All in their time, brother, all in their time.
Daily Stormer & Andrew Anglin Thread
- Thread starter Raskolnikov
- Start date
He seemed to be looking into Orthodoxy before the illness. Probably not anymore.
He discussed it on WangTown a couple of months ago. He said he doesn't think Orthodoxy makes sense for him because it's a different ethnic tradition. It's a retarded take for an otherwise intelligent guy, but I think it's partly due to the fact that people often subconsciously try to find reasons not to commit to Church authority.
Whatever happened to Wangtown? I think he vaguely blamed Paul Town for scheduling problems? I didn't find Town all that interesting. Maybe Anglin has alienated a lot of people who would be good cohosts but a podcast with him would be very good (though rambling and long; his writing is much better).
This guy writes better headlines than anyone on the planet!
Denmark: After Someone Spray-Painted a Rock in Protest of Baby-Killing, Military Deployed to Protect Jew Baby Killers
Last edited:
Some time ago, Paul Town explained on his Twitter that he has too many projects, and that he feels like he would go insane if he added an extra podcast on top of it all. I could try to find the Tweet, but I hate wrestling with Twitter's awful UI, so I will not. Haven't used Twitter in months, no idea if Paul Town is even still unbanned in there.
Wang has expressed his desire to just make his own podcast, but he explains in this article why he hasn't:
https://dailystormer.in/late-for-wo...ssion-and-also-why-do-i-even-work-on-sundays/
No, I think it's just that Anglin needs someone intelligent to bounce off of well, and with most people it doesn't work. The LoreCrime interview was good, but it was really just basic and foundational worldview stuff and probably wouldn't work for a podcast. Beardson and Ethan Ralph had him on and it was fun enough, but honestly, neither of those guys really has the brains to activate Anglins hyperborean superpowers.
PaulTown is a good co-host because he's extremely knowledgeable and high in openness, just like Anglin, so they can go all over the place and explore topics and still tie it together somehow. Then again, PaulTown is a mentally ill recluse who codes complex programs and writes convolute, meta-ironic books in between his mental crises.
Nick Fuentes has too much of his own stuff going on I guess, and even though they like each other, I don't think they work particularly well together. Anglin has let it shine through that they frequently get into each other's hair when discussing stuff. Nick probably also doesn't like that Andrew calls the pope all sorts of names.
I should probably become his new co-host. Write him an email that there's this Raskolnikov guy on an obscure Christian message board who's really racist but also a Christian interested in pop culture. Internet fame, here I come.
Hey go for it, you never know!
Anglin's acting pretty unpredictable lately with his "tumor postings."
He did mention an anonymous co-host might be best and I agree. The only problem is taking the time to vet / test such a person (no one wants to waste a bunch of time with boring or bad cohosts).
Anglin's acting pretty unpredictable lately with his "tumor postings."
He did mention an anonymous co-host might be best and I agree. The only problem is taking the time to vet / test such a person (no one wants to waste a bunch of time with boring or bad cohosts).
Yeah that, and, I am uncomfortably inept at dealing with internet security and other technical stuff. I almost feel like dying inside whenever I have to create a new account somewhere or do a browser update.
I'm also not on the gameruprising forum (apparently new registrations still don't work, but the site plays with your feeling for a couple of hours by making it seem like you successfully created an account), so contacting him is virtually impossible.
Yup, another long-time Stormer reader here 
I wish Andrew would be a bit more concise, but I guess he has his reasons for writing the way he does.
I think he said recently that pretty much everyone who co-hosts for him ends up getting harassed by the FBI. So somebody living in Russia or someplace would be best maybe?
I wish Andrew would be a bit more concise, but I guess he has his reasons for writing the way he does.
I think he said recently that pretty much everyone who co-hosts for him ends up getting harassed by the FBI. So somebody living in Russia or someplace would be best maybe?
Another first class article. Some quotes:
No blowjobs? No sex other than for reproduction? Welcome to hell.
Sometimes I’m amazed by Anglin mentioning obscure thoughts I myself had.
As far as blowjobs, I lean heavily on it being a prostitute level behavior. By having your wife “service” you in such a manner you’re essentially green lighting it as acceptable in general. The problem is, aside from making your wife behave like a prostitute, there’s not much to stop her from behaving in such a manner with another man should she find a liking to one. The head of household already said it’s “acceptable” to “pleasure” a man that provides for her. A potential lover provides as well, butterflies for one, and naturally would need to be rewarded for it, in a woman’s mind.
Now most men will disagree with this and make some case fo blowjobs being an alpha male level exchange and an act of pure submission of a woman to a “real man”.
To be honest I don’t feel women perceive the world in such manner, should a woman grow to like another man, regardless of her husband’s “dominance”, she will fall back on the “skills” she already possesses. No one can sustain frame indefinitely. Since women see men more as enigmas, the line separating a husband and someone else she warmed up to is thin.
By stopping your wife from behaving like a prostitute, you make it harder for her to have the confidence to have an affair. Not having learned how to behave like a whore, a potential lover would have work overtime to pull her into bed.
Last edited:
What's the big deal? It's nothing to do with acting like a prostitute. A prostitute sells sex, that's what defines one. A blowjob is like kissing someone's hand, but slightly better.
I think that's an issue of desensitization towards sexual acts. My take is that if people practiced more restraint in terms of sexuality, then our "standard repertoire" would probably look more modest. I don't think fellatio itself is such a big deal, but technically, it is a sexual act that is geared solely towards pleasure. Then again, it is practiced among loving married couples, and usually not excessively.
Ultimately, I guess you'd have to ask a priest. I have obviously only been in premarital relations prior to my baptism, and I imagine that the attitude towards sex is somewhat different when you do it the right way, with premarital chastity between man and woman.
The big issue about fellatio is that when you go back in history, this is what got people hooked on the idea of sexual adventure and pornography when the Jews brought out Deep Throat in the 1970s. It basically turned sex from an intimate activity into an event for excitement in the mainstream.
So culturally, I am against fellatio the way people talk about it. I don't personally think it's bad when married couples do it, but it does represent an attack on Christian culture.
I think most things are fine, as long as you don't get obsessed with them. A bit of this, a bit of that, bada bing bada boom, it's all good in the hood. But it's true that if you find yourself constantly dwelling on sex, then you need to grow up a bit.
Thinking intensely about sex a lot for a period of time is fine, as long as you cut it out when it starts to get excessive and ridiculous, and then dwell on other things.
Everyone has a different personality and some people can control themselves better than others.
Thinking intensely about sex a lot for a period of time is fine, as long as you cut it out when it starts to get excessive and ridiculous, and then dwell on other things.
Everyone has a different personality and some people can control themselves better than others.
There's this Catholic philosopher I like to read a lot and he believes that sex and procreation are locked together and has also written against birth control. I'm guessing he's walking the walk and not just talking since he has around 8 kids. He's written that it's fine if in the act of sex (meaning vaginal penetration) it is proceeded by other acts of love making that aren't procreative. Based on the anti -BJ arguments I'm reading above it seems devout Christians must be against your wife kissing her husband unless there's a difference between her putting her lips on your lips vs your penis.
In that post, Anglin also is against open mouth kissing. It's almost like he's against sex entirely, but recognizes it can't be fully eliminated from a man's life. I can't agree. I accept the need to limit it to marriage, but I want the maximum quality sex life that can be had within marriage.
Yeah the "no open mouth kisses with wife" is a little excessive. It think it's because, by his own admission, Andrew used to be a terrible whore monger and now he's overcorrecting. You see that stuff all the time. I think Roosh did it a little bit as well, it's probably a natural step in the way towards repentance.
You've completely darkened some aspect of your life, then you see what the Way should be, and then you make an overly rigid effort to completely separate your dark experiences from your positive expectations. "Kissing with tongue, I've always done that with whores, so obviously I cannot do that with my Christian wife!" kinda thing. Our fallen state makes us think dialectically.
He'd fare a lot better if he got baptized and started talking to a (preferably Orthodox) priest about his issues instead of self-therapy via blog posts.
It sounds more like advice that should apply to himself or other people who had engaged in that sort of behavior then. I think Roosh even had a non-ironic/troll article about how you shouldn't give front hugs to a woman who isn't your wife and I'm guessing he wrote that is because in the past he always saw hugging as "kinoing" (to use a PUA term) and a way to get women into bed. In the cases of these men, if it would cause them to stumble then they should be on the lookout for these things but I don't agree with what they are propsing as a general rule.