Our last piece brought us Genius Legal Scholar Andrew Anglin’s extremely reality based explanation that every single rape accusation will now immediately result in a conviction because poor, innocent jew rapist Harvey Weinstein got gassed in court. Well that never happened, and since all of his serious arguments for why you’re a naughty goy for not siding with the Mossad connected Hollywood rapist jew are based on the above ludicrous claim, I’m not going to bother making any more arguments against any sort of legal claims made by non-lawyer Little Andy.

However, I do want to give another little window into Harvey Weinstein, by giving an example of the kind of filth he pushed through his production company The Weinstein Company. To paraphrase telegram commenter Tam “what is it about kike rapist Weinstein that brings out the nuance bros?” You’d think that a disgusting jew pervert rapist wouldn’t deserve even the Manlet Cult’s defense, but apparently not.

Above is the movie poster for “TransAmerica.” This was the fourth film produced by The Weinstein Company, and was released in 2005. I need to print out the Wikipedia plot summary, because this is amazing even for Schlomo’s standard.


One week before her vaginoplasty, a trans woman named Sabrina “Bree” Osbourne (Felicity Huffman) receives an unexpected phone call from a young man named Toby Wilkins (Kevin Zegers), a 17-year-old jailed in New York City. He asks for Stanley Schupak (Bree’s deadname), claiming to be Stanley’s son. Bree was previously unaware she had a son; she now wants to break with her past and renounce him. However, Bree’s therapist (Elizabeth Peña) refuses to sign off for her operation if she does not face up to her past ties.

Keep in mind that this was 2005. The Weinstein’s are at the bleeding edge in culturally destroying the goyim.

Bree flies from Los Angeles to New York City to bail Toby out of jail. Toby is a foul-mouthed runaway who is a small-time drug user and male “hustler”. His mother committed suicide when he was a child after which he was raised by his stepfather, whom he says he does not want to see. Bree pretends to be a Christian missionary and persuades Toby to ride with her back to the West Coast, secretly planning to leave him at his stepfather’s along the way. When they arrive in the town of Callicoon, Kentucky,[5] it turns out that Toby’s stepfather was very abusive and he molested him several times in his youth. Bree and Toby continue driving to Los Angeles together. They also stop by a house in Dallas where a group of transgender women (many of whom are old friends of Bree’s) are hosting a gender pride gathering. Later on in the trip, when Bree goes to the restroom, Toby accidentally discovers that Bree has male genitalia. He tries to be open-minded about it but is angry that Bree had not told him prior.

After their car and money are stolen by a young hitchhiking hippie who calls himself a “peyote shaman” (Grant Monohon), Toby makes some money by prostituting himself to a truck driver. To Bree he pretends that he got the money from selling some drugs he had taken along for his own use. They get a ride with a kindly rancher, Calvin Many Goats (Graham Greene) to Bree’s parents’ house in Phoenix, Arizona. Calvin and Bree hit it off and flirt a little, which disturbs Toby. Here they find her pampered and self-centred mother Elizabeth (Fionnula Flanagan), her Jewish father Murray (Burt Young) who seems to be dominated by Elizabeth, and her rebellious and sarcastic sister Sydney (Carrie Preston). Elizabeth disapproves of Bree’s transition (it is mentioned that she has been estranged for some time), but is astonished to find out she has a grandson. She is kind to Toby and invites him to stay and live with them. Toby enjoys the luxury and kindness, but hesitates because he does not like how disrespectful they are to Bree. Misunderstanding his feelings for Bree, he tries to seduce her, saying that he will marry her if she wants. Bree realizes she must tell Toby the truth immediately, saying that she was his real father. Toby is appalled and infuriated that Bree had not disclosed this earlier. Overnight he steals money and valuable antiques from the house and disappears. Heartbroken, Bree returns to Los Angeles via a plane ticket bought by her parents. Her family finally accepts her calling herself Bree and she has a successful surgery, but is unhappy because she feels she will never again see or hear from Toby. The therapist visits Bree in recovery. After she confesses she made a mistake, Bree sobs on her shoulder.

Some months later, Bree is surprised to see Toby at her front door. Bree invites him inside and he reveals to her he has turned 18, bleached his hair blonde, and has become an adult actor in gay pornographic films in Los Angeles. Bree is also vibrant, happy, and enjoying her job as a waitress at the restaurant where she was formerly a busser; She has also dyed her hair blonde and now wears more colorful clothes. Bree and Toby reconcile, seemingly happy to have each other.

This is literally the fourth film The Weinstein Company produced. The second was called “The Libertines,” BTW, and is also an explicit feminist movie.

The purpose of The Weinstein Company is to produce films glorifying male prostitution, homosexuality, trannygenderism, and every other anti-social cause. At least outside of Israel, goy. This is what I meant by Weinstein donating millions to planned parenthood being far less damaging than his career. It is not an exaggeration to say that (((Weinstein))) considers his job to be to destroy Western Civilization.

Now imagine someone being so desperate to defend him that they make up some absurd legal hallucination that all consensual sex is now rape because some psychologically healthy people celebrated the verdict on twatter.

Well, you don’t have to imagine anymore.

Once again I remind you all of how unbelievably long and tedious his defense of Harvey Weinstein is. And this is merely one of four articles. Luckily we’ve now moved to the fun part, his hilarious theories on social dynamics.

As always, he manages to include a screencap of a tweet that manages to have a psychologically healthy take. The manlet will proceed to write thousands of words failing at a refutation.

As always, read the bold parts, skim the rest.

Short Man Quarterly:

You always have to wonder about motives when people are making things up in order to push their agenda. I don’t personally believe that any motive other than the truth is a valid motive.

All that having been said, the assertion that women are fundamentally endowed with sexual innocence is so absurd that we are left wondering if these neo-Nazi white knights have ever even met a woman in real life before. Maybe they’ve only seen them on TV?

Let’s establish that feminism invented the concept of female sexual innocence that is being used to defend women who had sex with Harvey Weinstein.

I considered screencapping the article so you could see that this is his actual response to the tweet he referred to above. Talk about jews siccing Mossad Agents on the White Women they’ve raped and Andrew Anglin starts going on about “fundamental female sexual innocence.” It really does not get any more coherent or relevant than this.

Female Sexuality: The Historical and the Modern Interpretation

All throughout history, women were considered fundamentally sinful and driven by lusts. It was believed that women had to be controlled by men or they would become unhinged and go into a sexual frenzy, using the power of sex to destroy the men around them.

All of ancient Greece held this view. Throughout the classical Greek epics and plays, women are portrayed as scheming whores, who use sex to exploit men to get them to do their bidding. The same is true for all Greek philosophers, who believed women were morally debased and almost purely driven by lust. A lot of it is more extreme than anything I’ve ever written.

In 391 BC, Aristophanes actually wrote a play about women taking over the government, called “The Assemblywomen,” in which the women establish communism and base every element of the way the government operates on ugly women being able to have sex with attractive men.

“All throughout history it was considered pretty great when White Women got raped by jews and then had Mossad agents threaten them into silence.” – Man Not Tall Enough To Get on the Adults Rides at Disneyland.

Romans held the same view as the Greeks, and although they were the first white civilization to establish “rape” as a serious crime, they viewed it as a property crime, and viewed the woman as equally responsible.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks that in Ancient Greece you could just rape a man’s wife and that was totally fine? Like some father would be totally cool with another man holding a knife to his daughters throat before ripping her clothes off and raping her. But then some feminist in Rome got the crazy idea that rape is bad and all hell broke loose.

These societies would have cut your head off for raping a woman, they just didn’t have a specific crime called rape, assuming Anglin’s non-cited claim is even true. The legal code wasn’t exactly the 10 million word monstrosity that it is today, and punishments were brutal, so they didn’t bother adding “oh btw if you do violence to a woman but specifically for sexual crimes we’re going to cut your head off just like we would have if you didn’t have sex with her.” Andrew Anglin, who is neither a lawyer nor a historian, will immediately start LARPing as a legal historian giving hilariously dumb and citation free legal arguments for how rape is secretly part of the Western Tradition.

And of course, fundamental licentiousness was the primary view of women presented in the Bible. In the very first story, the sinful woman Eve tricks the thirsty man Adam into doing her bidding. And her bidding is simply to fulfill a perverse curiosity by engaging in open rebellion against God for the sake of this perverse curiosity.

Literally, the foundation myth of the Christian faith is “women used their wiles to lead men away from God, which led to all evil in the world.”

The rest of the Bible continues with this concept of women, with prototypes of female whorishness including, but not being limited to, Princess Jezebel, Prophetess Jezebel, Gomer, Rahab, Salome, and Potiphar’s wife.

The specific claim was that Weinstein raped women and then put Mossad Agents on them. So rest assured, Anglin will spend the next 5,000 words not addressing that at all and instead going on his “no but wahmen bad tho,” crusade.

Then throughout the Middle Ages, women were viewed in these terms. Women’s sexual drive became associated with demonic possession.

Shakespeare portrayed women as power-hungry tricksters who used sex to gain power over men.

Even in the enlightenment, this view was maintained. German idealist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer wrote about women as if they were wild animals.

German idealist Arthur Schopenhauer, Adolf Hitler’s favorite philosopher, was “THE SCUM OF THE FUCKING EARTH” according to neo-Nazis, as he did not have sufficient respect for women. I dare say he probably didn’t even believe all women.

I’m going to periodically remind everybody that he is literally writing all this in response to a tweet. A tweet that does not contain the terms “fundamental female sexual innocent,” or “believe all women”. Instead they contained terms like “mossad,” and “black cube,” the Mossad spying company Weinstein hired.

I think you get the point: there was no “female innocence theory” until the modern period. If it is true that women are innocent of sexuality, no one knew this until after the feminists told them so. Any man, throughout all of history, would be equally amused and aghast at the idea that a man could be so cucked as to claim that a woman who went to a man’s hotel room alone was “raped.”

7,600 words, and none of them in response to anything we’re saying. The Manlet Cult Leader invents an entire new reality, where heterosexual wignat pussy-enjoyers are claiming that women don’t ever want to have sex with men. Beyond that, no woman has ever used feminine wiles to manipulate a man. While the lanklets who are too tall to have the “correct” take on rapist jew Harvey Weinstein have never said any of the above, we all secretly believe these things.

The “fundamental female innocence” theory was, ironically, presented as a part of feminism and women’s empowerment. The basic problem was that women were claiming they needed to be liberated, and in order to be liberated, they had to establish:

  1. That they were oppressed
  2. That the oppression was unjust
  3. That abolishing traditional gender roles would not lead to a collapse of society

So, traditional gender roles, which were established for the purpose of protecting women from themselves and protecting society as a whole from the behavior of women, were portrayed as wrong under the premise that women did not actually need to be controlled, because they were not fundamentally driven by passion and a lust for sex and power, that they were actually the embodiment of innocence and men simply invented the charges of wanton lusts, and held them up since the beginning of civilization, out of pure meanness.

It was then decided by women that in fact, women were fundamentally sexually innocent, and any awareness of sex was inflicted on them by men. You’ll note that the neo-Nazi we are analyzing actually says that a man is evil for calling a woman who has sex for money a “whore.”

Really manlet? Did “women” say these things, or was that Harvey Weinstein, the world’s most famous feminist? I think it’s the latter, but then again, I don’t have a burning hatred of women stemming from a face that looks like it came from a slightly different species.

Anglin once again owns himself by including what I think is screencaps from Moike’s last twatter.

You know the drill by now. Prepare for 9,000 words explaining why Mary Phagan was a fundamentally wicked creature who deserved to be sexually assaulted and murdered by disgusting jew pervert Leo Frank.

Neo-Nazis literally believe that because all women are innocent and pure, an aspiring actress in her 20s who has sex with a Jew in order to advance her career is no less of a victim than an 11-year-old girl who is raped and murdered on her way home from work.

Oh but see Anglin, Mary Phagan wasn’t 11. In fact she was 13, and had already been going through puberty. This was relevant at her trial, because the legal defense the jews from B’Nai Brith used was “you can’t tell me that this whore didn’t know what she was getting into when she was invited to the backroom.”

It’s weird because that’s like, exactly the argument Anglin’s using here.

Female innocence of sexuality is blatantly at odds not just with the entire conception of female nature throughout history, but with the biology that that conception was based on. What I will agree with white knights on is that women are physically less strong than men, on average. (I am not sure that I agree that a 60-year-old obese Jew could physically overpower a physically healthy woman in her 20s, but that’s neither here nor there.) Women are also significantly dumber than men. They score only a few points lower on IQ tests on average, but in practice they are largely incapable of completing any complex task. Because of this vast difference in physical and mental prowess, a woman naturally uses her sexual advantage over men to get what she wants.

They are acutely aware of sex and sexuality, because their entire existence revolves around using sex and sexuality for their own gain. That is something that goes back to the beginning of time, and it is the reason the patriarchy these neo-Nazis are trying to tear down existed in the first place.

It’s cute to see tired and idiotic manletsphere circa 2005 arguments get resurrected by Anglin. I remember reading that garbage back in the day, where it’s all like “well women bring sexual attractiveness, but men bring status and power.” This is a non-reality based statement made by people with no real world experience. To the audience, do you think that some woman has a “sexual advantage,” over Brad Pitt? Not if you aren’t retarded you don’t.

Keep in mind that this is all coming from a guy who is an admitted incel. Anglin’s incel theories on “sexual marketplace dynamics,” are about as valid as his non-lawyer theories on the legal fallout from the Weinstein trial.

Rape hoaxing is a massive power-grab by women, but it is Jews who want to give them this power, because they know how destructive this is to society. They also know that it is only white women who will go along with this nonsense. Empowering women is thus a way to harm our ability to reproduce. All you have to do is look at the birthrate graph and mark the development of women’s rights along that graph to see that the more women are empowered, the fewer children they have.

“Only White Women go along with feminism.” – Andrew Anglin

Here’s a question to ponder: do you think allowing women to accuse any man she’s ever had sex with at any point in her life and have him thrown in prison is going to have a positive or a negative effect on the birthrate?

I would say it is pretty safe to say that like with all of these other major transferences of power to women, it is going to negatively effect the birthrate. White men are going to withdraw from white women completely once this machine of post-Weinstein prosecutions really gets rolling. Some will become incels and some will go with nonwhite women, given that nonwhite women do not engage in this rape hoaxing, but whatever they do, our birthrate is going to suffer even more.

And yet, these “pro-white” cartoon neo-Nazis on Twitter are willing to sacrifice the birthrate because it feels good to see a fat Jew thrown in prison?

“You have to let jews rape goy women. To do anything less would irreparably harm our birthrates.” – Adolf Hitler

Extraordinarily, the neo-Nazi feminist we are using as our template to analyze feminist neo-Nazism actually stated that women in pornography – that is, women who have sex for money – are not whores.

Yeah that literally never happened. Which is why he isn’t quoting us here.

In fact, a woman who has sex for money is the definition of a whore.

That he included this claim in his dissertation is useful, as it speaks to where these people are coming from, generally. The basic idea is that it is impossible for a woman to be held responsible for her behavior, and so basically everything is rape, or abuse, or exploitation, or whatever. This complete lack of any responsibility for decisions is to me a very extreme perspective, especially given that he goes on to claim that women should be empowered in society and in the workplace.

It seems to me that if women are to be empowered and play a role in public society, you have to be able to hold them accountable for their behavior. The idea of any member of society both holding power and being completely above reproach or judgement is so extreme and bizarre that it is very difficult to grasp how anyone could promote that without being malicious. And obviously, it is promoted all throughout society, primarily by Jews, for reasons which I believe are malicious.

It should also be noted that the promotion of “women in the workplace” is yet another attack on our birthrate as whites and on the foundations of the social order in general.

It’s shocking that neo-Nazis would be so fixated on promoting liberal Jewish ideas that are proven to harm white society. But I guess they just really, really respect women.

Bring up Harvey Weinstein’s Mossad connections and Anglin will launch into a diatribe on how we “neo-nazis feminists,” are causing White birthrates to plummit by twitter posting. Good thing Harvey “raping YOUR women goy” Weinstein never promoted feminis-

Oh whoops. Well that’s just the kind of oversight that happens when you write a short blog post that’s merely novella lengthed instead of full on novel.

Feminist neo-Nazi white knights defending the “believe women” theory of total female innocence believe it is clever to point out that non-feminists in the right-wing will often claim that women do not have the ability to make decisions properly, but also claim that they should be held responsible for those decisions.

Here is an example of a feminist neo-Nazi making this criticism:

It’s been another 1,000 words, which means it’s time for Anglin to utterly own himself by posting a normal sized man’s take in his article and then knocking out another thousand words failing at owning him while sputtering about neo-nazis. And when I say a normal sized man’s take I mean literally one tweet. About 200 characters.

Pretty sure if we all still had twitter accounts we could get Anglin to kill himself by tweeting out variations of “it’s kinda bad for jews to rape White Women.”

The white knights are openly claiming the opposite of what they claim anti-feminists are saying:

  1. Women can’t be held responsible for their decisions
  2. They should have power in society

Literally none of us ever said that, but continue.

So the idea of them pointing out an “inconsistency” is a bit silly. Even if it was exactly how they say it is, our inconsistency would lead to women being controlled in society, while theirs would lead to a total collapse of civilization.

The actual argument of anti-feminists is again so simple that it seems impossible that this “misunderstanding” by the feminists is not on purpose:

  1. Women do make their decisions based on the influence of society (men do too, but women to a much larger extent).
  2. Bob’s your uncle, what do you know: the biggest social factor that they make decisions based on is how those decisions will be received by society.

What that means is:

  1. If women who act like whores are condemned as whores, women are less likely to engage in whorish behavior.
  2. If women who get married and have children are praised as heroic and brave, women at large are more likely to engage in the pro-social behavior of marriage and reproduction.

If these feminist neo-Nazis are legitimately too stupid to understand this, then they are simply dangerous.

Wow, guess it’s a good thing that the guy putting out explicitly feminist movies encouraging women to be whores is behind bars then. Nice self own there Anglin.

You gotta love his retarded plan at getting power. The argument is so idiotic that it borders on satire.

“See, prostitution is bad. So we shouldn’t go after their pimps (Weinstein), and instead we should let it happen, but then impotently call the women whores, that’ll show them.” – Andrew Anglin

I mean all of this assumes some sort of quid pro quo from the rapist Weinstein, but I’ll just leave it as is because it’s so fucking stupid. The idea that you shouldn’t go after literal feminist jew cultural filth producer Harvey Weinstein, and should instead suck his disgusting starfish peener online while calling his victims whores in an effort to change their behaviour is so utterly retarded that I struggle to even know where to begin. Oh yeah I’m sure that some ambitious starlet is more swayed by soon to be censored twatter accounts from admitted incel losers calling her a whore than the promises of millions of dollars, fame, and certain blacklisting from the industry combined with literal Mossad agents making implicitly violent threats towards her.

If these raging manlet losers are legitimately too stupid to understand this, then they are simply dangerous.

This next part I’m including. Nothing is worth bolding, but I’m including it just to show how deranged this is. The takeaway is that we are all secretly marxist feminist now. Once again he has literally zero quotes of us calling ourselves “marxist feminists,” or feminists of any brand, it’s simple delusion.

Marxist “Gender Power Dynamics” Theories

A big part of the argument being presented by these neo-Nazis is the Marxist-feminist theory of “gender power dynamics,” which says that because women are so oppressed by men, the government and various other institutions must be wielded to disempower men in order to level the playing field.

Classical Marxist theory obviously plays a big role in the neo-Nazi feminist argument that Harvey Weinstein “raped” women who went to him to exchange sex for career advancement, as they are arguing that the women “had no choice” but to have sex with Harvey due to economic factors.

Here’s some extended reading for those who want to understand further what these neo-Nazis are arguing:

And there is of course a lot more. This is a massive industry.

This next part is hilarious. Anglin gets extremely assmad that someone would claim women, along with 99% of men I might add, are repulsed by his extremely anti-social behaviour. In response, you guessed it, he writes about three thousand words explaining how disrespecting women gets you mad pussy.

Keep in mind that he is an admitted incel who gets no pussy.

I suppose the problem is that he simply does not disrespect the females enough. These females must be real hard to get, because defending Harvey Weinstein is a level of Female Disrespect that ought to have you drown in pussy.

Skim the next part, I only included it to show you that I’m not making this up.

Regarding the Claim That Men Who Do Not Believe Women and Support Feminism are Pathetic and Will Never Get Laid

As always, all of these demands that people respect and believe women are backed up by attempts to shame any man who refuses to go along with the feminist and white knight agenda. The neo-Nazi we are examining here claims that people who do not believe women, and men who call women who have sex for money “whores,” are “the scum of the earth.”

He also goes on to say that if you are not a feminist, no woman will ever want to have sex with you.

This is the typical action of a woman: they will look for a man’s weaknesses and attempt to humiliate him. And due to what feminism has wrought, a lot of men are having problems with women, so a lot of men are insecure about their ability to mate with women. So, this individual blasts out that a lack of respect for women will lead to men not being able to have sex, as he knows that this is the anti-male shaming tactic most likely to hit home with the most men.

Imagine it:

“Women are repulsed by a lack of respect. They find it just the biggest turn off. But as soon as you start respecting her, start defending her honor, that pussy turns into Niagara Falls. And you’ll be swimming in it.”

The problem with this theory is that “respecting women” is the default position of society. We are a generation of men raised by women, and we are all taught from infancy that women should always be in control. Telling men who were raised in this paradigm that if they are not getting laid they simply need to respect women harder seems to me like an argument that is going to fall flat with most men.

Telling white men to “respect women” is effectively anti-natal propaganda (these neo-Nazis really seem intent on harming the birthrate any way they can).

Women do not like soft, pathetic men who treat them as equals. Women like being under the control of strong and dominant men. The feminization of white men, through this program of feminism, is why so many European women have chosen to start dating blacks and Arabs.

They will tell you this themselves.

All women prefer masculine men. The exception is women who are in their late twenties and have lost their sex appeal and single mothers. Those women are simply looking for a man to feed off of, and to control. Many feminist neo-Nazis will actually tell men to marry single mothers, because that fits into their “respect overload” philosophical paradigm.

However, if you are interested in attractive and fertile young women, respecting women harder is not going to get you there. Even if you are uniquely handsome, if you treat women as equals, they will still view you as weak, and exploit and abuse you.

The defining aspect of masculinity is the ability to control a situation. That goes beyond intelligence or physical strength, though it is often represented by one or the other or a combination of the two. There is no place for the gynocentrism of viewing women as sacred in a masculine identity.

Only a weak man is capable of having respect for women. Women are stupid, physically weak, incompetent and utterly amoral. Respecting that sort of a creature is something only a pathetic individual would do.

Seeing people literally saying “women want a man who respects them” makes me feel like I’ve gone through a time-warp back to reddit in 2011. The most basic redpill of all of the redpills is that women are attracted to dominant and powerful men and view men who cater to them as weak.

“Oh honey, I believe everything you say, I’m so sorry you’ve been abused by bad men, I will protect you from those men, my sweet princess, you are so noble and honorable and I would give my life to protect your dignity” is not the behavior of a dominant or powerful man, it is the behavior of a pathetic worm who thinks he can get laid by prostrating himself before women.

Admitted Incel Find One Weird Trick to Positively Drown in Pussy – Defend Harvey Weinstein.

“You silly feminazis just don’t understand. When us Women Disrespectors defend Harvey Weinstein, bitches be like:”

It’s funny that Anglin brings up 2011 reddit and the manletsphere as some sort of bible for how human behaviour and sexuality actually works. I remember those years of the internet quite well, and it hammered home the point that people online don’t get laid very often.

The entire “debate” consisted of one group, the blue-pillers pretending that being a male feminist mangina meant that women would magically start throwing their pussies at you. The other group pretended that being an anti-social loser Pussy Disrespecter was actually what got mad gash bro. Since neither of these constantly online losers actually got laid, it was to nobodies surprise that none of them had a single clue.

To be clear, being tall, facially handsome, well groomed, athletic looking physically, sharply dressed, having a deep voice, and most of all, being normal and moving the relationship forward is what actually gets you laid. Everything else is weird constantly online spergery.

You obviously don’t need to be these top 1% good looking men.

Once again, Andrew Anglin is an admitted incel. His getting pussy analysis is as valid and experience based as his non-lawyer legal analysis which resulted in him bloviating about how there’s literally no winning a false rape case anymore because a kike pervert got convicted of rape.

This principle applies to the larger right-wing “movement.”

Women will not be interested in joining a “movement” that caters to them. Some low-quality women will join due to a high male-to-female ratio, and they will proceed to take over and control everything and manipulate all the men involved by using sex. They will have sex with a bunch of different men and try to turn men against each other and just create general chaos and confusion that puts them at the center of everything. Clearly, that will not help your movement.

Conversely, if there is a group of masculine men who are not catering to women, who do not appear as though they are interested in women, who – dare I say it – don’t even respect women, high-quality women will want to be involved because they are attracted to the power.

Well I think you nailed the “doesn’t appear to be interested in women,” angle right out of the park with Nick Fuentes.

You’d sort of think that catering to women would lead to more women joining a movement. You’d think it’s true by definition. But the guy who does not appear to have a single female reader in his audience is explaining that actually being revolting to all women and every man who is married, in a relationship, or simply not a constantly online incel weirdo is the way to go. Do that and wahmen will just be stabbing each other into the eyes to be first in line to join your movement.

A movement that apparently consists of playing video game livestreams and dutifully voting republican. Settle down ladies, I can sense your slits getting wet from the proximity to power.

This is all evidenced by the fact that I have more female readers than any feminist neo-Nazi website. Of course, I have more readers generally, but I am speaking of proportionally – according to all available third party data, a higher percentage of my readers are women than the readers of any other pro-white website.

No no Anglin, don’t feel like you need to include any citations or sources for that claim. Or any others, like all the things you accuse us lanklets of saying with respect to being marxist feminists or whatever.

Growing up, I was always one of the “cool kids,”

… and I have spent my life around men who are successful with women. But don’t believe me – surely, you must all know a man who has been successful with women, even if you haven’t been yourself. Please, go ask him if the number one thing that attracts women is respect for women. This is an anti-natal hoax that these neo-Nazis are spreading, which is going to damage the chances of those who follow them of ever being successful with women.

I had absolutely no idea that anonymous twatter accounts telling you to stop being such a fucking weirdo were responsible for cratering White birthrates. If only they had all demonstrated their Pussy Disrespect Levels by defending jew rapist Harvey Weinstein we would be currently undergoing a White baby boom.

Although most of the neo-Nazis on Twitter are anonymous, you can look at other people who promote Marxist Consent Theory and “gender power dynamics,” and get an idea of what they might look like.

He then resorts to finding pictures of random male feminists and pointing out that they look like exactly what they are, which is low testosterone losers. I certainly agree with Anglin on that count, although I must note that the Manlet Cult gets incredibly assmad when I point out how fugly and short they are.

Nevertheless, I’m glad he’s admitting that how people look can be a window into their politics. As I have said many times, it’s not an accident that feminists are fat and ugly. Their politics is downstream from being biological failures.

So now that we’ve established that, let’s take a look at what the Manlet Cult looks like.

These are the people defending Harvey Weinstein.

The only ones in the world other than his jew feminist legal team.

But I warn you: you might not want to join our ranks because you’ll be forced to date 19-year-olds.

Let’s check in on “his ranks,” and see all the hot teenage pussy they’re getting.

LMFAO. Their forum is full of incels who are so hideous and spergy that they admit to having NEVER EVEN GONE TO AN EVENT THAT HAD WOMEN. And Anglin himself is an admitted incel.

Oh yeah they’re just drowning in pussy over there.

This type of Jewish-Marxist feminist nonsense being promoted by neo-Nazis is designed to sabotage men.

It is designed to prevent white people from reproducing.

Anglin tells impressionable young men that any sexual contact they have with a woman will lead to said strumpet accusing them of rape and them being put behind bars forever. This is great for reproduction rates and doesn’t at all sabotage young men.

And Finally: Why is Neo-Nazism So Strongly Associated with Feminism?

The question for the ages, which serves as a backdrop to all of this, is why is it that modern neo-Nazis are such aggressive devotees of feminist theory? Even if we put aside the fact that feminism is so utterly dominated by Jews, that it was Jews who invented all of these ideas surrounding women’s liberation, and accept the premise that it is possible for a Jewish social revolution against traditional European norms to be a good thing, we are still left confused.

You’re right Little Andy, specifically ones like Harvey Weinstein, who you defend. Also his legal team, whose arguments about “White Women being whores,” you steal.

I don’t want to sink to the level of a feminist white knight neo-Nazi and psychoanalyze anyone, but as a general observation, neo-Nazism is an extremely anti-social movement, which attracts primarily anti-social people, and anti-social people tend to wallow in failure. As a sexual strategy, there is none worse than white knighting. If you are trying to get into a relationship by respecting women, you are always going to fail, until you finally decide to be the pay-pig of a single mother or a woman over the age of 27. So if neo-Nazis are attracted to failure as a principle, it makes sense that they would be white knights.

Nothing says pro-social like a movement of White Women hating losers who make not getting any pussy fundamental to their identify. I guess TrumpTrainwreck1488 is merely wallowing in the success of keeping his precious virginity intact at the ripe old age of 40 by posting on these pro-social Serious Goy Great Optics Republican Outsiders forum.

Go read the article I wrote on the above. It’s hilarious. Dating advice from a permavirgin, and it’s free!

Anyway, just blitz through the end of his rant. I included pictures of these people so you can chuckle.

It is also true that neo-Nazis tend to be overweight slobs, who presumably have little or no experience with women, and it is possible that they honestly believe that what women are going around looking for is the man that is capable of respecting them the hardest. Beyond that, I think a lot of them are just fundamentally stupid, and will believe what people tell them, because it is easy to believe what someone tells you.

The neo-Nazi movement has spent years attacking me, often over my lack of respect for women, and they appear to now be attempting to draw a hard line against me, Nick Fuentes, Scott Greer and others who refuse to respect women by defining their movement as a place for woman-respecters.

I endorse that gambit. From what I have seen of the people attempting to defend the women that had sex with Harvey Weinstein, they are engaging in such dishonest and retarded arguments that quarantining people based on this issue is a very smart move.

If you are in the “I stand with Harvey’s girls” camp, then I agree that this website is not for you. Although if you were in that camp, I seriously doubt you would have read this far.

It’s done. It’s finally, mercifully over. It’s finished. There is no more meth fueled manlet rage on that page. There are three more to go, but I’m only going to highlight the funniest and most retarded shit he says. My work on this piece is over. I can finally rest.

The sheer relief that I feel. My goodness he just keeps going. On and on and on about how we’re secretly pushing intergenerational feminist queer theories of being or whatever. It’s just so fucking stupid.

I’m going to take a short break from the Andrew Anglin is a Biological Failure pieces. Maybe just a day, maybe longer. And besides, his sidekick Weev is just as much of a LOLcow.

In any case, I need a detox from the Manlet Cult. It’s exhausting covering such creatures. I usually end with a Tune In Next Time segment, but I think I’ll just cover real news for a while.

You may also like


  1. I honestly don’t think he wrote any of that. I suspect some Jew handed those articles to him and said “make some edits so we can pass this off as yours goy” and he did. The sheer amount of talmudry contained in that body of work is staggering if you think about it.

    1. And no this is not a defense of anglin I just think he had help. He couldn’t have come up with all that insane shit on his own. It’s straight out of the mind of a subversive Jew.

      1. There’s no question that “White Women Baaaaad,” is 100% a jew meme. Beyond that, so many goddamn words. It takes time to write 7,600+ words, but he just kept knocking this garbage out. Suspicious, but it could be the result of manlet rage + meth + he’d previously written some of that material and repurposed it.

        1. The more I look at him the more I agree with your theory. I always suspected that even a Jew was too embarrassed to put their name on such insane policy that they said let our new toy push this on the goyim. He is the irl version of smeagol so you may be correct. I just find it hard to believe a gentile male can percieve women this way.

  2. I agree with most of what you’re saying here about the retarded woman-hate shit that these people do, but I don’t actually think that most of the “groyper” types are really all that bad looking, at least compared to like, your average shitlib (not even the antifa goblins, just regular politically-conscious leftoid on twitter). Even Nick isn’t that bad, he’s a manlet but that’s about it. Sure they’re not 10/10s but you can’t have a movement that’s made up entirely of photogenic models. All of the guys in “AmnatFaggots7.png” (the one with Nick and the 3 other guys) are at least like 4 or 5s. Not attractive but really not “ugly” by any means.

    I also kinda disagree that they’re motivated by “spiteful mutant rage”, or that this is at least only one of the reasons. I think a lot of it comes from having had negative experiences with women in the past (probably in part driven by “simp” beliefs that they had before becoming rabid woman-haters) and then assuming that all women are like this, and trying to cope by having the exact opposite of their earlier, equally toxic mindset of being shamelessly servile to any woman who would offer them attention.

    1. Oh no doubt. A lot of these guys are very young, and will hopefully grow out of their awkward phase, and leave it all behind them. I’m not saying that random guys in the AmNat audience are hopeless losers, although no doubt some of them are. Ultimately though, when you get these guys constantly lecturing normal men about optics, you really need to have a movement that is at least full of average looking men, not a bunch of at best goofballs.

      Anglin and Weev are the spiteful mutants though. Just look at them.

  3. What exactly is this websites position on females then?

    I just read a lot of mocking Anglin and his followers yet again. This it gets kinda old and its surprising there are so many articles on this site dedicated to bashing him.

    He has had self help articles for young men on making friends and to go out and do your best interacting with different types of people but this site seems to only focus on the bad, “short stumpy” manlets who can’t or won’t get laid. Don’t really see the end goal in any of this to be frank.

    1. How the fuck is Anglin in a position to be giving young men advice? He’s a loser who is an admitted incel. He’s a tard who got illegally got his followers to harass Tanya Gersh and yet he dishes out legal advice like he’s some mob lawyer.

      I’ve already given advice to young men. Make yourself attractive, be normal, ask for her number. There’s not really much else to say, although maybe I’ll write something up in a later piece.

      1. I still haven’t really gotten an answer to my question on how women’s rights are a plus for the white race.

        So who should you take advice from? Serious question. Anglin tells young men to be normal and have friends. Simping and “being normal” whatever that means along with putting the girl in the position of power to decide on a relationship isn’t the best advice either. Has this worked for you? Just curious.

        I enjoy seeing the different viewpoints on dating, relationships and pro or anti woman rights, along with the “have sex with whoever you want queen!” mentality. It is quite exhilarating.

  4. You’re straw manning that AA was defending Weinstein’s work when in actuality he wrote that Weinstein does belong in prison for the movies he made.

    1. “Stop strawmanning us Weinstein Defenders you secret feminazi marxists.”

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *