A Response to Andrew Anglin’s Meninism

Boadicea Haranguing The Britons
Boadicea Haranguing The Britons

Boadicea Haranguing The Britons. John Opie, R.A. (1761-1807). Oil On Canvas.

>> Women; Can’t Live With Them [Anglin]

Where the White Women At [Parrott]

A Response to Matt Parrott’s Feminism [Anglin]

I generally resist the urge to get the last word in on back-n-forth arguments. Once both sides have clearly laid out their positions, there’s a point of diminishing returns with repeated exchanges which serve only to dwell on more details and inspire more enmity. That being said, Anglin and several others claimed that my original post was unclear, confusing, and even self-contradictory. I’ll attempt to explain my position on the Woman Question a bit more clearly this time around, contrasting it with Anglin’s.

Against Feminism

Anglin accuses me of feminism, a charge which I firmly reject. I believe that men should be raised and expected to leaders and women should be raised and expected to submit to masculine leadership and authority. I believe the husband should be the unchallenged head of his household and family. I believe that God, through his design of the natural world, designed the sexes for a steward/servant dynamic which is intrinsically encoded in our respective natures and extrinsically required to thrive and succeed in His world.

That’s certainly not feminist.

I accused Anglin of “misogyny” and “dishonor” in my original piece, advisedly, as he has contended without retraction that our women are at least as destructive as Organized Jewry. I’m not in the habit of calling those who disagree with me on theory “dishonorable,” least of all Anglin, but to insist that our mothers, wives, and daughters are, as a class, worse than Jews sort of requires it. While the term “misogyny” is overused in today’s society, and it’s typically associated with feminism, feminists, and degenerates, the irrational hatred of women is a thing, and to compare our women to Organized Jewry is that thing.

Against Meninism

Feminism is a Modern phenomenon, and its antithesis within the overarching paradigm of Modernity–meninism–is also a Modern phenomenon. There are only three valid cardinal identities a Traditionalist should carry, and that’s his family identity, his folkish identity, and his faith identity. In a coherent traditional society, those three dimensions of identity are seamlessly symbiotic, with all of one’s family belonging to one’s folk and sharing the same faith. In our current hellscape, things are fractured and splintered, with mixed and broken “families” whose members each have their own subcultural and transracial identities subscribing to their own customized spiritual remixes.

But neither maleness nor femaleness are valid identities for a healthy individual. I have no loyalty to “men” whatsoever, and women should have no loyalty to fellow “women.” A man can have loyalty to his literal, tribal, or religious “brothers,” and a woman can be loyal to her literal, tribal, or religious “sisters,” but there are no legitimate “men’s interests” or “women’s interests” in the strict metapolitical sense. Men and women are incomplete halves of a singular whole, and our broken gender dynamic must be approached and resolved as a whole system.

Men going their own way and women being sassy and independent should both be shunned and ignored as degenerate and destructive to the pivotal work of resuscitating healthy homes, functional communities, and active churches. A response to feminism is required, to be sure; but it’s not Anglin’s defiant and alienating meninism. There’s certainly virtue and truth in much of the “men going their own way” idea, namely the constructive advice to stop attempting to seek the approval and affection of degenerate women. One should only seek the approval and affection of regenerate ladies, and if there aren’t enough of them to go around then celibate focus on martial and spiritual pursuits would be the ideal. Celibacy’s perhaps too much to ask for many men, and it should be noted that resorting to honest whores for sexual gratification is indeed preferable to courting or marrying degenerate girls.

Against Orientalism

A recurring problem with Radical Traditionalism among Western scholars is that of Orientalism, the construction of false dichotomies between East and West which invariably frame “them” as virtuous and traditional and “us” Westerners as degenerate and modern. There’s some truth, perhaps, in that the East has lagged a bit behind the West in its race to the bottom. Rene Guenon and Andrew Anglin take this too far, essentially condemning us at our root and proposing that we emulate the alien Oriental customs and cultures. He took that to the logical extent and converted to an alien Oriental religion.

Even when Western women are sweet and virtuous, they’re still more ambitious, creative, and object-oriented than Eastern women, for biological reasons. Anglin and others embrace the notion that women are to be more submissive than they’re currently being, then extend that to conclude that they should be as submissive as East Asian and other racially alien women. Our Tradition must be Western and it must be racially White. Within the White tradition, even at our most virtuous and traditional, our women were always a tad more pushy, assertive, and politically active than any other race of women except perhaps for African women for completely natural and organic biological reasons which needn’t be approached as flaws unless they’re taken to excess (as they are in the contemporary Western world).

White women have the highest average aggressiveness of any women aside from African women. White women are more abstraction-oriented than any other race’s women, lending and tending them toward political and social opinions which can and should be afforded avenues and opportunities for expression. Anglin repeatedly dismisses Western women who have strong opinions on identity and tradition and wish to struggle alongside us and support our struggle as supposedly unnatural and abnormal. Perhaps compared to your typical East Asian or Middle Eastern woman, this is indeed the case, but the oldest written accounts from our racial ancestors confirm that our women are simply too assertive and active-minded to be crammed into the Orientalist box which many Radical Traditionalists would wish to cram them into.

White women are a bit sassy, and that’s okay. They always have been and always will be. It’s part and parcel of the strength and boldness of our race, and should be celebrated when it’s properly channeled. Even when they’re being authentically sweet, submissive, and traditional, they have a relatively aggressive and assertive way of going about it, compared to the comparatively anemic and timid natures of East Asian, East Indian, and Middle Eastern women. I’ve seen a White Nationalist girl lead the charge in a bar fight against the Reds. I’ve seen them stand their ground as men twice their size scramble to hide their faces and scurry away.

I’ve seen incredible boldness and courage on behalf of our struggle from white girls with my own eyes, and it’s a beautiful thing. It’s not a defect or a problem, as Anglin suggests. The dimorphic nature of gender differences ensures that white men resorting to Asian women to achieve the desired timidity will have sons who are lacking in the abstraction-orientation, creativity, and alpha disposition which propels so much of what we cherish about our racial identity and its collective achievements.

I’m not implying that white women should be encouraged or even allowed in military orders or combat roles. I entirely get the point of fraternity and embrace and support the cultivation of both implicitly and explicitly male spaces. Males should be encouraged to be more aggressive and females should be encouraged to be more sweet. But we are not only traditionalists but also biological realists, and ought to work with rather than against the natural, normal, and healthy diversity of personality types and dispositions our race presents.

Against Dehumanization

One error frequently encountered when grappling with human biodiversity is the temptation to grasp at solid evidence of significant differences to dehumanize the other. Blacks are genetically more aggressive than Whites, but that doesn’t make them less human. With the right leadership and structure, they’ve proven themselves capable of thriving and functional communities. Even then, they’re not communities you or I would be comfortable or even welcome in, of course. But that’s beside the point. Are we less human than Asians because we tend to be more aggressive than them? I certainly don’t believe so.

I don’t even believe that the confirmed variations in intelligence imply superiority or inferiority. Following from the premise that mere intelligence makes one more human, then Ashkenazi Jews are the most human of all. In which case, I would like to trade in my humanity card.

Regarding gender, Anglin has collected a bundle of truths about how women are more emotionally-oriented, more inclined toward social harmony than social conflict, and more inclined to reflect rather than project ideals to conclude that women can and should basically be disregarded politically as essentially beneath political thinking altogether. Anglin’s habit of distilling things down into black-and-white terms and contempt for exceptions and variations makes for great agitprop and is indeed helpful when pushing back against Jewish propaganda. The Jews are indeed our racial and political enemies, and dehumanization and the development of stark contrasts is a time-honored and necessary component of warfare (and this is all fourth-generation warfare). To afford the Jew an opportunity to quibble about details or name exceptions is strategically foolish and Anglin’s approach is superior to the more “thoughtful,” “nuanced,” and “academic” approaches of other opponents of Organized Jewry.

But our women are not valid targets of propaganda warfare, and this dehumanizing and starkly black-and-white approach to discussing and working through gender issues is self-destructive to our familial, racial, and spiritual welfare. Feminism can and should be fought, and the women who are promoting feminism can and should be attacked and isolated as vigorously as any other opponents. What I’m arguing for is essentially a reformed “white knight” position which is specifically limited to our racially-conscious and traditionally-oriented women. The women who file in behind us and look to us for leadership and support should receive precisely that, leadership and support. They shouldn’t receive derision, disrespect, or indifference.



White women aren’t naturally aggressive or assertive, they’ve been conditioned that way by modern culture that instructs them, from cradle to grave, to behave in nasty or cruel ways, while men are raised to be craven cuckolds afraid to assert their will over them. Do you think your great grandmother ever back talked or cheated on your great grandfather? Of course not.

Children in white American families tend to backtalk and bully their own parents in some cases, more than Asian or Middle Eastern ones. That’s not normal and shouldn’t be happening, it has nothing to do with race. The Arabs and Asians don’t have things totally right either, but they’re way closer to nature and what is right than we are. Western society today is an abhorrent Jewish abuse of white people, rationalizing it like its part of us to be in this unnatural state is not a correct conclusion.


There is a racial component to this subject, borne out by both medical research and historical review.


Where? Do you really believe that bullshit about supposed shield maidens and how the vikings were actually a bunch of p-whipped white knights?

I can’t imagine Napoleon or Bismarck or Julius Caesar applauding a woman being aggressive or assertive over them. Women are only as “assertive” as men allow them to be, and every assertive woman out there is secretly or subconsciously hoping to find a man that will put her in her place. You want to talk cold biology, that’s it in a nutshell.

Women allegedly (again, this is evolutionary psychology, so take it with a grain of salt) test the patience of men to in order to perpetually measure their assertiveness and emotional/mental strength. Whatever composite of reasons there are for American women putting on shoulder pads and pantsuits and nagging you do death while not able to even cook Kraft mac n cheese, it’s not something you ought to be encouraging what so ever or trying to justify.

Women are human beings and can get out of line occasionally like everyone can, but if your woman is constantly disrespecting you-as is the habit with women in America-then you are failing in your role of governor. (which is what most women want a man to be)

Men need to be kings in their home, it’s all we have. Women are for comfort, reproduction, and service, not meant to be competition for our pants. You can say its “orientalism” all you want, but if you look at which way the pendulum is swinging, if we don’t start changing every single aspect of how we see the world COMPLETELY to better reflect our biology, the only hope whites will have to survive 200 years from now will be if some Chinaman who doesn’t let his woman “assert herself” over him is kind enough to clone us back into existence.


The real problem is lack of comraderie and profound ties amongst men. Women don’t factor into it either positively or negatively. The handful of women who want to follow, let them follow, the problem is the tendency to let them get in the way.

I’ll tell you from personal experience that organizing political meetings with no women around is far more productive, because all the men involved act like their true selves when women aren’t around and real brainstorming happens. If there’s a woman around, and she’s single (or sometimes not), political meetings turn into pissing contests where everyone gets put into a competitive mode, rather than a collectivist and structured hierarchal one. It’s human nature: women preen in any and all scenarios, and some men respond. You have to cut this out of the equation when you’re engaging in adult activity.

There are some great women out there who are worth the trouble to engage in politics. But 99% of the time they aren’t, you have to be extra selective and make sure they counter balance other factors.


Matt is universalizing from a small group of White women to White women as a whole. Even the ancient Greeks (who like the Romans had Oriental ideas about women), admitted some women could think and be real scholars. But they would have scoffed at the idea that therefore women are our equals in this regard. Ditto for the Vikings and the shield maidens. A few extraordinary women shouldn’t be allowed to change social norms. Those few women have to find their own way, without help but without discrimination. If they are genuine, they will.


White men who want to become full-time activists need to forget about women for now. There doesn’t even need to be a position on this question, just keep that in your social life and away from your politics. Anglin is completely right that politics is the realm of men and only men, to bring women in is as absurd as a pregnant man giving birth. 99% of the time its not based on merit, but instead based on affirmative action mindset of “WE NEED MORE WOMEN”.


What’s frustrating here is that you appear to be thinking in absolutes and unfairly characterizing me as naive about gender differences. I’ve not said “WE NEED MORE WOMEN.” I’ve said we should generally focus on men but not necessarily shut out women…as women. I’ve not said that women tend to be equally politically useful. Generally speaking, women tend to be less politically useful than men and most certainly do cause additional headaches more frequently. But the pattern’s not so reliable that shutting women out altogether is tactically advisable.

Mosin Nagant

‘Are you an activist’?

…says the authority on what is REAL ‘activism’ and who is really ‘active’ — and on the ‘slavery-based culture’ of ‘Dixie’ and The Golden Circle, and the ‘necessity’ of importing millions of Africans to ‘create immense wealth’, and make Haiti a ‘pearl’.


People are starting to treat this like a “feud.”

I’m coming at this as a friendly and spirited debate, and I assume Anglin is, as well.


Matt Parrott: “What I’m arguing for is essentially a reformed “white knight” position which is specifically limited to our racially-conscious and traditionally-oriented women. The women who file in behind us and look to us for leadership and support should receive precisely that, leadership and support. They shouldn’t receive derision, disrespect, or indifference.”

Game. Set. Match. Wonderful summation.


I would like to put on the record that I wrote about this (or tried to) years ago. I responded to numerous articles on Counter Currents (Greg Johnson). I kept trying to draw attention to the elephant in the living room but it just fell flat. Then suddenly somebody writes something on a website & everything goes *blam*. Well, I’m glad to see the issue is finally being faced & discussed, & not just in a purely manosphere/MGTOW etc context. I wouldn’t say I’m in complete 100% agreement with Matt’s presentation here, but obviously it is much closer to the spirit of the view I tried to put forward 3-5 years ago. (Also, my thinking from 5 years ago underwent a major revolution & in some key respects scarcely resembles its earlier version.) Thanks, Matt.

A more-or-less celibate martial order of brothers is, I think, at this point a necessity. As a set of reference works I refer to The Monks of War by Desmond Seward, In Praise of the New Knighthood by Bernard of Clairvaux, & A Knight’s Own Book of Chivalry by Geffroi de Charny. I have been trying to learn more about specifically pre-, proto- & full-on Orthodox teachings & ways, historical examples etc on this subject, but found precious little to work with. With applications specifically to the ‘reformed “white knight”‘ idea.


Fascinating. I’l look into those books you listed.


I don’t want to cause trouble or stir up dissension, I’ll just say this. There are very bad things happening out here. That’s reality. A lot of white males have been not even just hurt but genuinely harmed by white females. Pretending it’s not happening isn’t going to help solve anything. Understanding the hell so many guys have been through, & are in, is the first major step to being able to reach out to them & actually help them, & to improve the overall situation. I may be mistaken but I think I saw on TYN (I don’t know if Matt P wrote it or someone else) something mentioning Dr Roger Devlin & his ‘Sexual Utopia in Power’ piece (et al). That’s the tack I’m referring to as a starting point. (Sorry if it was another site, it all begins to run together.)


F. Roger Devlin is especially valuable, since his critique of modern women holds absolutely no punches against them, he brings solid data and precise language to the table when critiquing their excesses and abuses, and he has a healthy concern for figuring out how to repair the situation rather than merely stoking bitterness.


Many of Anglin’s readers seem to be operating around the level of the black male with their comments on women. Misogyny is a recurring theme in black “music.” Blacks haven’t mastered masculinity without misogyny. White males are able to pull that off, which what I take your position to be about, holding up masculinity without misogyny as an ideal.

When you write on this topic, it’s like you post two different articles. There is the one you write and the one people respond to. No matter how many times you clearly endorse traditional sex structures, people see something else. Because you don’t include poorly constructed generalizations and all around crude statements about women, you get interpreted as a feminist. There is definitely a group think dynamic operating among men on this topic.

Pointing out absurdities like women are not worse enemies than Jews is not white knighting. It’s pointing out an absurdity. It’s group think that leads some to see something other than what’s there.

Using (coining) a term like Menism and advocating use of prostitutes ought to be enough to make some new waves with this one.


When you write on this topic, it’s like you post two different articles.

I feel like I wrote this in very simple, clear, and direct language, but the DS commenters are in unanimous agreement that what I wrote is impenetrably confusing bullshit. The whole point of this post was to spell it out in terms they could understand and even appreciate, and I’ve evidently failed at that goal.


mr. parrot, In the paragraph “Against Orientalism”, you seem to imply that Guenon preferred religions of the orient over occidental religions for arbitrary reasons. I myself follow Guenon in his judgement, that the oriental religions preserved the primordial tradition in a purer, more accessible form, than the occidental ones. I cannot speak for Orthodoxy, but being raised catholic I have never found an access to religion through Catholicism, but despite it, thanks to Evola and Guenon. Having read them, I can appreciate aspects of Christianity that before I straightforwardly rejected. Do you really mean to imply that Guenon preferred The orient for nostalgic reasons? By the way, for a long time he dreamed of reviving Freemasonry with a traditionslist framework.
secondly, how is Christianity not orientalist?
Lastly, I notice a tendency in your writing of equation of “Tradition” with the temporal passing down of tribal, ethnic or racial behaviors, which, at least following Evola, Guenon, Schuon or Dugin, capital “T” Tradition is decidedly not. Tradition means the passing down of celestial knowledge vertically to the human recipient of revelation. In how far Tradition interacts with race etc, Evola has worked out in his concept of racism which builds upon the tripartite nature of human beings composed of body, soul and spirit. Any ideology who values the phenotype, the bodily race over the spiritual is inherently satanic and therefore wrong.


That is true, although Evola had his criticisms of religions like Islam. If he saw what American fedora wearing conservative traditionalists on FB were saying about Islam under his banner, he would probably cringe however.


Guenon most definitely took it too far, especially in Introduction to the Study of Hindu Scriptures, within which he commits the first error Radical Traditionalists are prone to commit, which is constructing a false dichotomy between knowledge and wisdom. Yes, the West has generally exceeded the East in knowledge and the East has generally exceeded the West in wisdom, but this is not, as Guenon explicitly insists and Evola often implies, a zero sum matter.

I believe, axiomatically, that scientific knowledge and traditional wisdom are two different methods of groping the same elephant. When they appear to diverge, Radical Traditionalists are inclined to side firmly with the traditional wisdom over the material knowledge, even when it leads to preposterous directions like Hyperborean giants devolving, literal Golden Ages, and (yes) biblical literalist Young Earth creationism.

Radical Traditionalists do a disservice to Tradition, in my opinion, by being fundamentalists when knowledge and wisdom appear to contradict, rather than using that situation as an opportunity to ask more questions about how we’re receiving the wisdom, how we’re interpreting the wisdom, and how the received wisdom and knowledge could potentially be reconciled.

The bodily vs. spiritual race dichotomy is a good example, causing many RadTrads to think in a muddled way about identity which weakens our natural and normal prerogative of preferring and perpetuating our kind. There is indeed more going on than mere biology, but that’s taken to the extreme conclusion of choosing between the spiritual and the biological, rejecting the biological.

james crawford

I have not followed the debate between you two/three on the topic, I am only a very rare reader at stormer, and I read about every other piece posted here.
I do however often feel like I’m reading two different articles when I read your (Parrott) pieces. However that was not the case with this one. I felt it very clear and on point. I also agree completely.

Fr. John+

Mr. Parrott – Perhaps you don’t even grasp what is being talked about here.

You are coming at this as if it were a nice, 1960’s Inkling-like conversation about ideas that don’t impinge on our daily life, and Mr. Anglin is fully aware that a war is going on, with the avowed intent of White Genocide as its ‘FInal Solution.’

Between such diametrically opposed views, it IS as if you are talking about completely different things… because you are! When you talk (for instance) about ‘dehumanizing blacks,’ you ALREADY are operating with not a patristic POV, but a MARXIST, MODERNIST POV. The fathers clearly and unambiguously pointed out that Negroid hominids are nothing better than ‘devils’ or ‘demons’ in human form, and dismissed them as a salvagable (i.e., save-able) race, some millennia ago. The Scriptures clearly posit the legitimacy of chattel slavery, as Protestant author Doug Wilson so clearly wrote, and our Antebellum ancestors concurred on.

To talk about ‘#Black Lives Matter’ as if it were a real, ontological ‘given,’ is to give credence to the same mindset that augurs for Miscegenation as the norm (Loving v. Virginia), Sodomite unions, and Female priestesses- It’s all of a piece.

I don’t believe you have thought through what it means to be either: a) a Conciliar Traditional Orthodox, or b) a Self-Aware White Nationalist/Racialist. What and how our Ancestors believed is 180 degrees opposite of the current satanic Worldview. Mr. Anglin, even in his state, seems to more clearly see what you are either avoiding, or haven’t yet grasped. Sorry to be blunt, but Modernism has clearly affected the SCOBA-dox churches, from the fallacy of Iakovos holding hands with the serial adulterer, race-baiter, and plagairizer, MLK, an thinking himself ‘righteous’ because of it. That truly IS ‘another gospel’ – and one White Europeans MUST avoid, or be damned.


I don’t believe you have thought through what it means to be either: a) a Conciliar Traditional Orthodox, or b) a Self-Aware White Nationalist/Racialist.

If, as you insist, being a White Nationalist means not only that I strive for a White Nation, but that I must believe that Black people are basically Satan’s monkeys, then I’m not and will never be a White Nationalist. If, as you insist, Christianity demands that I believe white people are exclusively favored by God and that non-Whites are subhuman, then I’m not and will never be a Christian.


Prostitutes?…i know things like that have always gone on, like alot of other things that are less than ideal, & there may be people who always fall for such vices. But leadership is about setting standards, ideals for people to at least ATTEMPT to reach. If we tell our young men, “well son, its better to visit hookers than marry the wrong gal”… what kind of mixed message is that. Why are we even bothering with all this, if we end up having the morals of blacks and Jews, just with white skin and heritage.


It’s not so much about setting standards as it is re-framing sexual morality in more traditional terms, terms where indulging in pornography is considered worse than whoremongering. It’s a big but necessary leap for the contemporary American male to make. An entire generation of men has been led to believe that it’s no big deal, a petty vice, and that’s sapping the vitality out of our race.

Leave a Reply