Like a Gerbil Scratching at the Glass Bottom of an Aquarium
Daily Stormer website, 21 March 2021
(Anglin has declared that any of his articles can be reproduced)
When I was a child, I had a pet gerbil. I don’t believe it remains a popular hobby for children, but in the 1990s, it was something that parents did for children: they bought them small animals in cages. Kids would sit and watch them, like a miniature zoo.
Looking back, it seems cruel, but I suppose sitting and watching a small animal in a cage is superior to playing with a tablet, which is what I see kids doing now. Kids should be given dogs, primarily. I think every child deserves a dog, and it should be a full-sized dog. Having a dog teaches children a lot about life and the concept of loyalty. The dog actually likes you and is not a captive in a cage, like a small rodent. (I will note that I still love aquariums with fish, and it’s a hobby I’ve always wanted to get into. Fish don’t know they’re in a cage, so there is nothing cruel about it. When I finally achieve victory over my enemies and am established in a large office in Manhattan, which will be in the New York Times Building, which I will own, there will be aquariums everywhere including a shark in the main entrance lobby.)
Pet gerbils live in a small cage, with a kind of sawdust in it that they can burrow into. Ours was in a glass aquarium, as for fish.
There were two gerbils, who were given to our family by someone who didn’t want them anymore, because it is a weird burden to create for yourself, looking after this miniature zoo. One of the gerbils died soon after we received them, and so there was only one in the aquarium. The gerbil developed a neurotic disorder wherein it would dig through the matting, down to the glass bottom of the aquarium, and then just continually scratch the glass with its claws. It would do this day in and day out.
I have found a gerbil blog that features a post about this behavior:
Scratching and biting at the cage are negative behavioral signs in gerbils. According to Current Protocols in Neuroscience, these repetitive behaviors are known as stereotypy and are common in caged animals.
These signs indicate that something is wrong, although what that ‘something’ is can vary. You should identify the problem so you can fix it or your gerbil will remain unhappy.
A gerbil will display repetitive scratching behavior when it can’t satisfy its natural need to burrow into the ground. This may be because it doesn’t have enough substrate, or it doesn’t have any bedding at all.
This behavior will focus on the corners of the enclosure. The reasons why are unclear, but perhaps the gerbil’s instincts encourage it to dig there.
This was my experience.
I remember watching this behavior, and thinking: “This creature does not understand that this glass is not dirt. He is naturally designed to live in a place where the ground under him is dirt, and he cannot understand the nature of his captivity, so he is doing the only thing that comes natural to him. He cannot recognize that it isn’t working, because it’s the only thing he knows how to do. To stop doing it would mean to simply give up.”
After a good while of this behavior, the gerbil stopped eating and died. It was not particularly sad to me, as I had no emotional connection to the gerbil.
I think about this strange experience often now, with relation to the way human beings are reacting to our unnatural social environment. We have effectively been put inside of a cage by people with no emotional connection to us. We are engaging in pathological behavior patterns, doing things that should work in our natural environment, but which do not work in the neo-post-modern proto-utopian urban domestic environment.
The most obvious example of this social stereotypy in humans is found in the way that men deal with women.
I have peers, people in my age range, some slightly older and some slightly younger, who keep having “girlfriends.” They move in with these women, as if they are married, but they do not produce children. After a while, it always ends, usually in a psycho performative spectacle by the woman. The woman creates the spectacle for the purpose of making others think the man was doing something evil to her, when in fact she simply got bored and wanted to go do something else.
When men are in the trenches of these relational boondoggles, I say to them: “What are you doing with that woman? What is the goal of this endeavor?”
Here is an example of the conversation:
Me: What are you doing with that woman you’re living with?
Them: What do you mean? She’s my girlfriend.
Me: Yes, I understand that. What is the purpose of the relationship?
Them: Well, we get along and I like spending time with her.
Me: Do you like spending time with her?
Them: Yeah, I mean, sure, she’s funny and we have fun.
Me: Do you enjoy the way she controls your life? Is that fun for you?
Them: Well, I don’t know if she controls my life...
Me: But all your decisions are based around her. Every decision that you make.
Me: That’s the definition of “controlling your life.”
Them: So what are you getting at? You saying I should be gay?
Me: No, I’m asking you what is going on. What is the purpose of this relationship you have formed?
Them: Well, we might get married, I guess, but [insert arbitrary reasons why they haven’t gotten married].
Me: Do you really want to spend the rest of your life with this woman?
Them: I don’t know.
Me: Why do you not have children with this woman you are cohabitating with?
Them: Well, we’ve talked about it, but we’re not ready.
Me: When will you be ready?
Them: Well, I don’t even know if she wants kids. I don’t know if I want kids.
Me: So what is the purpose of the relationship, where you live with this woman, and she controls your life?
Them: I don’t know man, she’s my girlfriend.
If gerbils could talk, the conversation I would have had with the gerbil digging at the bottom of the aquarium would have been very similar to that, I’m certain.
This the normal life-arc of a man, as determined by biology and natural social norms derived from biology:
That was the cycle of life for most people, throughout all of history.
There is a myth about a “shotgun wedding,” which is when a man takes a woman’s virginity and the girl’s father goes and points a shotgun at him and demands he marry the girl. I doubt there were shotguns (or swords, or weapons of any sort) involved most of the time. Most of the time, it was two teenagers, who had probably grown up together, and whose parents already knew each other, who snuck off in the woods together and did the deed.
I’m sure that most of the deflowerings would qualify as “rape” by modern standards, but the girl knew what she was doing when she ended up alone with the boy that was pursuing her, whether she giggled and said “no, no” or moaned and said “yes, yes.” Most likely, the boy would have been pressing the issue for a bit, and the girl would eventually decide to go meet him alone when she was ovulating.
Note: For those of you who don’t know, because they sure as hell don’t tell you in sex-ed: women tend to usually get pregnant only two days a month, which also happen to be the only two days a month they have anything approaching the male sex drive (even then it doesn’t really approach the male sex drive, in terms of intensity, at all, because women don’t have very much testosterone). And yes, it is possible that a girl can get pregnant other days of the month.
Furthermore, if I may veer slightly into nigh lewdness, the teenage boy is going to be so excited that he’s going to ejaculate very quickly, and teenage boys have almost hyper-powered sperm.
So: it actually is likely that the “virginity incident” would result in impregnation. Especially since people were much healthier back then.
Sometimes, this inevitable incident was preempted by more sophisticated parents through an arranged marriage, but that was largely for more upper class people. In the arranged marriage, it was still just two horny teenagers; the parents or others in the community simply took control of the situation, and directed the teenage sex drive into a controlled environment. Also, if the norm was arranged marriages, this gave the teenagers something to look forward to as they attempted to control the sex urge.
The Church did its best to encourage arranged marriage, because the sex before marriage act that takes place in nature was considered barbaric and immoral. Who knows what the rate of virgin marriage actually was, but if you go back and look, you will find that the time between a marriage and the first born child was typically nine months – or just a little bit less. Even in very strict Christian society, no one was doing the math and shaming people.
I’ve seen statistics that claim in America, the (female) sex before marriage rate in 1900 was as low as 10% and as high as 60%, but obviously, people are going to lie about it. It’s a lie that doesn’t hurt anyone. They would marry their first sexual partner, as a result of the pregnancy issue.
The point is this: sex was associated with marriage, whether the deed happened before or after, because sex was associated with pregnancy and children. Whether it was an arranged marriage or a so-called “shotgun wedding,” the marriage was the result of a sex drive, not a result of “oh we think it’s time to have kids.”
What birth control and the sexual revolution did was transfer all sexual power to women. The previous consequence of a woman having sex meant that she would have to deal with children, and she needed someone to feed those children, so she needed to use the power of sex to secure a man who would provide her with resources.
Birth control allowed women to weaponize sex.
It allowed them to gather resources from a man without having the man’s children. She could say “I’m not ready for children.” That was not an option before birth control, because the sex act resulted in children as a matter of science.
This was part of a larger social engineering project by the people who have locked us in this cage.
Women’s sexual liberation was only possible due to the scientific creation of the various forms of birth control. They used arguments that seemed to make logical sense to men, apparently – they argued that they wanted “equal rights.” This has of course resulted in absolute domination of society by women.
The concept of “family planning,” which translates into “women navigating around pregnancy for the reason of using sex as a weapon,” only became possible in the age of birth control, in all its dazzling and diabolical wonder. Up until then, people would have sex because they were horny, the result was children, and the social norms, reinforced by everything from religion to economics, meant marriage. This is how human beings managed the human reproductive drive (excluding Africans, Australian Aboriginals, and maybe some other brown people, who raised children communally like many apes).
Traditional marriage was a legal contract, typically between the man and the girl’s father. That is the ritual you see in modern marriages, when the father walks the bride down the aisle and turns her over to the man. The reason it was a legal contract was because couples might have fights, they might have problems, they might want to have sex with other people, or whatever. Who knows what’s going to happen in 10 or 20 years between two people who had sex because of hormones, so it was written in blood on stone.
Marriage is no longer a contract; it is a pointless, archaic ritual. The fact that divorce is not only legal, but there is such a thing as “no-fault” divorce – which basically indicates a woman has gotten bored – means that marriage has no actual meaning. That’s why it was so easy to force through homosexual marriage: because heterosexual marriage had already come to be seen as a meaningless, performative ritual, perhaps vaguely related to tax forms.
Women having “careers” played directly into this, providing a cover story for the power scheme that women were and are running. The result was no children and the death of the family unit as the core building block of society.
Everything we’ve witnessed in society since then has followed directly from this original sin of birth control.
In the midst of the desecration of the marriage contract, the cage-builders (cultural engineers) were shoveling this romantic gibberish about “true love” and “finding the one” onto the flaming doom-heap. The entire plot was lost. Human coupling was not about children, so it began to be about a metaphysical journey to find a person with the magical power to fill you with eternal happiness.
What they did was redefine sexual infatuation as “falling in love,” and claimed that this feeling could “last forever.” Clearly, sexual infatuation cannot last forever. Once you see a woman in a certain light, over a period of time, you can no longer view her as the perfect object you imagined when your erection was raging. A similar process happens in the mind of the woman, though I would not claim to understand its mechanics.
There is no such thing as “true love.” It is a fantasy, like Santa Claus, designed for adolescents instead of children. What happens is this:
When the sexual infatuation wears off, you no longer feel euphoric around the other person. That, according to the gospel of modern media, means that it was not actually “true love,” and you might as well move along to the next “partner.”
In nature, the emotions associated with the sexual infatuation are your brain tricking you, because beyond food and warmth, your number one biological prerogative is reproduction. After you live with this woman, raise kids with her, deal with all that living entails, of course you’re going to develop a different kind of love for her. That is not sexual infatuation, but is something deeper and more meaningful. You see it among elderly couples.
But here’s the issue: No man ever said “oh man, look at those tiddies, they would be great for my infant child to suck milk from.” If a man did think that, you would think him perverse. But that is the end goal of the brain, that is creating the erection and the love emotions. The sexual impulse is the drive to create children, but it is masked in the psyche. The chemicals in the brain are lying to you about the end goal of your erection.
When you separate the two things – sex and children – by calling the sexual impulse “true love” and then claiming that producing children is a logical decision that you make, you have effectively broken the established biological reproduction process.
As much as “free love” was touted, women never intended to give away sex for free. So what we end up with is a situation where women practicing birth control use men as emotional, and often financial, slaves. Maybe you can do “pick-up artistry,” and go out and put on a show for women and she will reward you with sex, but if you want long term access to a vagina, you have to play by the rules of the woman, and her rules are always that she has total control over your life. (This situation has gotten much more extreme in recent years, where so many women have become obese, and thus out of the mating game for any self-respecting man.)
Men very often end up going through a series of “long term relationships,” which always end, because they’re not contracted, and the woman gets bored. For most people I know, there aren’t any children. If there are children, it doesn’t seem to stop women from just imploding the relationship and moving on. This has been called “serial monogamy.” What it is is a cycle of abusing men, which men willingly subject themselves to, because the chemicals in their brains don’t understand what is going on. The brain is telling you: “you are having sex with this woman, so you need to take care of her because she is caring for your spawn.” But there are no spawn.
Women are exploiting a loophole in your neurobiology for the purpose of enslaving you to them.
During these relationships, the woman is virtually always in a mother type power situation over the man. Men are typically in some kind of personal denial about that. None of them want to admit it, and it apparently just feels normal to them that their “girlfriend” controls their life.
As of 2019, only 30% of millennials were married with at least one child, but thanks to the magic of abortion, only 24% of millennial women are single mothers (presumably, as many as a third of the “spouse and child” are step-dad situations).
Theoretically, women eventually get to be in their thirties, and feel they want to have at least one child, and decide to “settle down.” They usually marry some man who is dopey and well-off financially.
However, a lot of millennial women are not doing that. They are instead just continuing the process of “dating” and moving in with a different man every few years, then destroying the relationship, then going out and looking for another one. A portion of Gen X women are now doing this into their 40s and even 50s, and that looks like it is going to be the path of a much larger portion of millennial women.
The men who get dragged through this process are victims of incredible abuse. It is an Anti-Male Industrial Complex.
Men are simply doing what their biology tells them to do, and women drag them through broken glass.
We had a system that worked fine, and we changed it in an attempt to build a utopia, and now we are lonely, hollow, broken things.
We are attempting to do something natural, to fall into the patterns of nature, and it doesn’t work, because we are living in a completely artificial environment, not different to my poor gerbil.
Men have a desire for the company of a woman, because we are hardwired to reproduce. But if you are not reproducing, the woman is totally useless. But the psyche cannot grasp it.
Clearly, it is more complicated than simply trying to fill a natural role. Human beings are mammals, but our psychology is more complex. It’s not as big of a difference as humanists make it out to be, but we are more complicated than apes.
Many of these men who are playing the role of “boyfriend” were raised by single mothers or from otherwise broken families. (I would classify having a weak father who deferred to your mother as a “broken family.” It’s not functioning as it should.) They are accustomed to female authority, so they are looking for female authority. Women exploit men who come from broken families. They target them.
One thing I’ve noticed is that these men in their late twenties through their mid-thirties tend to have “girlfriends” their own age. That is a question I will ask them: “well, if you’re going to get married, why not get one fresher?” It seems to me an obvious question. These men are often in good shape, and making some money, so why not get the youngest girl possible, if you’re planning on having children?
Because they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re not even thinking about it. They never had to think about it before, because it was just something that fell together, as a result of biological drives.
The family is the root of society, and the collapse of the family is what destroyed our society.
If we woke up tomorrow and all forms of birth control ceased to exist, from condoms to abortion, and we also banned all forms of government financial aid to women (including affirmative action hiring, free daycare, and all of the rest of the various feminist programs), it would take about 18 months before society reorganized itself into a far-right fantasy.
This is what would happen:
We talk a lot about Jews on this website. As a Christian, I do believe that Jews, who define themselves by a rejection of Christ, are the embodiment of Satan’s agenda on earth.
However, the empowerment of women was a prerequisite for everything else that is happening right now. It wouldn’t matter that “no-fault divorce” existed if women would honor the vows they made before God, but a woman is utterly incapable of making basic decisions, let alone grasping the concept of honor.
The first decision that the first woman made was to take the advice of a talking snake that she’d just met minutes earlier.
If the snake had approached the man, he would have told him to get away from him with his weird schemes. But Satan used the woman to manipulate the man. That is our exact predicament presently.
White women remain the most active and aggressive persecutors of white men, even now. Probably, none of you were raised by a Jew, but you were raised by an agent of the Jewish agenda. You’ve probably never had a Jew wreck your personal life, but you’ve all had your lives wrecked by women – if only your mother.
There isn’t really a solution to the problem of “what do we do about women?”
Anyone who tells you they have a solution is lying to you. Any man who says that it’s easy to “find a good girl” is the most vile kind of fiend. There are no “good girls” in a feminist society. That is what “women’s empowerment” means. It means they’re allowed to make decisions. All of their decisions are going to be bad. Every aspect of our society incentivizes the worst conceivable behavior in women.
The option that you have is to not let them control your life. Don’t be some bitch’s “boyfriend.” You’re better than that. You don’t deserve this society that you’ve been thrown into. You did nothing to deserve this. Do what you can, see if you can figure something out, but don’t let them take your self-respect.
In any situation where you are involved with a woman, you need to be ready to get up and walk away as soon as she stops doing what you want her to do. Do not ever engage them in arguments. That is below any man, to get down into this sickening psychodrama that they feed on. Do not ever allow them to dictate your behavior.