>> Women; Can’t Live With Them [Anglin]
> Where the White Women At [Parrott]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.