web analytics
Feminism Feminized western males Hitler Youth Patriarchy Real men Women

Reestablishing masculinity

by Andrew Anglin

Okay, so there are three separate main issues involved with Feminist Podgate 2015 that need to be cleared up for those who aren’t clear on them so far. These are:

a) The idea of women being involved in political movements
b) This site maintaining a male-centric character, and
c) My exact position on the nature of women and the role of women in society

These issues are linked closely, but they are not the exact same thing. Let’s talk about all of them at the same time.

Firstly, the issue of women being involved in the site has never really come up until now. I have published news articles by women, and never really thought much of it. We have also posted radio shows with women. We have a few female commenters, and surely quite a few female readers.

That said, this site has never held the view that it was appropriate for women to play a role in politics or public life in general, as the concept has always struck me as bizarre. There is no historical basis at all for women having a role in politics, it is a completely Jewish concept. Of course, you can dig up some historical individual women who did whichever political thing, but the mere fact that you have to bring up the names of individuals proves my point: there was no time in history when this was an accepted norm.

Currently, because of the Jew-altered social norms, there are women in right-wing political parties, sometimes playing prominent roles. On the political scene, I will support these women because of their views, for purely practical reasons, but as an ideological concept, I am entirely opposed to women being involved in politics.

To be honest, I had otherwise thought little about the involvement of women on the site, as I assumed that female readers understand this position—which I state often—and still continue to read.

Then this show happened and I realized that a new policy was necessary, as I was very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman giving her views about how men should be behaving, and was also very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being a “voice” on the site, as I believe that is unprofessional and ridiculous. I am not commenting on the particular woman involved at all here, as I believe she is a very fine lady. I am speaking of the concept.

And though this view is apparently shocking to a large portion of the White Nationalist community, by any historical gauge, those who disagreed with me would not only be shocking to the people, but appear to be completely insane. This website is a public speaking platform. The internet has only existed for a very short time, but we have a very long history of public forums, going all the way back to ancient Greece. Women were never allowed to speak in these. Depending on the era, locale and the specifics of the situation, sometimes they were allowed to hang out and listen to men speak, sometimes they were not.

For instance, the Roman Forum—Roman civilization lasted for 12 centuries, and always had a forum. There is a feminist website, called Women in World History, which in discussing the forum brings up two instances where women got involved:

During the years of the Roman Republic, women had no political rights. They were not allowed to vote, directly address the Senate, nor mill about in the forum. Respectable women who spent time in public places were frowned upon. Nonetheless, there were times when women used the power of public protest to get what they wanted. One was the demonstration of women against the Oppian Law. Another ws Hortensia’s speech to the forum.

I am sure there were more such instances, but I’m also sure that in every such instance, the entire population—women included—were either like “hmmm, this is weird” or they got really angry.

You could clearly go through the entire history of White civilization and see the exact same pattern: women were not involved with public life, at all. Is there really a need for specific examples though? Is there anyone actually making the argument that women traditionally played a public role in society? The feminists themselves are constantly on about how they have these thousands of years of oppression.

I do not see that there is a debate here on the traditional role of women in Western (or any other) society. We can probably all agree about that. So then, comrades: my position is the default position, historically and traditionally—objectively. That means that those who disagree with my position are not arguing for something traditional, they are arguing for a form of social progressivism. The argument is: “I’m not a feminist, but…”

“…but the Jews did have a few good points.” I mean, right?

No, that’s not fair, and I wouldn’t make that argument. I am open to discussing the idea that some form of social progressivism is good. I don’t think there will ever be any point at which I agree with it, but I am open to discussing it. However, this is not what I am seeing from many of those responding to this drama. They are not openly admitting that they are advocating for some degree of social progressivism—however limited that advocacy may or may not be—and are instead accusing me of whichever thing: “alienating women,” “excluding women,” “attacking women,” “being afraid of women,” “creating a male version of feminism,” “must be gay,” “small penis,” and on and on.

What it is is a reaction to the programming you’ve undergone in a Jew-controlled system being questioned. Your entire education and the whole media apparatus have pounded it into your head that women are equal, and so if someone questions that, there must be something wrong with him. Because there can’t possibly be anything wrong with female involvement in public life.

I am arguing for the exact type of social norms which existed all throughout history before the last hundred years. In order to condemn my position as objectively wrong, you would also have to condemn the entire history White civilization as wrong, which makes very little sense to me. I am definitely not saying something unique or ground-breaking here. It only comes across that way to you because you’ve been brainwashed by modern society to oppose the basic order of nature.

Either that, or I’ve communicated my positions poorly, and I am willing to just assume it was the latter, which is why I’m writing this piece to try and clear everything up.

So, misconceptions

Hunter Wallace—who I like, I am not bringing this up for drama purposes, but simply because he articulated well some ideas others stated—made this comment on the show I did yesterday with Sven:

brad-n-wife The “men’s rights” movement. It’s a reaction to contemporary feminism. It is heavily influenced by feminism and the gay rights movement. You could say that the two exist in symbiosis. There’s nothing “traditional” at all about PUA or male identity politics. Traditional societies interpret gender roles in terms of a greater whole.

Gentlemen’s clubs and fraternities, for example, existed in the Old South. That’s not the same thing though as group therapy sessions for aggrieved and victimized men who are embittered and hostile toward all women for ideological reasons. Elliot Rodger isn’t the solution to contemporary feminism. Insofar as men begin to sound like Elliot Rodger, it just makes a bad situation even worse. I don’t think more Americanism is the answer to the extremes of Americanism.

To which I responded:

AndyHi Hunter,

Firstly, bringing up Elliot Rodger is unfair. He was just a mentally ill Eurasian who realized he was never going to get laid.

The reason that “male identity politics” were never a thing is that all political identity was always male. It is the same reason there were no White identity politics before non-Whites entered the equation. You wouldn’t say “there is nothing traditional about opposing NAMBLA” simply because no anti-NAMBLA sentiment existed before the creation of NAMBLA. Same thing for anti-abortion movements, anti-homosexuality movements, gun rights movements and on and on. By definition, a reactionary movement has to have something to react to. So it isn’t really a valid point to say that it is not traditional, as ideally it is a modern movement to re-establish tradition, which would not have been necessary before the destruction of tradition.

That having been said, I basically agree with you about current “Men’s Rights” movements being similar to feminism or gay activism, though possibly for different reasons. I used the word “ideally” above, because in practice, these movements are not geared toward re-establishing tradition, but simply going issue by issue, advocating for men to have some of their basic rights restored. They use the term “real equality.”

In contrast, I am unapologetically arguing for a full-on return to Medieval gender norms—quite literally. “How dare you interrupt while men are speaking?” type stuff. There is some commonality between my position and the various positions of the Men’s Rights movement, because the issues they bring up are symptoms of the core issue, which is that women should not have any “rights” at all. And this is the default position, all throughout history, so there is no way to claim that this position is not “traditional.”

Modern Nationalist movements appear to pick and choose on issues of tradition, and it often appears that they are choosing based on what they perceive to be the most “inclusive” positions. I approach feminism in the same way that I approach Nazism and the Holocaust, which is without any attempt to soften the reality of the situation. And it should be noted that I do so not solely for ideological reasons, but also—and most importantly—because I don’t think anything else can possibly work.

I explained my reasoning behind embracing Nazi imagery and holocaust denial in some detail during the assault on my base by Colin Liddell and others. Perhaps it would be prudent to do something similar on the issue of feminism.

So, my position is not “men’s rights” advocacy or a form of feminism for men. It also has nothing to do with pick-up artistry, which I find faggy and weird.

There is also some confusion with this idea that I “don’t want women in the movement.” This is more difficult to respond to, as it is so broad and vague. As I have said, I don’t want women in political positions and I don’t want women playing a role of a political voice on my website. That doesn’t mean I don’t want women to come to rallies in support of nationalist causes if they feel like they need to or (much more likely) are dragged along by their boyfriends or husbands. They could have some special area to get together and talk about whatever it is women talk about with each other.

It is the nature of a woman, if she is not being influenced by a man with fringe beliefs, to return to the belief system which represents the status quo. This is a rule to which there are of course exceptions, but the fact that it is a rule is the point here. Women are naturally attracted to power, and if they are not being swayed by the individual power of an individual man, they will return to the power of the system itself.

To me, when I see nationalists talking about how they’re going to “get women involved in the movement,” as in market a political ideology to a woman, it just sounds kooky. Besides the fact that it’s not really possible, what could possibly be the point? And what are we talking about, exactly? I mean, are we talking about single women? So that nationalist websites, demonstrations and other events can turn into singles meet-ups? What sort of idiot childishness is this?

But ah—we do need “women in the movement”! What we need is nationalist men to have girlfriends and wives. Because if a man has a nationalist perspective, so too then does his female counterpart (unless he is some faggy failure at life being leeched off of by a parasite). The natural desire for a woman is to hold the political views of the male figure in her life.

And if we are going to have healthy men in healthy relationships with women, we are going to have to do away with feminism, not embrace it by saying “yeah let’s convince women to join our movement so they can tell us what we should be doing.”

Because it is an eternal law of the universe that if you do what a woman tells you to do, she doesn’t have respect for you, and thus she won’t follow you. And there is no way to sway women by trying to convince them of things. You must demonstrate power, because whether you guys like it or not, that is the only thing a woman’s essence is naturally capable of responding to. It is basic and obvious evolutionary biology, because within nature, a woman did not have the ability to defend and provide for herself and her children.

Status = Power, Muscles = Power, Money = Power. Power is to a woman what physical beauty is to a man. Period. You might like things about her besides her looks, but the bottom line is always going to be her looks, and unless you are some fagged-out beta wimp, you can admit that to yourself. There’s no shame in it. Yes, you’re superficial for looking at her ass and she’s superficial for looking at your wallet, but it’s just basic human nature.

We didn’t ever advance. We’re still the same animal we were before the invention of the steam engine. It’s hard to accept, I know, but it just is what it is. I’m not the bad guy for telling you. This applies to both individuals and groups or institutions. Once more: Women are attracted, magnetically, to all forms of power, because in the natural order from which we emerged, they needed to be attached to that power in order that they and their children would survive.

So, I simply don’t believe that this “okay let’s half way embrace feminism but just claim we aren’t actually doing that because maybe women will like it for some reason and then help us somehow” method is ever going to work out very well at all.

The absolute importance of this issue

Some people are taking the position of “well, sure this is important, but right now we have to focus on these Jews and their Brown hordes.” And obviously, the invasion is the most important issue, as it is the only one which can never be fixed. However, feminism was the basis for the destablization of society. The importance of the Eden myth cannot be overestimated. The root cause of all of these other problems is the feminization of our society—the feminization of men through the introduction of women as social and intellectual equals.

The only way we are going to be able to stand together and fight this thing as men is if we are men. And in order to reclaim our masculinity, we must understand what we have lost, psychologically, emotionally and physically through the Jewish process of distorting gender norms. No man is going to be capable of fighting a foreign enemy while he remains a slave to women.

Beyond that, by putting a focus on male issues, our movement is offering something to young men who are looking at their world. Whereas race can be an obscure concept for young Whites who haven’t been forced to deal with other races directly, and the Jewish problem can be downright esoteric, the problem of being forced into subservience to women, having your basic dignity taken from you as you are subjected to a level of degradation no man in history has ever been subjected to, is something we have all experienced as young men raised in a feminist society.

As such, the offer of “we can free you from women and give you back your masculinity and your power, as well as your tribal male-bonding patterns” means a whole lot more in real terms to young men—who currently have the option of living comfortably and playing video games, rather than fight for anything at all—than “we have to stop these Jews for the sake of future generations.”

On an instinctual level, I think most young men who grew up in this system will perceive a movement which allows women power is simply more of the same.

So, the direction of this site

I have been talking for a while about making this site more focused on male issues, and I want to work to do that. What that will mean is that I will necessarily have to say things that will offend at least most and probably all women, because there is no way around that. I have held back, to some extent, and that just has to stop, regardless of feelings.

I know for a fact there are women flipping out right now about what I’ve just said here about their sexual fixation with power. Because in the same way a man will tell a woman he’s interested in her personality and a relationship in order to get laid, women constantly put on that they are interested in men’s kindness in order to manipulate them and drain emotional or physical resources (generally without providing them with sex). They will do the same thing to political movements, pretending they understand or care about the ideology on some intellectual level, when in actual fact they are only judging its ability to provide them with resources.

Note that many of the resources women seek are emotional, so modern women often get involved in male spaces in order to cause chaos and direct male emotional energy towards themselves in order to boost their self-esteem, while simultaneously attempting to see if there is a man in the group willing to stop them from doing this and thus prove his worth to her.

Women very often react with rage when they hear someone say these things plainly, as they are now holding it as some sort of a secret, collectively (it’s obviously a bit more complicated than that, but we’ll get into that at a later date).

I had somewhat assumed that readers were up on these issues relating to the behavior patterns of women as individuals and as a collective. While some readers obviously are, I have no good reason for having assumed it was a majority, and recent comments sections have shown that this is definitely not the case. I regularly mention these issues on the site, but have never really gone into the necessary detail, and I am going to try and do that more. Can’t promise a regular schedule or anything, but I’ll be both writing and talking on the radio about these issues, and this will be a permanent feature of the site.

Also, just to be a hundred percent clear here: yes, this is now officially a boys club. Male space is needed and this needs to be a male space. There will not be any articles or radio shows from women, at all.


Feminism is a war against both women and men. And it has hurt all of us, deeply. But the only possible way of fixing this situation is to return to the traditional norm, and in order for the traditional norm to be restored, men are going to have to come to terms with some very uncomfortable truths about the nature of the sexes.

14 replies on “Reestablishing masculinity”

I only omitted Anglin’s pics and last sentences—:

That being said, women can still of course read the site and comment. I think it was already generally understood by female commenters that this has always been an unofficial boys club, and I think they have generally respected that.

I do have a high-level of respect for our female readers (no idea how many there are but I doubt very many), and of course as a man I feel bad about the idea of hurting women’s feelings by saying certain things that men need to hear. In a non-technical age, women could be shielded from such statements by men by simply not being allowed in the room. But we are living in a technological age, where I am right now speaking to thousands of people on a completely public forum anyone can access.

—which can only be perceived as weakness from the POV of the little reds riding hoods we are trying to educate.

A commenter nailed it on that thread, saying: “I heartily applaud brother Andrew Anglin’s decisiveness on this matter… The Daily Stormer has the thankless task of trying to wake people up, yet the sad reality is that the public is now so stupid and effete through engineering, breeding, fluoridation, indoctrination, etcetera that cannot even remember history from only 15 years ago, how then can they remember history from a century ago?”

Ironic that the commentor who “nailed it” also happens to be a commentor whom Chechar repeatedly attacked and informed is not welcome on Chechar’s site.

I wonder what that means….

PM Jlorik’s comment below, is true, and is an ancient Aryan custom that predates any European country in their present forms. A man was required to have a wife before he would be taken seriously by the other men, for only through the begetting of children could he repay his ancestral debt of life, by continuing the River of Life.
Yes, women did have considerable influence, in the home.

I’m not sure what she means by ‘bro code’, and it seems to me she’s used it in the negative, when in fact there is also a positive side to it.

I have more than one handle/name.

I recognize my words. I think it’s been a year and half since I visited your site, pregnant with many powerful seeds, and a few fatal blind spots.

It is my understanding that, historically, in ancient Europe, not all men but only married men were allowed to vote and have a political voice, because by having a family, he actually had an investment in the future of that society. I believe the idea was, that that man actually cast a vote not only for himself but on behalf of his family as a whole, and in the interest of their well-being and future. Depending on the character of the individual man, and the level of respect he carried for the intelligence of his wife and older children, it is likely he might have held a family discussion prior to taking part in any vote which would have had consequences for the family. Simply because women did not have a vote or a voice in the public theatre of politics, it is not to say they had no influence on decision-making. Rather, that those discussions were held in the privacy of the family home, as they should be, and the man spoke for the family publicly, as he should.

I think it is important that for the future of our people, men and women need to set aside petty animosities, feminism certainly, but also ‘bro-code’ism as well. Each in our traditional roles, we need to work as a team now more than ever before. A man and a woman, each playing their traditional role, are as two columns holding up the beam above a doorway. The door to the future.

You took the words right out of my mouth, jlorik.

I haven’t seen you comment at the Odalist Forum society with the other TP followers… have you registered yet, or are you simply not there?

No, Originist, the previous failed forum project took too much of my time and energy, and I was all ‘forummed-out’. And now, I am focussing my energies on my upcoming move to the homeland!

I’m sorry to hear that. If you ever miss forums, I can testify to its succsss much more highly than of that “other” forum. I get a lot out of it, even though I am not actively commenting there because I only use it as reference for now. A few people ask about you, so we hope (myself included) you come back someday.

My comment on Anglin's new article on DS. He wrote:

Who would have thought this would be such a problem on a neo-Nazi website?… Throughout this process, I began to realize that a large number of commenters on this site believe in some form of feminism… so the fact that about 35-40% of those commenting were expressing feminist beliefs was shocking… I can’t even grasp the concept of a Nazi feminist. But there they all are in the comments section.

Hello, Anglin. It looks like, originally, you committed exactly the same mistake I committed when encountering white nationalism.

I discovered WN in 2009 and became a fanatic almost instantly. It took me a couple of years to realize that most WNsts don’t act upon what they preach. I collected essays from several authors in a book, The fair race’s darkest hour, where I try to show that those who genuinely believe in the 14 words must abandon WN and replace it with NS.

Just one example. In the other thread I mentioned that Covington accepted females not only in his Northwest movement, which is ok, but in the extremely tough inner party he’s trying to form; and that one of these females betrayed him horribly in the online media.

Covington’s case is symptomatic of what you and I are trying to say. He’s no mere reactionary like many of those who comment here. He’s a true revolutionary that claims to be working toward establishing a NS state within a corner of the US.

While I do recommend his novels, especially The Brigade, it took time to realize that Covington was a phony Nazi. For Hitler (incidentally, I’m adding excerpts of Hitler’s table talks in my blog on a daily basis) it would have been unthinkable to accept a woman in a position of great responsibility in the party, as Covington did. Absolutely unthinkable!

So you have the toughest revolutionary American racist in the US… subscribing feminism in his futuristic “Nazi” novels! (“The new government department consisted of 342 people plus himself, about evenly split between male and female”, wrote Covington as I pointed out in the other DS thread, “Departure of a Comrade”).

The drama that is unfolding now [“I couldn’t believe the initial response in the comments, man”—Anglin], not only here but at Occidental Dissent as well, only corroborates what I already knew: white- and southern nationalisms are fake movements. The real thing is National Socialism. My prediction is that those 35-40% commenters you mention above won’t ever grasp it. We need another constellation of men.

This whole episode has greatly lowered my opinion of Andrew Anglin. Let’s just remember the fact that all that happened was that a female was included in one of the site’s podcasts: that’s it! And he chose to destroy a working relationship over this insignificant issue.

If we were talking about a warrior caste or inner party leadership this issue of female inclusion would be a serious debate. But this is just a website with mostly just news articles, and podcasts, how does it make sense to exclude women? There is only online interaction so the problems of white knighting and sex appeal are minimal if nonexistent. Women tend to have higher verbal IQ’s than men, so their skills and input would be greatly beneficial in such a context.

Nothing of this smacks of masculinity at all. It smacks of immaturity and poorly digested “red pill” manosphere memes applied in a completely senseless way.

I am not a regular reader of DS. But I can say that in 2006, before I became racialist, it bothered me greatly that over a board (now defunct) I used to comment about child abuse I simply could not speak my mind. A woman got so offended that she quit the BB board.

Obviously, even in mere talking spaces men must have a place of their own. Presently I never speak in front of a woman in real life. My speech is so lycanthropic so to speak (see first comment in this thread), so filled with hatred and anger that no member of the fair sex can bear it. It’s just too much. But males understand it perfectly and enjoy the passion.

If you speak to women you become perforce feminized (this is spite of the fact that Jlorik and other women have made very pertinent comments in this blog).

Anglin has a point: he’s just following millenarian ways. It’s this generation of nuts who have invented this ideology and have no memory that even a few decades ago most westerners lived under another sky altogether.

Reblogged this on vikingbitch's Blog and commented:
I personally have no problems with men having their own space. Why not? All I have ask in return is that men allow Working White Women to have our own space.

Boundaries are needed FOR BOTH SEXES. It is healthy.

I do not tell men how to do their jobs or professions. Please do not tell me how to MY JOB as a mother and home tender.

To put it bluntly, you stay in your lane and I will stay in mine.

Do not tell me how to raise my kids. Do not tell me how to discipline them. Do not tell me that my kids are bad apples because I am not married. Do not look down on my family. Do not tell me how to clean, cook, etc.


White Men and Women are too busy talking smack about one another and engaging in trash talk. It is divisive and cruel and really just a waste of time.

That is why I started my blog, so I can have MY OWN SPACE. If people do not like it, men or women, they do not have to come by. Anyone is welcome to comment as long as they do not insult me or other people.

Until homemaking, women-oriented professions, and child bearing are respected again, the White Race will continue to die off.

Respect involves giving people their space. Men need to give women their space. Women need to give men their space.

Not only men, BUT OTHER WHITE WOMEN, look down on other white women and their roles as mother, caregiver, caretaker, etc.

White Men look down on other White Men over income, job duties, etc.

This bogus WN movement is rife with classism and sexism FROM BOTH SIDES. It lacks respect.

I do not comment on Daily Stormer. I don’t want to. I don’t comment on Amren. I don’t want to. My opinions are not wanted there so I create my own space to voice them.

Moving on now….

I have been called abrasive. Hey, I am, that is why I call my blog Viking Bitch. I need MY SPACE to BITCH and MOAN and BE AS RUDE AS I WANT TO BE because frankly, I get tired of having to be polite to azzzzzzzzzholes in my everyday, and that includes DieVersity and men like those found on Amren who intellectualize how one should fart.

Just like men need their space to bitch and moan, so do women. It is good to have space because WE ALL NEED IT. It is healthy.

I am a re -establishing White Women’s space. I am tired of accommodating DieVersity’s and Amren-type male egos.

Anglin’s reference to Eden in support of his argument was humorous. It seems Jewish mythology/ideology is fine when it suits his agenda, lol. Anglin is bitter much like the radical feminists. So many parallels….

Comments are closed.