Notes on the State of The Daily Shoah Featuring Andre Wanglin

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 16, 2017

I was on The Daily Shoah last night and really fucked their show up.

Morrakiu, my favorite Alt-Right guy, didn’t even get to talk. Actually he does some in the second half. But not enough.

First half we compared and contrasted the hitpiece on Mike Enoch in the New Yorker with the one on me in The Atlantic. Basically both of them dealt with the fact that Jews can’t deal with the fact that we both come from standard middle class liberal backgrounds and somehow became virulent anti-Semites. Instead of talking about any of our ideas – neither piece attempted to address any single idea that either of us have put forward – they start out with the assumption we are bad and then try to psychoanalyze us.



Interestingly, both of the pieces had the reverse effect of the intent.

They sought to do character attacks on us and ended up humanizing us. The “these people are evil” narrative has been abandoned in favor of “these people are psychologically disturbed,” and that in itself is a ceding of ground to us. Because neither Mike or I were rednecks (not that there is anything wrong with rednecks, mind you), he is from New York City and I have in fact been in over 50 countries, living a significant part of my adult life in nonwhite countries, this “inbred hillbilly who hates everything is different from him” narrative was not sustainable. We both had backgrounds which don’t fit into that narrative and now they’re pretending like they never used it on us.

The piece on Mike was much better written and actually presented a coherent narrative of sorts, whereas the one about me was written as if a 11-year-old boy wrote a fanfic version of the one about Mike. This demonstrates how fragile this new narrative is – The Atlantic can’t even manage to print a coherent version of it.

Luke O’Brien’s piece switches from:

  1. He just wanted to get attention by being outrageous to
  2. He wanted to be somebody because he was weak to
  3. He was running away and just wanted to hide to
  4. He is just trolling and got caught up in it by accident

This is bad writing, it is incoherent.

And yes, much if that is due to the fact that the “journalist” is just bad. He literally inserted community college creative writing lessons into this article.

But this went through editing for months and the editors couldn’t even transform it into something consistent.


Why they didn’t remove the “I was watching his mother through her window” bit, I can’t say.

Also note that it is bizarrely unprofessional to refer to her as “Katie,” given that her name is Kathryn. But the editor maybe didn’t know that. He presumably knew that my name is “Andrew,” however, and you’d think the editors would have found this journalist referring to me as “Andy” a little bit bizarre (my family has generally called me “Drew,” if you want some real deep insight into my personal life, so that makes it double-weird – he was literally trying to get close to my mother by using what he assumed was her familiar name for me).

But Goldberg is a professional kike editor with a long history of running high-level Jewish publications. That is a fact. And he couldn’t make sense of this narrative.

Shockingly to the Jews, this article has contributed greatly to my profile and has caused people who previously didn’t like me to come out saying they like me more now. The single person I have seen using this Jewish article to attack me is Mike Cernovich, who asserted that the fact I was not always a Nazi means that I never could become one (because you have to be born with your political views or they’re fake).

The piece was so confusing and poorly done that despite being a front-page story intended to produce a bunch of articles, the single mainstream publication that covered it was NPR – and they did it before the article was released. If you Google News my name right now it’s all Papa John’s stuff.

This piece, and the response that it’s gotten, signals the end of their ability to do this “HE HAD A TROUBLED CHILDHOOD SO NOW HE HATES JEWS BECAUSE HE HAS TO BLAME SOMEONE BECAUSE HE’S PATHETIC” narrative. They certainly can’t do this about me again. And they’re not going to be able to do it about any of the people coming up.

As we touched on during the show, those of us who are in our thirties had to trudge through all types of Jewish nonsense to get where we are at – to break out of the matrix. Because when we were looking into the world, looking for the truth, there was no Alt-Right. Just 5 years ago, there was no Alt-Right.

The Daily Stormer and The Right Stuff created this movement.

I know for a fact that if the Alt-Right had existed when I was a teenager, I wouldn’t have had to go through all of this. And that is the thing: we have created a situation where young men coming up do not have to go on some mysterious journey through Alex Jones conspiracy theories or libertarianism or anything else. We are laying this all out, so the only way people can get around it is to reject it. Which is something that is going to be impossible for people interested in the truth to do.

That is why they are attempting to shut everything down. They know that we have organized a bunch of facts, then presented them in a way that gets people’s attention, forces them to look at the facts. They do not have any response to that. Other than this weird “WHAT ABOUT HIS CHILDHOOD THO” thing that they did to me and Mike. And you’ll note that they don’t do that to anyone else. They don’t try to analyze Alex Jones’ childhood to explain what made him believe in chemtrails or a water fluoridation conspiracy and they don’t try to analyze David Icke’s childhood to to explain what made him believe in inter-dimensional blood-drinking reptile people. The only thing they ever tried to analyze about David Icke was whether or not when he said “lizard people” he actually meant “Jews.”

People who say Jews are powerful are the only people who get the “what went wrong to make them believe something this crazy” treatment.

But yes: a journalist for a major Jewish publication spent a year trying to dig up dirt on me and in the end he just had to make a bunch of shit up. And that is now over. They have gone through Mike’s life. It’s done.

So now, Jews: what’s next?

Can we now talk about our ideas?

Or will it just be more endless calls to silence us?

Understand this, Jews: If you choose not to address our ideas, you have addressed our ideas with your calls to silence us. We are not going away.

Our ideas are not going away.

And we are being heard.

So if I were Jewish right now, I would be thinking about coming up with a response beyond calling us names, accusing us of believing in conspiracy theories and making up fake versions of what we actually believe. And Luke O’Brien killed “WHAT ABOUT HIS CHILDHOOD THO.”

We are presenting facts that cannot be shooed away.

Basically, you need an argument that starts with: “It’s okay that Jews have overwhelming disproportionate influence over western nations and have consistently used that influence to fundamentally transform the society, BECAUSE [insert coherent explanation for this].”

If you cannot come up with such an argument, this is equivalent to refusing to give a defense in a trial and instead calling the prosecutor mean names and saying he must have had a bad childhood or be secretly gay or something, otherwise he wouldn’t be prosecuting you.

In such a situation, the prosecution is left to lay out their own case without it being responded to. And then it is given over to the jury to make the decision.

Marrying Off 14-Year-Old Girls to Men in Their Thirties

After the first half of the show we talked about a bunch of different stuff, including the accusations against Roy Moore, at which point I ranted about the difference between pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent girls) and not pedophilia (attraction to post-pubescent girls), including the sexual nature of a 14-year-old girl and the fact that the standard age of marriage for girls all throughout history before the last century was whenever she menstruated which tends to be about 12.

I enjoy what the kids call “rustling jimmies” – forcing people to think about things that make them uncomfortable due to their social programming. And talking about how pubescent girls should be married off to men in their thirties does that in the way that saying the word “nigger” used to do that but doesn’t anymore. It’s deeply funny to me that you can still be wow just wowed by Nazis when you talk about the historical age of marriage.

These facts don’t care about your feelings. I do, however, so I’m trying to be as gentle as possible here. 

But there is something more important here.

Everyone has this protective instinct about women, which is clearly extremely destructive at this point in history, and we need to be rid of it.

We also need to figure out a way to get these whores under control. And those two things are tied together. The behavior of women is objectively abominable, and yet they are able to get away with it because of the same protective instinct that makes men uncomfortable when Anglin starts ranting about “if she can bleed she can breed.”

No, we don’t need to actually marry off pubescent girls. But we do need to discuss what the hell we are doing. All throughout history, girls would be having sex shortly after they first menstruated – with a man she was married off to. Currently, girls are having sex shortly after they first menstruate – the average age a girl in America loses her virginity is 13-15ish (they lie so we don’t know exactly the average, but I’m going to guess it’s 14). Except currently, instead of doing it with husbands who are honor-bound to care for them, they are doing it with whomever, then doing it with however many dozens or hundreds of other whomevers until they are thirty, at which point when they’re looks are gone and their pussy as been shot out by an untold number of cocks, they try to snag a beta provider.

There was a brief period, first among the upper classes beginning in the 19th century and then as wealth spread among the general population in the first half of the 20th century, when girls didn’t have sex at puberty and instead waited until their late teens to get married and have sex. Apparently, people who are against thottery and also against marrying off 14-year-old girls want to go back to that exact sweet-spot in history.

And I agree that this is probably correct. We live longer now and we have much, much lower infant mortality rates, meaning we don’t have to have as many kids, so blowing 3-4 years of prime fertility on female education is probably the best move.

Yes, that sounds cucky and I feel a little bit cucky writing it, but there is some truth to the idea that because we can educate women to a certain degree, there is no reason not to do it. It can be beneficial. It can help her with raising kids. And it is just a fact that once a woman gets pregnant, she is on a totally different train than before she got pregnant, and she’s not really going to be seeking to educate herself.

However, it is important to understand that what we are doing is explicitly sacrificing fertile years of a woman’s life in order to educate her, rather than going along with this “OMG THAT’S TOO YOUNG” feminist hysteria which substitutes logic for emotion. And we need to figure out a way to make that work again as it did in that brief historical period during the 19th and 20th centuries.

We’re not going to figure that out by pretending that women are not whores, or that they do not become sexual beings at the same time men do – when they go through puberty. Denying the fact that they were typically married off at this age largely because society knew that if they weren’t married off at that age they would be fucking someone they weren’t married to doesn’t help anything. Calling me a pervert for saying this fact of reality doesn’t help anything anymore than calling me a racist for saying black people can’t go to university and become computer scientists helps anything.


I am tentatively scheduled for Friday on TDS, which is behind their paywall. So subscribe to their paywall. It’s only $10 a week. Just jokes. It’s $10 a month.

We don’t have a paywall here at the Daily Stormer, but we have this Hatreon and people supporting us there by voluntarily subscribing (I invented the term “voluntary subscriptions” and I think it’s a good term – we don’t make people pay for content but we like it if they do).

I always said I wouldn’t ever charge for content, but I’m thinking of doing a weekly BONUS show for people on Hatreon. But then I’m like “wait, is that breaking my pledge not to charge for content by just doing it in the reverse?” However, I think if it was just purely an entertainment show, it wouldn’t matter much either way. If Azzmador can figure it out (he’s our radio guy), I was thinking about doing a live call-in show like the one that Jazzhands and Sven do for their paywall subscribers.

So you all can give your feedback on that. I honestly thought more people would sign up for Hatreon. I guess the repeated losing of domains hasn’t helped anything – except by raising our public profile by tenfold. But whatever. It’d be nice to do something for the people who take the time to sign up and throw us a couple bucks.