Supremacists are principled hierarchists, aiming to be directed by a higher power, not for personal advantage, but to avoid blame.
That they are mostly male is incidental and perhaps historical.

It is my understanding that African cultures resolved the question of authority by merging paternity with fraternity to affirm the importance of the male.

“hierarchists” is yet another word that the internet tells me is not a word. Like “deprivator”
Strange, if there can be anarchists, why not hierarchists? Are we to conclude that a hierarchy does not need supporters? Is it presumed to be coercive?

One more thing: it seems that some people interpret the Constitutional prohibition against agents of government interfering with “establishments of religion” as evidence that religion is superior to the people who govern. Government by the people is resisted by people who do not want to be responsible and reject free will. Perhaps that is the logical position of people whose awareness of cognition is missingg.

U.S. law presumes awareness of cognition and requires intent to define an act as a crime. Without intent, damage is just an accident.

Who knew that it is possible to negate free will by simply denying its existence? Eve disobeyed; Adam just followed his instinct.