Neo-Nazi White Knights Go All in on Defending the Honor of Women Who had Sex with Harvey Weinstein

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
March 13, 2020

“My lady, thou art my muse, my white goddess, mine Aryan princess, and it is for thine honour and the beauty of thin alabaster skin that I mount my steed and ride…” -Ballad of the Neo-Nazi

In a world of thirst, where masculinity has been crushed under the brutal high heel of matriarchy, where psychologically destroyed men actually believe they can get laid by promoting a feminist agenda, there are two very distinct types of white knights:

  1. There are white knights
  2. And then there are white knights who are willing to defend the honor of whores who literally had sex with Harvey Weinstein

Because surely, there is a class of white knight that bows down and worships women, who exists only to follow their every command, and though this strategy has never yielded sex for him, perseveres onward – but who would draw the line at defending the honor of a woman who would literally have sex with Harvey Weinstein.

Then there is the Super Saiyan mode of white knights: the white knight who will actually, literally defend the honor of a whore so vile, so greasy, so completely debased by a blind and cruel drive for power, that she would actually, literally have sex with Harvey Weinstein.

Shockingly – or perhaps not – neo-Nazi white knights are of the latter category, and have mounted their mighty steeds and rode out onto the internet in droves to defend the honor and alabaster skin of women who actually had sexual intercourse with Harvey Weinstein.

For reference: white women had sex with this fat Jew. Neo-Nazis are defending those women because they believe he violated their honor and alabaster skin.

This has become a massive project on neo-Nazi Twitter – defending these women. The reason that this has become a project is that people like me, Nick Fuentes and Scott Greer are pointing out that regardless of how vile Weinstein might be, these women voluntarily had sex with him and then accused him of rape, and now there is a new precedent of what qualifies as “rape” in America. The neo-Nazis are inexplicably claiming that anyone who doesn’t defend the women who had sex with Weinstein is “defending a Jew,” despite the fact that the entire Jewish system is using Weinstein to create a new law of consent in America.

The argument of these neo-Nazis is that everything the media is saying is precisely true, with regards to consent theory, believing all women no matter what, etc.

I’m going to go through and respond to these claims being spread by these people. I’m not going to post people’s @s, because I don’t have any reason to call them out, and because I think a “clash of personalities” is at least partially responsible for these people promoting this ultra-destructive stuff. This is too important to make it an issue of personalities. Anyway, it is primarily just randos on Twitter (though they are being supported by a few big names in the neo-Nazi white knight movement).

One such neo-Nazi (who claims to be male, but obviously we don’t have any way of confirming that) actually took the time to write up the entire Weinstein prosecution platform, based on a brand of consent theory developed by feminist Jew sex-hoax lawyer Gloria Allred, who is the lawyer of all of these women accusing Weinstein.

He condescendingly says “I guess I have to explain rape by intimidation…” before laying out the entirety of Allred’s case (while calling Greg Johnson an incel who will never get a woman) and then proceeding to claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Allred analysis is a bad person who will never get laid.

I think this poster did the best job of expressing what other neo-Nazi white knights are trying to communicate, so it is only fair to post all of that before I respond to it.

These are the key points, as I understand them:

  1. Harvey Weinstein is a serial rapist.
  2. The Weinstein verdict does not set any precedent because it is the same as any other rape case.
  3. People who say that this set a new precedent don’t explain what it is.
  4. American women in their 20s who live in Hollywood and are attempting to get into the film industry are fragile and innocent, and don’t know that men want to have sex with them.
  5. An innocent woman in her 20s who lives in Hollywood and is an aspiring actress doesn’t know that when she’s invited up to Harvey Weinstein’s hotel room and he answers the door in a bathrobe that he might try to do something sexual. They are too innocent to imagine that.
  6. Women are victims of “power dynamics.” A woman who is in a hotel room with Harvey Weinstein and is shocked to find that Harvey Weinstein, after inviting her to his hotel room and answering the door in a bathrobe, has become sexually aggressive with her, can’t scream out because she is too shocked and terrified. Plus she’s worried about her career.
  7. Fuck you.
  8. People who do not believe in consent theory and power dynamics, and various other modern feminist concepts regarding men and sex, are ugly, and they don’t want Harvey Weinstein to go to jail because he is also ugly like them.
  9. It is stupid to believe that legal cases set legal precedent. The justice system is already corrupt so it doesn’t matter. People shouldn’t worry about the precedent because the justice system favors people like Weinstein.
  10. Women who had sex with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for career advancement are not whores.
  11. Women who have sex for money in pornography are not whores.
  12. Men who call women who have sex for money whores are bad people.
  13. Men who do not support feminist theories of gender dynamics have low self-esteem because they are pathetic.
  14. Women should be involved in careers.
  15. If you don’t believe white women are competent and should be in the workplace, then you are against white people, because half of white people are women, and if you’re against women in the workplace you’re against women.
  16. If you are against women in the workplace, you are a loser.

I’m going to respond to all of this, because again, I think it’s important to be clear about what exactly is being said.

I will categorize the different ideas being expressed as best I can in order to ensure that everything is covered in a clear fashion.

People Who Don’t Support the Weinstein Verdict are Supporting the Jew Harvey Weinstein

The basic idea being presented by neo-Nazi white knights to attack anyone who points out how insane this rape conviction is is that they are defending the fat Jew Harvey Weinstein if they do not defend the women who had sex with the fat Jew Harvey Weinstein. To call that “tedious logic” would be far too charitable, but apparently it appeals to people on a visceral level. (I am able to understand on some level just hating Harvey Weinstein and wanting to see him thrown in prison.)

However, who is defending Jews? The neo-Nazi white knights are presenting all of the arguments regarding Marxist theories of “gender power dynamics,” consent theory, female victimization, fundamental female sexual innocence, the threat of the patriarchy, “believe all women,” and every other Jewish feminist ideology in their defense of these women who had sex with Harvey Weinstein.

As stated, the entire theory of how the “rapes” took place was formulated by the Jew lawyer Gloria Allred. She was the representative of all of these women, and the prosecution based their case on her theories.

(I guess maybe these people hate all Jews, but view female Jews as better than male Jews because all women are fundamentally morally superior to all men?)

You cannot argue in favor of the Weinstein verdict without explicitly arguing in favor of the destruction of all traditional European sex norms in favor of revolutionary Jewish norms. The idea of ceding such massive ground to Jews because it feels good to celebrate one Jew being sent to prison is insane to me.

The fact that if they are pressed on their white knight agenda, these people will revert to claiming they simply hate Jews, as they are handing over the entire mechanism of the judicial system to a Jewish feminist witch-hunt machine, is beyond my ability to grasp.

Jews: What would it take for you to support us in a complete takeover of the legal system where we have total power to throw any man in prison on fake sex charges?

Neo-Nazis: Just put one fat Jew in prison.

Jews: You sir have got yourself a deal.


Honestly, I’m not really sure that all of the people promoting this even believe it. Some of this seems malicious, as if they are targeting really stupid people in order to try to turn them against non-feminists in the nationalist movement.

The Precedent Set by an Utterly Extraordinary Rape Conviction

The neo-Nazis appear to be making the argument that Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted on charges of being a Jew who defiled Aryan women. In fact, he was prosecuted for being a man who had “non-consensual sex” with his girlfriend between sessions of consensual sex.

They are openly lying about the nature of the case, which in fact only involved two women, both of who admit to having had “consensual” sex after the alleged “non-consensual” sex. Apparently, these neo-Nazis are counting on their followers having very low information about the case itself.

Jessica Mann, the primary accuser
Mimi Haleyi, secondary accuser

If this was actually a case of outlawing Jew-on-non-Jew sex, I would of course endorse it 100%, as I endorse all anti-miscegenation laws. But that simply isn’t what it is, and anyone making that argument is either impossibly stupid, or they are lying to you on purpose. The precedent set by this affects all men, not simply Hollywood Jews.

I’ve written extensively on the precedent that is being set by this case, which is like nothing that has ever been seen before in the entire history of the Western legal system. The one possible comparison, where an “eyewitness account” was considered enough to convict a person of a crime is the Nuremberg war tribunal, where Germans were put on trial and sent to prison or executed based solely on the very outrageous claims of the Jews. However, that situation was already outside of the traditional legal system, as the allies were prosecuting an entire nation for losing a war (which is already a concept as crazy as prosecuting a man for having sex with his girlfriend in a hotel room).

Here is some of the material I’ve written explaining the societal cost of this verdict:

  1. Consent Theory on Trial: Weinstein Jury Appears to be Hung on Two Counts
  2. The Weinstein Verdict Effectively Makes Heterosexual Sex Illegal in America
  3. “A New Day”: Following Weinstein Lynching, Jew Lawyers Hail Coming Mass Rape Hoax Movement
  4. Consent Theory on Steroids: Harvey Weinstein Sentenced to TWENTY-THREE YEARS IN PRISON
  5. Top Sex Hoax Lawyer Says Weinstein Sentence Hails “A New Era” of Men Getting Sent to Prison

In #3 and #5, you can read quotes from extremely powerful feminist and Jewish lawyers saying that they are going to use this case as a precedent to start mass prosecuting men for rape “without evidence.” And obviously, after this ruling prosecutors are going to be much more open to taking up cases based entirely on the word of a woman.

This is the summation of what happened at the Weinstein trial:

  • Two women who engaged in sexual affairs with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for career advancement said that at points during the sexual affairs, they had sex which was not “consensual.”
  • Jessica Mann (the main witness and accuser) claimed that while Harvey Weinstein was her boyfriend, he raped her in a hotel room in 2013. She remained his girlfriend until 2018. There was an entire history of sweet and flattering emails she sent him presented at the trial. She received all of the benefits of being the girlfriend of a high-powered Hollywood mogul, and would regularly email him asking for favors, all of which he fulfilled. She only broke off the relationship when the metoo scandal began (after which point he was obviously no longer able to provide her with professional favors).
  • Mimi Haleyi (a secondary accuser whose claims were also dealt with at the trial) claimed that Harvey Weinstein forcibly performed cunnilingus on her after she went to his New York apartment “some time in 2006.” The visit came after he had gotten her a job on a TV show. She then admits to traveling to his hotel room to have consensual sex with him two weeks later. She continued to send him flatting emails and work with him and spoke well of him for years after the alleged “oral rape.”
  • Due to the fact that the alleged things happened 7 and 14 years ago, respectively, there was no evidence of the crime. (Of course, there couldn’t be evidence for “I was telling him ‘no’ and I didn’t like it,” since neither of the women claims to have physically resisted.)
  • Neither of the women ever reported the alleged things to the police, and did not discuss them publicly until Harvey Weinstein was being pilloried by the media.
  • Harvey Weinstein was convicted for rape for both of these cases and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Things that were new about this:

  • There was no evidence presented beyond the claims of the women. There were no other witnesses. The only thing that Weinstein was convicted on was their word alone, about events that took place years before, and which they had never mentioned until this scandal broke in the media.
  • The women admitted to having “consensual” sex with him after the alleged rape, with the main accuser literally dating him for five years.

What it means:

  • The word of a woman is now absolute proof of a crime (again, this has never happened before in all of recorded history, not simply in the West, but in the entire world)
  • Any woman can accuse you of rape, because she regrets having sex with you, she’s angry at you over something else, or for any other reason at all, and there is no possible way to defend yourself. The fact that she was your girlfriend doesn’t matter, the fact that you have proof of a five-year-long friendly sexual relationship where you did an entire list of good things for her doesn’t matter. She admits all of that. What matters is that one time, during your otherwise happy relationship, she felt unhappy, and for that you have to go to prison.
  • The bottom line: any woman you’ve ever had sex with can now call the cops and say that it was rape. It doesn’t matter if it happened 7 or 14 years ago. It doesn’t matter if she was your girlfriend at the time. Nothing matters other than the fact that she is saying you did something bad.

We now have an entirely new definition of sexual relationships, where if you have sex with a woman, she has complete and total power to call the cops and have you sent to prison for decades, and you are left without any possible form of defense whatsoever. This now applies retroactively to any woman you’ve ever had sex with.

The Importance of Weinstein’s Fame and How High Profile This Case Is

This case was ridiculously important to the Jews. They were going absolutely nuts cheerleading it in all of the media. The New York Jew prosecutors engaged in extraordinary measures to secure a jury that they felt confident would convict.

That is because this case is intended not only to set legal precedent so this can be done to anyone, but also to inspire women to start doing this to men. They needed someone super-high profile to get everyone in the country looking at it, and have all women realize this new power that they have. If they had set this precedent on a random goy, it wouldn’t have held the same impact. Now every woman who wants to make an accusation knows about and can point to this case, the lawyers all know the case, the prosecutors all know the case.

I simply cannot stress enough that they are saying openly that they are going to begin using this to mass prosecute cases without evidence.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said:

This is a new day. 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.

Tina Tchen, former Michelle Obama Chief of Staff and current CEO of “Time’s Up,” a metoo legal group, said:

I think the Weinstein conviction and today’s sentencing really marks a new era of justice in our country, where survivors are going to be believed, prosecutors are going to see these as cases that they should take to trial and juries are going to believe survivors when they testify and they’re going to convict people…and now judges are going to sentence them for long prison terms. Up until now the reality has been, of every 1,000 perpetrators of sexual assault 995 go free, either because nobody reports them or nobody prosecutes them or juries don’t convict. I think that is finally going to change.

Again: Every time you have sex, the woman now has the option of sending you to prison for decades. There are all of these Jewish groups, heavily funded, that will take her case and see that it gets prosecuted. All she has to do is pick up the phone.

And again: they have made sure that every single woman in America knows that she has that option.

What’s more, to force through a conviction based on the insane concept of “raping your girlfriend in the middle of a relationship, you didn’t know it was rape and she never told you but it was rape and we know because she said so,” they had to have a grotesque figure who was having sex with attractive young women.

Harvey Weinstein was in every way the perfect candidate for this. I don’t know where they could have found another one even close to this perfect.

Yes, Precedent is a Thing, No Matter How Corrupt the Legal System Is

While a good portion of the neo-Nazi white knights are inexplicably claiming that this is no different than any other rape case (again, there is no way they don’t know that it is different, so they are simply lying), some of the neo-Nazis are admitting that it is fundamentally different but simply saying that this doesn’t matter.

They are saying “the system is already corrupt – look at James Fields.”

The difference is that the James Fields case was a miscarriage of justice, where the principles of the justice system were violated. It did not set a new normal where “if you get in a car crash and you have right wing political views, you have to go to prison for murder.”

Meanwhile the Weinstein case means that the rules, as they are written, are that if a woman says you raped her years or decades ago, her word is the law and you have to go to prison. It doesn’t require tricks or fraud, it doesn’t require banning the admission of evidence, it doesn’t require jury rigging. Moving forward, in any case where a woman accuses a man of rape, the outcome is going to be the same, regardless.

These situations are not even remotely similar, and the fact that neo-Nazis are making this comparison shows that they are either themselves stupid, or they are purposefully exploiting stupid people by lying to them.

Here is one neo-Nazi’s take:

I at first thought that this was intentional gibberish, a bit of self-mockery, humorous self-depreciation noting the fact that it is impossible to invent an argument in defense of “a woman’s word is the law now.” But then I read the comments, and I now believe that it is gibberish intended to trick stupid people into believing there is an argument and that they just don’t understand it.

In fact, there is no argument in favor of the Weinstein conviction. You will not find a single one. All that exists is a bunch of men like the one quoted above spewing emotional diatribes and insults against anyone who doesn’t believe all women.

Fundamental Female Sexual Innocence and “Intimidation Rape” in Consent Theory

The “intimidation rape theory” story that the neo-Nazi is using as an example doesn’t relate to the actual case. Over a hundred women accused Weinstein of doing some form of sexual act with them in exchange for professional favors, and of those only 15 accused him of forcing them to do anything (the rest just talked about “power dynamics,” which we will get to later).

The lead accuser in the case, Jessica Mann, was already involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with Weinstein when the alleged rape took place, so she certainly wasn’t tricked into his hotel room. Her claim is that she was already in his hotel room on a routine visit, but this time she didn’t want to have sex so he raped her.

Certainly the claims that Harvey Weinstein told women that no one would believe them if they said it was rape were just made up by the poster as part of his female innocence theory project. Harvey Weinstein does not appear to have known that this was “rape” until the women decided it was in 2018. Certainly, there was no mention of “that time you raped me” in any of the email logs presented in court.

The neo-Nazi above also made up the claim that Harvey sent former Mossad agents to threaten people with “something might happen to you.” (Former Mossad agents were hired to spy on the women, according to a Ronan Farrow report in the New Yorker, but the women didn’t even know about it until Farrow told them, so there were no threats.) Again, there are over 100 accusations, and no one made these specific accusations, so adding this fake stuff is pretty dishonest.

Neo-Nazi white knights invented this claim. They are even more aggressive than the Jewish media in promoting rape hoaxes at all costs.

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.

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.

The play is the subject of a classic meme.

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.

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.

In this painting, “The Fall of Man” by Peter Paul Rubens, you can see that Adam is touching Eve’s breast as she grabs the apple. This is meant to represent the way women use sexuality to lead men into evil.

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.

“Issue” means “ejaculation.” Weinstein’s accusers were primarily mad that his flesh was not like the flesh of asses and his issue was not like the issue of horses.

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 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.”

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.”

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.

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.

The modern feminist view of women as fundamentally sexually innocent has been used to allow women to run wild in society, using sex or the promise of sex (“flirting”) to get whatever they want from men. Telling men that women are sexually innocent, a Jewish agenda, is a way to disarm men and allow them to be sexually exploited by women. And that is what is happening if a woman flirts with you in order to get something from you: you are being sexually exploited. It is a real form of sexual abuse, unlike rape hoaxes.

“New Rape”

“Date rape” and “intimidation rape” are new forms of rape which are based on the premise that women are not even aware of sex. And this is simply ridiculous.

What these hoax forms of rape allow women to do is stage fake rapes. They use sex to get what they want, then use the claim of rape or the threat of the claim of rape as an amplifier to the power that sex already gives them.

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.

The women’s rights revolutions began in the 1960s, so the birthrate was dropping rapidly even before women secured the right to murder their children in 1973.

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?

Yes, Women Who Have Sex for Money are “Whores”

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.

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.

“Women Do Not Have Agency” vs “Women Made the Decision to Have Sex with Harvey Weinstein”

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

Let’s just look at that part again:

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.

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.

A small number of low-quality women will join groups with a large percentage of males because of the power that they can achieve within such a group by sexual manipulation.

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.

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.

The anonymous neo-Nazis making these feminist arguments are pretending as if they are totally alpha-chad and acting like they get laid all the time, unlike the “incels” who don’t respect women. I’m just going to tell you straight up: they are lying. This is not real life.

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.

Men do not get laid by pandering to women.

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.

We also know that the neo-Nazis who go out in public marching through the streets are all absolute slobs, looking very similar to the “I need feminism” sign people.

Do you think these men get laid?

Meanwhile, pro-white America First nationalists are healthy and strong.

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

And a lot of Twitter feminists believe this is a fate worse than death:

Yes, that is a feminist neo-Nazi white knight on Twitter attacking me because I “have to” date a girl 15 years younger than me – instead of, I guess, a 28-year-old single mother – after finding this damning image that I drink-posted on a forum I thought was private (I always try to keep everything related to my domestic situation private, but this is already out there, so whatever – it’s worth sharing because it epitomizes the attitude of these people).

Again: these people are lying to you.

Just Understand

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.

They are exploiting the fact that you were taught in school to respect women, they are exploiting the fact that every Hollywood movie you’ve seen promotes the idea of respecting women to get laid, and the true heroes defend the honor of women, and they are using this to try to get you on board with a vile, dangerous and faggoty anti-male agenda.

Do not fall for it!

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

What…? Why…? I don’t even…

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.

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.

Not so different: Feminism and neo-Nazism are both bizarre and anti-social ideologies that focus on promoting solely negative concepts.

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.