems to have soured on the fairer sex, and lately he's been starting to sound like the Nazi version of a MGTOW — a Nazi Going His Own Way. Instead of offering dating tips, he's offering warnings, urging his followers to always be wary around women lest they STEAL YOUR SOUL.

In an — *ahem* — "humorous" post on the Stormer today, (archived here↱) Anglin waggishly announces that he's going to dispel the myth that "women are like dogs." Because, you see, women are actually WORSE than dogs.

"Women are so far below dogs," he contends ....

(Warning: Archive link contains extraordinary content.)​

And the nagtow's screed just goes downhill, from there. The archived post link is in the excerpt above, but, really, even Futrelle's coverage of what Anglin wrote is breathtaking; suffice to say it is not the first time the nagtow has considered sexual violence against women; TDS published an extraordinary piece, late last year, calling for "corrective rape", and as Futrelle↱ noted, then, "a now-notorious style guide prepared by Daily Stormer editor Andrew Anglin urged those writing for the site to hide their serious intent behind a veil of ironic jokiness."

If we holler, the nagtows are coming! the nagtows are coming! it ought to be more than overconfident multientendre; the thing is, this really shouldn't be any sort of laughing matter, yet Futrelle notes of the nagtow, "Anglin has managed to come up with an answer to the 'female question' that's somehow even worse than the standard neo-Nazi one", and even that leads to an inevitable sort of punch line; the standard Nazi regard looks back to Hitler himself, and the duties of women, and is woven into the meaning fourteen sacred words modern Nazis recite, commemorate, and signify. Futrelle continues:

But Anglin, evidently single, doesn't want a TradWife or even a TradGirlfriend. That. at least, is a little bit of good news for the women of the world. Go your own way, young man, and go as far as possible away, until you fall off the edge of the earth.​

It seems an obvious point. Still, we had some idea this was possible; Futrelle reminded, last year:

Unfortunately, it's not only the famously misogynistic Nazis of the Daily Stormer who feel that way. These are views shared to some degree by many if not most incels and Men Going Their Own Way. And they have a disturbing resonance with a surprising number of men.

Indeed, this spring, after a self-identified incel deliberately ran down pedestrians with his van in a busy neighborhood in Toronto, killing ten, a number of prominent men – among them Canadian psychology-professor-cum-self-help-guru Jordan Peterson and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat – began to wonder aloud if the real problem underlying incel rage wasn't aggrieved male entitlement but the excessive pickiness of women who for some reason don't feel like dating the sort of maladjusted men who think mass murder is a reasonable response to sexual and romantic frustration.​

With Anglin apparently going his own way, we whould always remember the mgtow paradox: They still need women; it's just that mbsgtow doesn't really make an easy mouthful, and mwntbsaigtow is even worse. It's just that these men being seen going their own way, these men who need to be seeen as if going their own way, need to be seen by women as they pretend to go their own way. So, wait, what ... mwntbsbwaitragtow (munt-biz-bwait-rag-tau)?

So, yeah, for Nazis, we'll just stick with NaGTOW.
____________________

Notes:

Anglin, Andrew. "Dispelling the 'Women are Like Dogs' Fallacy". The Daily Stormer. 26 August 2019. Archive.fo. 29 Augsut 2019. https://archive.fo/6mhTC

Futrelle, David. "Nazis Going Their Own Way: The Daily Stormer embraces celibacy because women are worse than dogs, apparently". We Hunted The Mammoth. 26 August 2019. WeHuntedTheMammoth.com. 29 August 2019. http://bit.ly/2ZHCGy8

—————. "The Daily Stormer calls for 'corrective rape' because women on Tinder are too picky". We Hunted The Mammoth. 9 December 2018. WeHuntedTheMammoth.com. 29 August 2019. http://bit.ly/2L3UV8B

River, Octavio. "Corrective Rape Will Save Us". The Daily Stormer. 3 December 2018. Archive.fo. 29 August 2019. https://archive.fo/c4Oxx
 
If the neo-Nazis all suddenly decide to become celibate, that can only be a good thing. In a generation or two, no more neo-Nazis!
 
It's just that these men being seen going their own way, these men who need to be seen as if going their own way, need to be seen by women as they pretend to go their own way. So, wait, what ... mwntbsbwaitragtow (munt-biz-bwait-rag-tau)?
Click to expand...

lol

From what I've read about MGTOW, they sound like a fringe group of misogynistic sociopaths who can't figure out why women aren't attracted to them. Hmm...maybe it has something to do with being a misogynistic sociopath? o_O

They seem incapable of self-reflection, but they're kind of scary if you ask me. Elliot Rodger for example, had quite a following...



 
Last edited:
[#WhatComesAround | #WhoGoesNazi]​


'Round and 'round: Click for 1984, not 1941.​

I'm still processing the entirety of a seventy-eight year-old assessment wrapped up in a "macabre" manner of "parlor game", but Dorothy Thompson's↱, "Who Goes Nazi?", published in Harper's, August, 1941, is dazzling for more reasons than I can, in the moment, properly distill.

Meantime, there is this shot of burning spirit:

Mrs. E would go Nazi as sure as you are born. That statement surprises you? Mrs. E seems so sweet, so clinging, so cowed. She is. She is a masochist. She is married to a man who never ceases to humiliate her, to lord it over her, to treat her with less consideration than he does his dogs. He is a prominent scientist, and Mrs. E, who married him very young, has persuaded herself that he is a genius, and that there is something of superior womanliness in her utter lack of pride, in her doglike devotion. She speaks disapprovingly of other “masculine” or insufficiently devoted wives. Her husband, however, is bored to death with her. He neglects her completely and she is looking for someone else before whom to pour her ecstatic self-abasement. She will titillate with pleased excitement to the first popular hero who proclaims the basic subordination of women.​

We should note two points, here:

1) Anglin's misogynist Stormer post°; he's the sort of Nazi that would likely have encountered this article, before.

2) Dog metaphors among desperate masculinism such ss mgtow and incel are pretty common, have swirled for years°° and are pretty much standard fare°°°.​

Nineteen-hundred forty-one.

This isn't actually a joke: If I recall to the rich girl trying to tear off her dress as she crawls up the stairs while becoming a ratt, well ... okay, right, there is no punch line. Imagine a time when that was somehow liberating or progressive.
____________________

Notes:

° See topic post↑.

°° See, "Pathetic Pathos" #7↗, 13↗.

°°° See, "The unfair prison system" #1↗, 5↗.​

Thompson, Dorothy. "Who Goes Nazi?" Harper's. August, 1941. Harpers.org. 30 August 2019. http://bit.ly/2Zr8GHi
 
wegs said:
From what I've read about MGTOW, they sound like a fringe group of misogynistic sociopaths who can't figure out why women aren't attracted to them.
Click to expand...
It would be great if "men going their own way" would just GO their own way and stop complaining about their sad undesirableness on the Internet. Then we can all wish them well, and encourage them to KEEP going.
 
[#unwaveringvirtue | #nazinowanka]​

​

We should remind at the outset that semen retention, as such, is kind of impossible. Sorry, I know it's a bum pisser, but that's just the truth.

Wait, what?

These days, fascism rears its ugly little head in the strangest of places. And there are few places stranger than the home of my favorite Reddit subculture — the Semen Retention subreddit, where men go to talk about their hobby of not ejaculating ever because this gives them magical powers or some shit.

Well, one devout semen-retaining Redditor called RepresentativeSlide5 has taken the weird elitism of the SR community to its logical extreme, arguing that we should “expend with” our current politicians and institute some sort of “fanatical militaristic eco fascist autocracy” ruled over by “fanatical SR practicers.”

(Futrelle↱)​

There is an evil-Jew conspiracy theory wrapped up in it, and this really is about attempting to enforce some manner of sexual purity as phallocracy; the problem is the number of politicians being blackmailed by a "certain class" that has "subverted" the "western world".

Futrelle explains:

The solution? A new generation of unblackmailable semen retainers of “unwavering virtue” who never touch their own dicks and don't let anyone else near them either! (Apparently Mr. Slide5 thinks only those with dicks, albeit untouched dicks, should be in politics.)

When one of Mr. Slide5's colleagues suggests gently that semen retention does not automatically give one moral superiority over other human beings, he responds indignantly:

It is a necessary step to unwavering virtue How can a degenerate alcohol drinking compulsive masturbator or sex feind be a good leader?

I am ready to pledge alleigance to a fanatical militaristic eco fascist autocracy with clear distinctions between lifestyle of ruling class vs masses if the masses refuse to change.​
​

There are some curiosities; while going for a walk with his mother, the semen-retaining Slide5 was distressed, "with refuse and alcohol cans discarded and fast food wrappers and visiting recreational sports team swearing crapping up the place", and even if we overlook the lack of punctuation and slip on singular and plural, both common in online posting, it's worth noting the word choices: Who says, "alcohol cans"? Who says, "visiting recreational sports team"? I'm trying to think of which European fascists would write like that. Or maybe Canadian? That's not everyday American phrasing. Besides, he spells certain words with an "s" instead of a "z".

Like, "alcohol drinking compulsive masturbator"? Boozy wanker? Drunk jagov? Six sheets to flogging the dolphin? Okay, I'm grinding a little too hard, on that last, but the bit with the morally indignent semen-retainer demanding unwavering virtue does start to sound like the lower-end of a backwater-Christianist gene pool. You know, the kind of person who blames a movie like American Pie, "which trivialised sex and masturbation", for their own wankery.

†​

There is, of course, an easy rejoinder, which is that people make their own choices to pay attention to this stuff; when the dissent can chatter over whether the problem is Jews, Satan (who says it can't be both?), or the challenges of iterating in a third density kingdom (who says it can't be all of the above?), yes, it is easy to wonder why these people are important.

The answer, of course, is that it is still a bit difficult to discern danger from nonsense when the method of malicious behavior is to exploit and hide in the noise of noncompetency. Societies have tried all manner of taking a pass, not being such snowflakes, and just rolling with the lulzies, but none of that was ever good enough, and it's a lot harder to understand why certain people are shooting without attending what inspires them.

We're beyond red- and black-pilling; this is uprgrading to the next level of consciousness and becoming a life master. O! to pity the poor redpilled masses who just need to struggle and become stronger! That's pretty much the attitude oozing from the subreddit.

And it's a theme on this masculinist arc: Wannabe puas tried to be smarter than women, which didn't work; so then they called themselves mgtows and said they were smarter than puas; but mgtows could only embarrass themselves, and thus felt oppressed because everyone was laughing at them; incels would be the militant arm of the masculinist wankosphere.

But inasmuch as some Nazis are ready to go their own way, we ought not be surprised at the mystical superhero fantasies of committed antiwanker fascists.

†​

We might note Futrelle's observation about Slide5's apparent preference for politics as a boy's game: It turns out that the next day, Slide5 managed to clarify, responding to a mgtow rant by glibly noting, "Women probably shouldnt vote tbh but pop democracy is so flawed it doesnt matter anymore".

repslide5-20190904-reddit-womenvote-detail-hl.png
____________________

Notes:

Futrelle, David. "NoFap Fascism: Semen-retaining Redditor wants government of, by, and for the semen retainers". We Hutned the Mammoth. 2 September 2019. WeHuntedTheMammoth.com. 4 September 2019. http://bit.ly/2k4enrg
 
Why does Reddit make it so easy for these sick types of people to congregate? They are using Reddit as a platform to espouse their hate of women, etc. So, when one or a few of them go on a violent rampage, will people be like ''we just had no idea that 'x' was capable of that.'' :rolleyes: Reddit shouldn't allow hate speech, let alone misogynistic hate speech to get a voice through their site.

Reddit is the new 8chan?
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
Reddit is the new 8chan?
Click to expand...

Not quite. I think the history goes Chan was for those who were too extreme for Reddit and similar sites, and then other-Chan emerged for those too extreme for Chan.

Sometimes stuff circles back through Reddit, as I understand it, but the site's content limits often seem formulated according to whatever threat of legal liability. Imagine being too conspiracist for Reddit, and needing 8chan. But, hey, some of those even have access to the White House. Sort of. It's complicated.

The challenge, these days, is figuring what is actually too stupid to find a place in the halls of power. But with conspiracist celebrities being invited to the Oval Office, and the President tweeting fragments of conspiracy theories, it seems worth noting the original Reddit for Qanon was shut down in April, 2018, and while attention given them by Sean Hannity is probably a significant avenue to catching Trump's attention, well, yeah, after Reddit they ran to 8chan. The original Q fantasy play is absurdly childish, to the point that I would use a certain word, but the cultish following not easily ignored.

In the larer question of why, it's a big question that has to do with who makes what decisions. I was actually thinking about this in another context, yesterday; I'll dig up that unfinished post.
 
wegs said:
Why does Reddit make it so easy for these sick types of people to congregate? They are using Reddit as a platform to espouse their hate of women, etc. So, when one or a few of them go on a violent rampage, will people be like ''we just had no idea that 'x' was capable of that.'' :rolleyes: Reddit shouldn't allow hate speech, let alone misogynistic hate speech to get a voice through their site. Reddit is the new 8chan?
Click to expand...
Reddit's sort of always been like that; it's a place a lot of hate groups congregate. But how do you draw the line? I mean, do you ban anyone who you think is hateful? Because that could well capture a lot of feminists as well as MGTOW types.
 
billvon said:
Reddit's sort of always been like that; it's a place a lot of hate groups congregate. But how do you draw the line? I mean, do you ban anyone who you think is hateful? Because that could well capture a lot of feminists as well as MGTOW types.
Click to expand...
Some radical feminists come across as hateful towards men, and I think their behavior is wrong, too. I'd say any speech that advocates discrimination, violence, abuse etc towards another group...should be banned. I've read a few articles from men's rights activists and some of them are filled with venom and hatred towards women...why give a platform for that?
 
wegs said:
Some radical feminists come across as hateful towards men, and I think their behavior is wrong, too. I'd say any speech that advocates discrimination, violence, abuse etc towards another group...should be banned. I've read a few articles from men's rights activists and some of them are filled with venom and hatred towards women...why give a platform for that?
Click to expand...
Well, the owner of any site can decide what stays on and what has to go.

But as the mod of another site, I am very careful to ban people only for specific reasons that violate the rules. Banning people for 'venom' is a very slippery slope. Expressing anger and hatred towards a woman who was assaulted - OK, that's an easy call. But what if someone expresses the same level of anger and hatred towards white supremacists? Is that OK? Should there be a requirement to be "nice?" It's a tough call. Personally I tend to err towards the side of letting people express their opinions and then letting readers decide whether to keep reading them or not, but at some point you also have to draw a line where (for example) someone advocates violence.
 
billvon said:
Well, the owner of any site can decide what stays on and what has to go.

But as the mod of another site, I am very careful to ban people only for specific reasons that violate the rules. Banning people for 'venom' is a very slippery slope. Expressing anger and hatred towards a woman who was assaulted - OK, that's an easy call. But what if someone expresses the same level of anger and hatred towards white supremacists? Is that OK? Should there be a requirement to be "nice?" It's a tough call. Personally I tend to err towards the side of letting people express their opinions and then letting readers decide whether to keep reading them or not, but at some point you also have to draw a line where (for example) someone advocates violence.
Click to expand...

While I hear your point, why are you moving the topic to something else? We're discussing misogyny, honestly...and how Reddit is giving a platform for it. This goes beyond men who aren't ''being nice'' to or about women. I'm surprised that I need to point that out.

As a side note, the title of the thread...''rape advocacy'' is what part of this topic is about. No forum should be giving a platform for rape apologists and advocates to preach about stuff like that. Hate doesn't stay in a vacuum...it never does.
 
Last edited:
Often, the only times I even hear about these types is from long posts on Sciforums. Following them seems to be a hobby for some.
 
wegs said:
While I hear your point, why are you moving the topic to something else? We're discussing misogyny, honestly..
Click to expand...
I'd say attacking a woman who was assaulted was pretty misogynist.
As a side note, the title of the thread...''rape advocacy'' is what part of this topic is about. No forum should be giving a platform for rape apologists and advocates to preach about stuff like that. Hate doesn't stay in a vacuum...it never does.
Click to expand...
Would you be OK with a poster who hated misogynists and rape apologists?
 
billvon said:
I'd say attacking a woman who was assaulted was pretty misogynist.
Click to expand...
It is. But anything less than that, shouldn't get a pass. Harvey Weinstein didn't become the predator he became, overnight. Neither did Epstein. Neither did Trump. All of these men probably hated women all of their lives, until their venom finally became public knowledge. And then we all act shocked when we hear the things that Trump has said, and it's like...somewhere along the way, these men were given passes in our culture. We can't ''cure'' misogyny, but we definitely can stop it from spreading.

Would you be OK with a poster who hated misogynists and rape apologists?
Click to expand...

I’m against hate speech, in general. I’m not against banning people on public forums who invite and incite violence, and who are rape apologists.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
I’m against hate speech, in general. I’m not against banning people on public forums who invite and incite violence, and who are rape apologists.
Click to expand...
Right. But I'm not asking about that. I am talking about a feminist who speaks out against rape advocates, using angry and discriminatory speech (i.e. they are evil, they should be banned, she hopes they someday learn what it's like to be raped etc) - should that sort of thing be stopped?
 
billvon said:
Right. But I'm not asking about that. I am talking about a feminist who speaks out against rape advocates, using angry and discriminatory speech (i.e. they are evil, they should be banned, she hopes they someday learn what it's like to be raped etc) - should that sort of thing be stopped?
Click to expand...

Rape and advocating for it online should be stopped. Why are you making this about feminism? It has nothing to do with feminism or feminists.

I don’t believe in name calling and all that but banning rape advocates from certain sites or to congregate, wouldn’t be discriminatory. Rape is a crime - are you saying that you believe advocating for the crime of rape should be protected? (under free speech?)
 
wegs said:
Rape and advocating for it online should be stopped.
Click to expand...
Of course. No one disputes that.
Why are you making this about feminism? It has nothing to do with feminism or feminists.
Click to expand...
It's a example.
I don’t believe in name calling and all that but banning rape advocates from certain sites or to congregate, wouldn’t be discriminatory.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. If someone says "women should be raped" or anything directly advocating for such things, no problems. (Or advocating for any crime.)

The problems arise (IMO) when you set the bar to "anything less than that, shouldn't get a pass." How about men who say that some women claim they were raped when they weren't? Or women who say that? Or people who think the penalties for rape are too harsh? Or people who say "well, in case X, the guy is the victim!"

The issue for me is that while I would likely have a problem personally with such statements, I don't think such statements should be banned from the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top