Last weekend I observed a powerlifting meet here in Clackamas.

I appreciate hard work and achievement. I appreciate seeing demonstrations of the tactical virtues — Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honor. Generally, though, I’m not pulled in my the drama of sporting events.

But I know Chris Duffin, and I’ve watched him train. I know how hard he works and how relentless he is. He once told me that his tattoo of an eagle chained to his ankle is a reminder that, usually, you are the one who holds yourself down.

I was invested in this one, and the whole thing was gripping.

This artful min-documentary, made by Andrei Miclea, captured the moment.

Here is Andrei’s personal introduction to it, posted here with his permission:

I started training at EPC [Elite Performance Center] in sunny Portland, Oregon about almost years ago now. I’ve always been the type of person who becomes borderline obsessed with everything he gets himself into…this is both a blessing and a curse. One day I had one of those moments where people decide that enough is enough. I needed to do something about my lack of discipline and my general sloth-like demeanor.

So I took up the fairest sport of them all…powerlifting. See, unlike other sports, this one is a pure discipline. Your competition is you, yesterday. Forget about glory and world records, every day I step foot around the iron I’m put into a place where I can either fight to be better than my past self, or I can give up and accept failure with all of its internal consequences. In that sense its the harshest of the sports, because self-failure hits deeper in the heart of man than any failure that is contingent on other people. The weight doesn’t lie, it has no emotions, it will always be fair to you.

And it drives men to great lengths. This is what I see in Chris Duffin…restlessness. They say that very few people have what it takes to push the rest of us Joes forward, he certainty is one of those people. I’ve seen the man fall victim to the pain of an 800 pound loaded barbell mercilessly crushing him, only to bounce back stronger than ever…as if it had never happened. He chases victory as if his life depended on it. And the thing of it is…you can see it. Maybe it sounds crazy…but watch the video and just look in his eyes.

So I wanted to make this mini-documentary because its one of the few contributions I can make to this great sport, if not by ink in the record books…then by recording great feats of strengths such as these with the cinematography and production quality they deserve.

Read this interview I did with Chris here:

Make It Happen – Interview with Powerlifter Chris Duffin – By Jack Donovan

For more about manliness and the tactical virtues of Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honor, check out my book, The Way of Men.

GOP ElephantAmanda Marcotte recently wrote that “White men, as a group, vote Republican because they vote their resentments.”

The New York Times article she cited didn’t say or even imply anything about resentment. It did say that straight, working-class white men vote Republican because the Democratic Party has devoted the majority of its resources to appealing to women, gays and the various groups of less-white men who are nostalgically referred to as “minorities.” The Democratic Party has been on the opposite side of issues that working-class white men have cared about for decades, and according to the Times piece, many strategists within the party think it’s a waste of time trying to win them over.

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but working-class white men. These guys vote Republican because Republicans actually make an effort to tell them what they want to hear.

Basically, white men vote Republican because they’re suckers.

The likes of Marcotte say that working-class white men are motivated by fear and resentment, but the majority of people who vote Democrat are doing it for nobler reasons.

They’re not. Most of them are voting for their own short-term self-interest.

Sure, there is a small class of progressive white men who make a big show of putting everyone else’s interests first. They demonstrate their moral superiority by standing up — mostly online — for whatever “rights” they believe that women or blacks or illegal immigrants or transsexuals or chickens are somehow entitled to.

Everyone else is just voting for stuff they want.

Women vote Democrat because they understandably want the convenience of being able to kill their unwanted children. They vote Democrat because they want free birth control and they want free healthcare for the kids they decide to keep. Women also vote for Democrats because Democrats offer special programs to help women get education and jobs.

Women have always depended on men for protection, but they’d rather depend on many men than just one or a few, so they are happy to vote for measures to increase “security.” As a group, women don’t like or understand guns, so they vote Democrat because Democrats promise to take guns away from men — usually those working-class white men — and give them to the big group of men in the government.

Men have historically been suspicious of what big groups of men will do when they have all of the weapons.

Blacks vote Democrat because they are smart and racist. They were going to vote for Obama no matter what he did because he was black, and like sensible people they figure it is better to have one of your own in power. Democrats, as a group, are known for caring more about giving free stuff to black people. Blacks are smart, because they know that it is always better to get something for free than to pay for it.

Blacks also know that you don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You just go buy one from that guy down the street and, you know, take care of business. White men are afraid to buy guns without following the rules, so more rules means less white men with guns. This is good for black men, because they like the convenience of being able to wear a hoodie in the rain without getting shot by nervous white men with guns.

Latinos vote Democrat because their families came to America to take advantage of employment opportunities and all of the benefits and protections that America offers to its citizens. They figure more benefits and protections are better than less, and Democrats always offer more benefits and protections.

In places with a lot of Latinos, Democrats say that you shouldn’t have to go through the trouble of becoming a citizen to get those benefits and protections. This is convenient for Latinos who are not citizens, because using a dead person’s social security number can sometimes be inconvenient.

Gay people vote Democrat because Democrats offer gay people stuff they think they want. Aside from marriage and the sadistic thrill of being able to force Christians to make wedding cakes, this includes free healthcare. Free healthcare comes in handy when you’re a man who occasionally has sex with guys he met 30 minutes ago on Grindr, or a lesbian who occasionally gets drunk and has sex with men. (See the first point about women above.)

Transsexuals vote Democrat because they want the government to pay for the very expensive cosmetic surgeries and hormones that are necessary for them to become who they really are. Also, they are confused about which bathroom to use, so they want more special bathrooms for confused people.

(Chickens are not technically allowed to vote yet, but we hear they want to be free range, which sounds libertarian.)

As Gari Day, the white male bus driver featured in the Times article said, “Republicans make you work for your money, and try to let you keep it.”

He probably doesn’t understand how the government can afford to keep giving everyone free stuff forever. He probably does figure that some of that money for the stuff other people want is coming out of his earnings. But he’s not alone in that — I’ve yet to see a successful Democrat turn down a tax break. No one actually wants to pay more taxes.

Aside from voting to keep more of their own money and to keep the guns they bought, a lot of these straight, white, working-class men are not asking for anything. They’re too proud for that.

As old-fashioned voters, they see themselves as part of the government. They’re not just trying to get more stuff from the government and come up with reasons why they deserve it. They’re voting for a society that works the way they think things should work.

And that’s why they’re suckers.

Democratic and Republican politicians, like everyone else, see the government as a way to get what they want. Politicians want power and status. To get elected, they accept money from regular people, from rich men, from businesses, and probably from foreign countries. In return, they promise favors. That’s how the system works.

People who don’t want anything from the government are useless to politicians, because they are difficult to manipulate and impossible to please. The government, like every big bureaucracy, is in the growth business. Making the government smaller isn’t in the short-term interest of any ambitious bureaucrat. Contraction only makes political sense when you’re trying to reduce an opponent’s sphere of influence.

Democrats promise more government, and more free stuff. Republicans promise less free stuff for poor people, and promise to lower taxes in return, but they rarely manage to lower taxes for anyone but rich guys who — let’s be real — were usually born into money and didn’t work any harder than the guys driving buses. Many of the wealthy elite are white guys, true, but they care about as much about the working-class white guys as the Democratic Party leadership.

White men are suckers because they haven’t figured out that the America they believe in is already gone, and that they are the only ones who aren’t asking for whatever they can get while the gettin’s still good. They’ll vote reliably Republican as long as the Republicans keep talking about self-reliance and how things should work, and that will free up Republican politicians to do favors for people who actually want stuff.

Start the World PodcastFor the second episode of “Start the World,” I wanted to talk to someone who truly knows what it means to be a man not of the State, but living within it, so called Vince Rinehart, an activist within the Tlingit people of Cascadia, and a senior editor at anarchist web site

Check out his web site at to learn more about his vision for his people.

As was mentioned in the podcast, Vince will be speaking on Friday, May 9, at the Alternative Sovereignties Conference at the University of Oregon.

Also mentioned:

John Robb. Check out his excellent book on 4th Generation warfare, Brave New War. He blogs here.

Listen from this site (see blow) or via iTunes.

Men on StrikeCounter-Currents published an inventively and engagingly written piece by Mark Dyal on the tensions between futurism and fascism in 1920s Italy. Dyal introduced it and linked it to some of my work at his own blog. It’s an inspiring collection of quotes from Italian futurists, as well as an exploration of the relationship between revolutionary forces and the boring bureaucrats who always end up taking over.

Life is Always Right – Futurism & Man in Revolt, by Mark Dyal

I wrote a review of Helen Smith’s book Men on Strike for Counter-Currents, including some commentary on the necessarily conflicted interests of pro-male equity feminists. Smith works as an ally for men, and she aims her book at men, but I think it would be more helpful for female allies of men. Buy it for your wife or your girlfriend or your mom who wants you to get married.

Are Men the New Mexicans? – Pro-Male Feminists Are Still Feminists, by Jack Donovan

Finally, I’ve gone over Bastiat Blogger Sebastian Pritchard’s post on what he’s calling “Septivium.”I hope he cleans it up and turns it into a book. I know I’d love to publish it. He’s smart and experienced, and what he’s laying out is the kind of multi-faceted, self-honing and self-overcoming lifelong program every man should be keyed into as he stares into a very uncertain and unstable future. Become a superman. Or Batman, as the image suggests. Or maybe Bane — the hero the world really needs.

Is the fire rising?

Septivium Begins, by Sebastian Pritchard


Start the World PodcastIntroducing Episode #1 of my new podcast, “Start the World.”

In the coming months, I’ll be interviewing contacts of mine who have useful perspectives and information on masculinity, various forms of revolt against the modern world, survivalism, and other kinds of  ”end times infotainment.”

My first guests were Mike Smock and Ron Danielowski of Pulse Firearms Training.

We had a lot to talk about, including resistance to tyranny, training young men for tough times, masculinity, the tactical virtues, gangs, the questionable viability of the US Constitution and “the future.”

The “Start the World” theme song is titled “Empire of the Iron Glove,” from the band Disiplin. I’ve always wanted to use it for this — it has a “B-movie apocalypse” feel that I really dig. The band is currently inactive, so I was psyched that I was able to track down one of the members to get permission to use it.

UPDATE: If you’re looking for STW on iTunes, it is here:



Raymond Tusk from House of CardsWriting for Cato Unbound, Mark Weiner, author of The Rule of the Clan, recently made several correct observations about the problem of reconciling statelessness or “small government” with American conceptions of individual liberty.

Many of my readers tend toward libertarianism, and I favor libertarian ideas by default. As a natural-born American, it’s in my DNA. You know what I’m talking about.

However, I also think it’s important to look at how the State makes this swaggering self-conception of the romantic one-against-all rugged individualist possible, and how this modern anti-clannishness actually makes the individual more dependent on the modern State.

To begin, let’s look at Weiner’s essay, and go over what he got right.

“The Paradox of Modern Individualism”

What Weiner calls “rule of the clan” is similar to the male group mentality I identified in The Way of Men  as “the way of the gang.” Weiner admits that the “rule of the clan” is a natural, universal form of human organization which exerts a “gravitational pull,” and that it is the object of modern liberal government to resist that pull. He defines the “rule of the clan” first as a society based on kinship, but notes that extra-genetic kinship is possible, and points to the existence of gangs and criminal brotherhoods which inevitably form in the smooth, derelict spaces of failed or impotent State influence.

Weiner is also sharp for making the distinction between the modern, liberal idea of honor, which is a self-imposed standard of moral goodness, and the clannish or traditional idea of honor, where individual honor is linked to both the reputation of the group as a whole and the individual’s reputation within the group. He reduces and degrades this primal, tribal form of honor with a vulgar financial analogy, but recognizes that group honor enables group autonomy and group independence. He also recognizes the profound benefits offered by group identification. In his words, the way of the clan “fosters a powerful sense of group solidarity,” “gives persons the dignity and unshakable identity that comes from clan membership,” and “generates a powerful drive toward social justice — a political economy that prizes equality.”

Weiner’s admission of the benefits of clannishness is significant, because he sums up many far-right and reactionary criticisms of modern liberalism and globalism. The prices of liberal, globalist modernity include rootlessness, detachment, an emptiness and desperation for identity that is easily exploited by commercial interests, a lack of community, and a lack of intra-national loyalty that encourages financial greed and insulates elites from the social responsibilities of nobility and the social penalties for betraying their kin, neighbors and countrymen. As the modern, liberal State is easily influenced by large amounts of money, it also insulates the wealthiest individuals from taking physical responsibility for their crimes and betrayals.

Can there be any doubt that it is only the armed protection of the State that has made it possible for the gun-grabbing billionaire Michael Bloomberg to escape a spectacular skyscraper defenestration?

Weiner argues that the modern libertarian idea of individualism , “the modern self” — which generally includes a freedom from responsibility to clan beyond the immediate nuclear family and voluntary instead of mandatory association with groups — is a in fact a product of state development which owes its fragile sense of individual autonomy to the legal protections provided by the state and the conditions of modern life.

This makes perfect sense to me, because I’ve never understood the weird, crypto-religious libertarian obsession with the idea of “natural rights.”  I have always understood “rights” as a bargain between rulers and subjects, or in the case of the American democratic ideal, between “the people” and “their” government. In nature, men have no rights. There are no police to call and there is no mechanism to sue any entity that has wronged you or “infringed upon your natural rights.” This is why the primal form of human organization is not the pioneer nuclear family of libertarian individualist fantasy, but the patriarchal clan or tribe or gang of men who unite to provide coordinated protection against danger, and a communal mechanism for righting wrongs or resolving disputes. How “fair” or “just” these tribal systems of resolution and retribution actually are is varied, culturally relative, and subject to taste.

Weiner has concluded that, for the liberal state to thrive and continue to deliver on its promise of individual freedom and autonomy, it must do a better job of doing the things the clan has always done better. He suggests that the state “pursue policies that moderate economic inequality,” “provide space for the flourishing of voluntary civil society organizations that provide opportunities for solidarity,” and “ensure that individuals have fair opportunities to exercise their autonomy within the marketplace,” whatever that means.

At first glance, his suggestions sound OK, if you’re into that whole “saving the modern liberal state” thing.

However, after a closer look, they quickly become unworkable. He is also overindulgent of the fictions of the modern State, and he barely mentions the biggest elephants in the room.

When the State pursues policies that moderate economic inequality,  to do so, it must become more nationalistic — more clannish, even — not more economically libertarian. A chief contributor to economic inequality in America is surely the ability of corporations, wealthy individuals, even small businesses to undercut American labor and outsource it to foreigners. A little more economic protectionism and certain degree of nationalistic isolationism might go a long way in the long term, but would be damaging to “the economy” in the short term. American politicians are necessarily short-term planners, because they are held accountable in the short-term, so the likelihood of American politicians acting to serve the long term good of the nation while cutting off a foreign supply of cheap labor for corporations, wealthy individuals and small business owners in the short term is approximately zero. This is probably why, for all of their populist posturing about getting tough on immigration, and despite widespread popular support for immigration control, conservative politicians almost always fold.

When Weiner says he wants the State to “provide space for the flourishing of voluntary civil society organizations that provide opportunities for solidarity,” that sounds good, but the reality is that the State as it currently exists would end up micromanaging these organizations to the point where no one would actually want to be members of them anyway. The alternative would be the State creating space for organizations which, if left to flourish organically in harmony with human nature, would eventually challenge the authority of the State itself. Surely, no explicitly kin-oriented groups could be encouraged, especially for white people, because that would be racist. No groups that exclude women could be allowed, because that would be sexist. And the more the State intervenes to regulate and sanction the activities of individuals who associate voluntarily, the more laughable this whole idea of individual autonomy within the context of the State becomes.

What Weiner really fails to acknowledge with this suggestion, even though it is implicit in everything he has written, is that opportunities for “solidarity” and truly meaningful group bonding are a threat to the State, which exactly why there isn’t more room for them now.

People already express group solidarity in ways that are acceptable to the state and its corporate sponsors. They become sports fans. They invest money and time and emotional energy in a group identity that revolves around the dramatic but completely inconsequential activities of, usually, a gang of men.

If men put the same amount of time or energy into forming a highly visible organization with ethnic concerns, for example, half of their enthusiastic new members would probably be FBI agents, because that kind of loyalty would threaten the interests of the liberal state by creating an alternative — and clannish — network of support. The power of the liberal state depends on dependency, and as Weiner has noted, even libertarianism depends on it to protect “rights” and “liberties.”

Finally, in his ode to the State, Weiner perpetuates the fiction that the American State is some kind of benevolent expression of the will of its citizen voters, and he all but ignores the most powerful actors in American politics: corporations. Corporations amass enough money to fund, manufacture and distribute the scientific miracles we use on an everyday basis, but they also perpetuate their own amoral existences by using that money to buy and exert influence on the American political system, whether they are American or foreign-based corporations. Because corporations can exert so much more influence on politics than any voter, the modern liberal state has become a tool of corporate interests, not as Weiner idealizes, a guarantor of individual liberty.

The clan, gang or tribe poses an economic threat to corporations by creating alternative support systems, reduced consumption of goods produced extra-tribally, and the possibility of supply-chain disrupting inter-tribal violence or violence against the State. The State will always oppose clannishness because the state responds first to the interests of self-perpetuating legal entities known as corporations, and because the State is, itself, a self-perpetuating legal entity that will, like any fundamentally amoral corporation, act to perpetuate its own survival above all other concerns.

If the State is over-reaching and becoming the biggest threat to the liberties it supposedly protects, as many men with libertarian tendencies now believe, the solution is not a return to the atomized, go-it-alone individualism that ultimately relies on the liberal State. The only viable option is to increase clannishness or tribalism, which Weiner correctly identified as the natural counter to the modern liberal State.

Last week, Casey Bohn invited me to call in to his popular “Practical Tactical” podcast to talk about The Way of Men.  Mr. Bohn has been a paratrooper, police officer and a security contractor, and he found out about TWOM after reading a quote from the essay “Violence is Golden” that went viral on Facebook. I don’t know who made that image with the bearded guy who isn’t me, but it’s definitely made the rounds.

Listen to our conversation on gangs, the police, violence and The Way of Men here.

Time Magazine - Hillary POTUSI, for one, look forward to the Hillary Clinton Presidency.

Radix Journal presents my endorsement here.

Why We Need Hillary” at Radix Journal

Richard Spencer and I recently talked to Swiss author Piero San Giorgio about postmodern alienation, the zombie hordes, survivalism in one of the most animated and entertaining  podcasts I’ve done called into in a while.

Postmodern Zombies” at Radix Journal’s Vanguard Radio

Have a listen here, or through iTunes.

Jack Donovan

Author and translator Timo Hännikäinen recently interviewed me for the Finnish site Sarastus (“Dawn”)

For curious anglophones, here is the English transcript of the interview, with questions in bold.

Transcript: Jack Donovan Interview with Sarastus, conducted by Timo Hännikäinen

Jack Donovanin haastattelu

In “The Way of Men” you say that the only way to reclaim masculinity and return to honor and manly virtue is to start a gang. And in your essay “Anarcho-fascism” you say that only new warrior-gangs can rise effectively against “the corrupt, feminist, anti-tribal, degraded institutions of the established order.” Are you aware that this solution may be far too extreme to most men? Especially men with families tend to value organized society higher than tribalism. In some African civil wars (in Liberia in 1990′s for example) armed male gangs have replaced the rule of government and law, but life there is really nasty, brutish and short. Do you think that there is any other way to revolt against the modern world than anarchic gang warfare?

There are no moderate solutions to the problems presented by global capitalism, multiculturalism and feminism. Pan-secession into tribal groups within a failing state is the only alternative I see within most nations.

Half-measures and “sensible” solutions merely slow the progression of these phenomena as international corporations and wealthy individuals consolidate power and control.

Warrior-gangs can include families. Part of the reason why they exist in the first place is often to protect loved ones from external threats. However, if you have only your family and no network of men to rely on for protection and support, you are ultimately dependent on corporations and the State for protection and support. You can see how states and corporations would prefer it this way. The bourgeois dependence on order and safety is how they get you. We’re all used to that, and we’ll have to learn to think differently or suffer the inevitable consequences of totalitarian control.

You don’t have to have a Liberian-style gang. That’s not the only option. It’s definitely not a “starter” option. Think of the Yakuza or the Mafia, or as I’ve said recently, underground networks of immigrants. I don’t think many of us are ready to be Liberians, and I don’t think many of us would want to behave as they do. There are shades of gray between being a complete slave to the State and 8-year olds shooting each other with AK-47s.

In your recent speech “Becoming the New Barbarians” you talk about forming small close-knit communities of people working together to become less dependent on the State and more dependent on each other. That’s what also I have had in mind. In many European cities immigrants are forming their own enclaves, so why shouldn’t white Europeans do the same? Could that be some kind of  positive solution?

Yes, absolutely. Become insular, interdependent and interconnected. Become more local and less global. Fade mass culture out of your lives and focus on developing subcultures unique to your group.

An American writer Waller R. Newell has written many books about the history of manly ideals in the West. His conclusion is that the western civilization has always valued men who are good in both active and contemplative virtues. (This is also the ideal of Japanese Bushido.) An ideal man is strong and intelligent. I think that something has happened to that balance. There are men of action and men of ideas, but in this age of expertise fewer and fewer men even try to combine these two. Why is that, and do you think that it is still possible and desirable to be whole man in this classical sense?

I respect strong, smart men more than strong, dumb ones and agree that this should be the ideal whether it is Western or not. However, as you mentioned, things are out of balance now.

Men need a firm push in the other direction. The pendulum  eventually swings back the other way, and this is how things always happen. There is no perfect balance that lasts forever. We are always moving one way or the other.

I also think that this criticism tends to come from writers most often. I am myself a writer and an artist more than anything else — I am no seasoned warrior or street-fighter. But I wonder if this is not because as men of words and ideas, writers and artists worry that they will become less valued themselves in a hierarchy of virtues that places strength and courage above intellect. It is natural for men to sing their own praises and argue that their own talents are the most valuable. It’s a tendency I am wary of in myself and others.

Yukio Mishima also contemplated this conflict between the world of words and the world of action in Sun & Steel.

One essential part of masculinity has always been the struggle against nature. Farmer, hunter, fisherman, explorer, gold miner and other male archetypes have always waged war against hostile natural conditions. Now man controls nature with his technology, and the virtues useful in the struggle against nature are no more needed. Is the decline of manliness a result of too successful fight?

Yes. In so many ways men are the worst threat to masculinity. Our inventiveness makes us obsolete. Or rather, the inventiveness of one man often makes many men obsolete. If we were inventing our own solutions to deal with nature, I think we’d be happier, but because we rely so heavily on the inventions of others, there is often very little for us to do ourselves.

Anthropologist Lionel Tiger speaks of “bureaugamy”. It’s a new kinship system featuring a mother, a baby, and a government official. Man is left out of this pattern, and partly for that reason men are the outsiders of the modern society. Bureaugamy is possible only in very wealthy societies. Do you think that the current economical crisis in America and Europe can collapse it?

Feminism and bureaugamy are expensive because they demand an inefficient distribution of labor in the service of an idealistic, feminine vision. In her 1978 book, Masculine, Feminine or Human?, feminist sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz anticipated the need for the creation of make-work jobs to occupy everyone and realize her ideal of an equitable feminist (or “humanist”) State.

I’m not an economist and I’m not going to try to assess the current economic situation, but it does seem that the inefficiency or modern bourgeois societies that consume more than they produce are economically unsustainable. And, for a variety of reasons, some discussed by Swiss author Piero San Giorgio in a recent talk and in his book Survive the Economic Collapse, it seems as though it is just a matter of time before America and many European countries see a dramatically reduced standard of living for all but their wealthiest citizens.

When that happens, I doubt there will be enough money to go around to pay for all of these inefficient programs and make-work jobs and massive police states and prisons that make a feminist society possible.

When women can no longer depend on the State for protection and sustenance, they will have to depend on men, as they always have.

You have written much about the concept of honor. In traditional societies the concept was connected to both sexes. What is the difference between masculine and feminine honor?

Feminine honor has traditionally been about chastity and loyalty to husbands, fathers, and brothers. Women have the great responsibility of bearing and caring for children, and female sexual adventuring before the age of cheap and effective birth control was a major betrayal of trust because of the potential to create paternity disputes, or to force a man to care for a child that wasn’t even his.

Because of the way the laws handle paternity today, that is still often the case. A man who raises a child that isn’t his for a certain period of time can be legally forced to pay child support even if he can later prove by genetic testing that his wife betrayed him.

A woman who is known to have been extremely promiscuous will be difficult for a man to trust as a wife, so while it is unreasonable in today’s world to expect women to be virgins when married, a woman who has had indiscriminate or casual sex with numerous men can be seen as potentially disloyal and therefore dishonorable.

An honorable woman is a woman who demonstrates loyalty to her chosen man, to her family, and to her tribal group.

There is no need to project masculine ideals of honor onto women, because masculine ideas about honor have to do with the male sex role. Making women accountable to masculine ideas about honor is a feminist project.

I think that there are two important communities in man’s life. One is family and the other is Männerbund (or gang) of other men. With other men he pursues his ideals and with family he pursues safety and reproduction. There is always some tension between these two communities, but most men need both of them. You have written quite a lot about male groups but almost nothing about family. Is that a conscious choice?

Yes, it is a conscious choice. I understand that fatherhood is an important part of many men’s lives. I don’t have children, so while I feel comfortable writing about the experience of maleness, I don’t think it is appropriate for me to write extensively about what it means to be a father. That’s an area of men’s studies best left to fathers.

I can, however, address the relationship between Männerbund and family in a more theoretical manner.

I concluded my upcoming book, A Sky Without Eagles, with an essay about my ideal society. I came up three primary values: “The Brotherhood,” family and ancestry —  in that order of importance.

“The Brotherhood,” as a cultural feature, grows from the initial and enduring alliance between men that creates a society and makes its continuation possible. The primary values of The Brotherhood are the manly, tactical virtues of Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honor.

However, without women and family, The Brotherhood has no future. Family life is therefore the second most sacred part of any right-thinking patriarchy.

The third part has to do with reverence for ancestors, because even if you don’t believe in gods or souls, it makes sense to honor the memory of the dead. Everyone wants to be remembered, and our past is an important part of our identity — both as individuals and as a society.

When I talk to men who are frustrated with the modern world, they tell me they are angry because nothing makes sense to them. Everything seems wrong.

Everything seems wrong to men because in modern bourgeois society there is no Brotherhood, and all actions and values are subservient to the values of women — to the values of the womb and of family life.

The majority of women naturally seek security and comfort. They want to build safe, happy nests. Many modern women do not even have or want children, but as women they still focus on the same kinds of values that facilitate child-rearing. They want warm, inviting homes and good food and peacefulness and social affirmation and they want to be surrounded by nice comforting things.

The role of men has been reduced to helping them purchase and build and remodel these nests, and on the weekends you’ll find most average American men driving back and forth to the hardware store to buy things to fix or improve the home. That’s the modern male sex role.

This focus on nesting — on the world of The Womb — means orienting society around the buying and selling of things to create comfort. Everything possible is done to avoid violence, insecurity and strife, even at the expense of personal freedom and dignity.

People complain that modern men are nothing but overgrown boys, but the current system rarely allows men to break out of this protective womb and become men among men. The activities of men are always supervised by women, and there are fewer and fewer spaces where women are not allowed. How can a boy become a man with all of these mommies always looking over his shoulder?

The only brotherhoods permitted in the context of the modern State — the police and military — exist to protect this safe, emasculated merchant society from interruption by any means necessary. Women are being forcefully integrated into all of these brotherhoods, too.

Mussolini said that fascism meant, “everything in The State, nothing outside of The State, and nothing against The State.” The modern police state is not fascist, because there is no Brotherhood, no masculine idealism. Fascism is a masculine totalitarianism. What we have today is a tyranny of feminine values. Everything is about safety and comfort and consumption and emotional affirmation. Everything in The Womb, nothing outside of The Womb, and nothing against The Womb.

Family life is essential to my vision of a properly ordered society. The role of women is sacred and beautiful, and women are charged with the important task of raising children to become adults who can sustain and continue The Brotherhood.

Perceiving their demographic doom, many “awakened” white men are panicking and they want to put women on pedestals and put family life before other concerns. I sympathize with this, and it seems logical, but putting family life and feminine values above all other things is how white men ended up in the situation we have now. You have to start with The Brotherhood, and place The Womb in the service of that Brotherhood, instead of putting The Brotherhood in the service of The Womb. If you don’t, you’ll end up with the very same kinds of problems and frustrations men are facing today.

You are planning to publish a new collection of essays. Can you tell me more about it?

Yes. I will be publishing a book of essays titled A Sky Without Eagles in hardcover and as an audiobook in early March, 2014. It contains my most popular essays collected from various web sites and online magazines over the past three or four years. It also includes two transcripts of recent public speeches and three new essays I wrote specifically for the book. It will also be available in paperback, probably in April, but I saw no reason to put together an e-book since several of the essays can already be read online. Many of my readers have asked me to put together a collection like this, and given the semi-temporary nature of online magazines and web sites, it seemed like a very good idea to get the best stuff out on paper so it can’t just “disappear.” I encourage other prolific bloggers to online writers to do this — if for no other reason than to document your writing and give people an easy way to pay you for all of this hard work you do online for free. Collecting your best writing is also educational. You find the common themes and it brings your work into sharper focus. You also see what works, what stands the test of time, and what doesn’t.


Jack Donovan 2013I was interviewed recently for an Italian nationalist publication, Il Primato Nazionale. The interview was translated into Italian, so am posting the original English transcript here for everyone who doesn’t read Italian.

Transcript: Jack Donovan Interview with Il Primato Nazionale, conducted by Francesco Boco.

“Le tribù di uomini salveranno il mondo”: la virilità secondo Jack Donovan

Jack Donovan is an anti-globalist, pro-tribalist writer from North America. He is best known for his 2012 book The Way of Men, and his contributions to publications like Alternative Right, Counter-Currents and anti-feminist site The Spearhead. His work is primarily focused on the conflict between primal masculinity and the modern world.

He recently participated to the National Policy Institute conference “After the Fall” in Washington D.C., together with Richard Spencer, Piero San Giorgio, Alex Kurtagic, Roman Bernard, Alain de Benoist and others.

Please introduce your activities and your general vision to the Italian readers.

It is difficult to understand what is going on from so far away, because one can never trust the press, but it seems as though there is a lot of  nationalist, anti-modernist action in happening Europe right now. This is inspiring.

I write about masculinity and tribalism. My book is The Way of Men is about the nature of masculinity. I concluded that “The Way of Men is the Way of the Gang.” I believe that gangs of men are the spark of culture and ethnic identities. Groups of men are always the beginning — like the gang of shepherds and other men who joined Romulus and Remus and formed Rome. Masculinity and tribalism are inseparable. The traits that men all over the world consider masculine are the traits that small, primal gangs of men would have wanted in each other as they were struggling to survive during human evolutionary history.

The Way of Men is a strong call to action to men who want to take back what is really virile. You say that every ancient culture was created by a tribe of men (i.e. Rome). So what’s the link between male alliance rituals you talk about in your book Blood-Brotherhood (2009) and your more recent work? Could manly rituals still have a significant role?

One of the most interesting points made in our study of Blood-Brotherhood was that sometimes blood-brotherhood rituals were recognized as a threat to the State, because men who were more loyal to each other than to the government were considered unpredictable.

I think manly initiatory rituals are severely lacking in modern society. There is no transition from boy to man, and that’s a problem. Feminists argue that the sexes should not have distinct roles, so any initiatory rituals that could provide direction to men have been abandoned. So, men have no direction, no distinct role, no sense of who they should become, no formalized obligation to other men. They are like plankton floating in the ocean.

In this book you search for an answer to a radical question: “What is a man?” Many people ask the question “what is a good man”, but you reduce the question to its a-moral and most realistic meaning. So what is a man, where and how he can find his real nature and role?

A man is simply an adult male. The questions here is what makes a masculine man.

As I mentioned above, I believe the most basic and culturally universal form of masculinity has to do with the behavioral pattern that men need from each other during some kind of crisis or ongoing struggle. I called these the “tactical virtues.” When they are struggling to survive, men need each other to be strong, courageous, competent and loyal to the group. So the core tactical virtues of masculinity are Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honor. These are amoral, cross-cultural virtues, and they are associated with masculinity in the mainstream of almost every culture that has ever existed. When men look at another man and say “that is man is manly,” they usually mean he is behaving in a way that has something to do with those basic virtues.

The distinguishing role of men in most primitive cultures — our cultural predecessors — usually includes a responsibility to hunt and fight at the perimeter where the group is threatened by external forces. Men define and protect that boundary that distinguishes “us” from “them.”

In this way men are and always have been the defining force of culture creation. Men create identity and determine who “we” are. This is one of the reasons why more men than women are often attracted to nationalistic and anti-immigration movements. The way of men is uniquely concerned with borders and group identity.

You have a motto here: “Start the world”. You seem to have great trust in men and you think the future could be in the hands of the virile and virtuous ones. If men rediscover the authentic values of manliness (honor, …) and then create strong bonds as tribes or clans, these could really become the new fires of history?

They always have been, so yes. Look at what gangs of (primarily) young men are doing across Europe right now. They are protesting in the streets and fighting and destroying the monuments of globalist bourgeois culture. Last month young Polish men burned a rainbow monument  in Savior Square to protest what they saw as a corrupting external influence. It was a very powerful gesture. I admit that I wouldn’t mind seeing Americans burn some childish, multiculturalist, “gay pride” rainbows. It seems like young American men are too busy playing video games or watching sports to be bothered.

Manliness requires the opportunity for risk, and those opportunities are decreasing in our highly controlled, pacified society. Men need chaos to restart the world.

However, I don’t want your readers to think I am naive. Globalists want to stop tribes of angry young men because they disrupt the flow of commerce and make trade difficult. Groups of angry young men often become violent and that kind of violence can turn into something extremely vicious and destructive — for everyone. I don’t expect bonded tribes of men to be little angels. There will be extreme violence associated with gangs of men who are more loyal to each other than they are to the state — think of the Mafia or Mexican cartels. This may not be pleasant, but I think it is better than the alternative: the globalist police state that destroys everything that makes cultures distinct, as well as any kind of virile culture that could become a threat to the police state.

I believe that a new Dark Age of barbarism is the only way for masculinity and virility to survive. I have spent a lot of time thinking about men and masculinity, and I believe this is the only way forward for men. Half-measures simply delay the inevitable and give globalist financiers and corrupt politicians more time to consolidate power.

Many could now ask: what about family, sons and daughter? Isn’t a father a real man?

I don’t like the wording, “real man,” because it doesn’t mean anything.

Can a father be masculine? Absolutely, yes. But a father can also be very effeminate. I’m sure you have met men who have children who are not very manly. And many young, masculine street fighters and warriors may die without children. So fatherhood cannot automatically make a man masculine, and a man without children cannot reasonably be considered effeminate for that reason alone. It just doesn’t make any sense.

I believe that fatherhood is a natural and healthy part of a man’s life. However, for many reasons it is not always possible or a good idea for every man. There have been many points in history when a fairly large percentage of men never married or had children. So whether a man does or does not have children, he can be manly or unmanly. Manliness is something different from mere reproduction.

Recently a new Italian law increased the penalty to any act of violence against women. To the eyes of many non-conformist writers this is clearly a sign of an anti-virile climate. In every aspect of life we see that common manly habits are no more accepted nor promoted. In general we can speak of a suffocating clime against any kind of virile tradition and patriarchal habit. This kind of “hate against the true man” is maybe the spirit of our time (zeitgeist)? How is the everyday life for American fathers and men?

American fathers and men are also considered less important than women. Fathers are always portrayed as awkward fools on television. Men are mocked and called “whiners” when they talk about the unfairness created by the kind of legal double standards you mentioned.

Women are becoming more important economically, and they are far more enthusiastic consumers (and voters). This pleases the people who make the rules, so they will continue to pander to women and denigrate men in the media, in education, and in law.

Your first book was a provocative attack against gay identity. Talk about your book Androphilia. Who is an androphile? What differentiates him from a culturally accepted gay?

The argument of Androphilia was that there is a difference between homosexuality and “gay culture.” Homosexuality itself is not political. It is simply a sexual orientation. Men who are homosexuals can be very manly or very effeminate. They are not all the same.

“Gay culture” celebrates effeminacy and far-left politics, the destruction of the family, the feminist elimination of gender roles, etc.

There are homosexual men who don’t support any of those things. I think they should be defined simply by the only thing that makes them different. They prefer men and masculinity. My idea was to call them androphiles.

There are homosexual men who can be allies to men instead of enemies, who don’t want to destroy masculinity or make men effeminate or push their lifestyle on other men. I think this minority of homosexual men should be distinguished from the “gay” men who have made themselves enemies of tradition and family and nationalism and masculinity.

“Gay” means effeminate, and is associated with disgusting and dishonorable “gay pride”culture and drag shows and that kind of thing.

I should also say that I do not think androphilia or homosexuality should be encouraged. But the reality is that homosexuality is a recurring phenomenon in all human societies. My argument has been that you can torment and alienate these men who are part of your people — your brothers — or make space for them as part of a healthy society that puts family first but recognizes that this is not always how men are wired.

To European eyes the USA seems like a giant without direction and ready to crush against a wall with its economic debt. As the Syrian crisis clearly shows, the USA is no longer the only geopolitical power in the world. What is your vision about American future? Do you think that a multipolar world, so a more free one in a real way, could give more chances also to virile values to be rediscovered?

Small groups are better for men and allow more men to take masculine roles. One massive government that controls every aspect of life over a very large piece of land is inhuman and designed to create slavish consumers — “world citizens.” Smaller groups create unique identities. They create a diversity of culture and uniqueness and a stronger sense of group identity and belonging.

I hope I live to see the Unitied States collapse and break up into smaller, independent units. That’s how it was designed to be, really. The federal government has become too strong and tyrannical. The states of the US are the size of European countries. California is the about size of Sweden, and alone it has one of the biggest economies in the world. It should be more independent and Californians should be able to make their own decisions and have their own way of life. A natural separation between northern and southern California would make things even better. The smaller, the better.

Recently you spoke at the NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Tell us something about the venue and the other speakers. Your speech was entitled “Becoming the New Barbarians”.

The NPI conference was held in the Ronald Reagan building, a very large, secure convention center. When I was invited by Richard Spencer, who I knew as the founder of Alternative Right, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I thought that some of the speakers would be talking about forming some kind of political party to “take back” America. I thought I would be the only one talking about abandoning the idea of America and concentrating on other strategies for preserving a sense of identity (or creating new ones). Instead, I found that there was an unexpected consensus. Most of the speakers seemed to agree that America was in decline, and that this decline would eventually provide opportunities to provide alternatives to the American way of life.

Americans don’t have a very firmly rooted identity. Many of our families were immigrants from Europe only a few generations ago — my father’s family came from England in the mid 1800s — so the kinds of nationalistic movements that are happening in Europe today are impossible here.

The international bankers and corporations want Americans to become increasingly weak and feminized. They want to sell us fractured, meaningless commercial identities that can never threaten their financial interests. For these reasons, I told the audience that the mainstream media and the universities and the well-funded corporate political interests in America will continue to promote feminism and multiculturalism, and they will continue to fight any kind of white tribalism or resurgence of manly virtue. They will continue to say these ideas are “barbaric.”

And they are barbaric ideas today. In classical terms, a “barbarian” is an outsider — someone who is not of the state, someone who has different customs and ideas, someone with a different identity. Men who believe in tribalism or manly virtue or Traditional life-ways are the barbarians to the dominant civilization of this age.

I told the audience at NPI that we should recognize this and embrace it. Men of Tradition and tribalism and manly virtue should not be angry. They should become happy barbarians. They should overcome their circumstances with vigor and virility and confident laughter in the way that Nietzsche recommended. Men must become “carefree, mocking and violent.”