So, you’re going to refuse to buy something from company x, even though it would be to your immediate advantage to do so.

You want to “starve the beast,” or “refuse to support a company that ____.”

That’s nice.


Sure, if a small business has a handful of customers, and half of them stop buying in protest, you can really force an owner to re-think his policy. It’s standard procedure for leftists to bully mom and pop shops into baking lesbian wedding cakes, or run them out of business by smearing them as “racists” or “sexists” or some other offense to the People’s Revolution of Hand-Holding Vegan Transvestites. Happens all the time.

But a company operating in a national or global market isn’t going to notice if 1,000 radical weirdos switch brands of shampoo. Unless you manage to shame them in the mainstream media and your objection goes viral, no one will even notice. You’re a rounding error.

The beast won’t starve. The beast is still getting seconds, and dessert, and a nip off that dusty old bottle of port from the cellar.

Your refusal to open your precious little purse is not only pointless, it’s also reductive. If your critique of modernity is that it reduces us all to bank accounts and units of labor, then why reduce your protest of modernity to a financial transaction? You may say, “to hit ‘em where it hurts,” but since it doesn’t hurt, then why bother?

I understand not wanting to luxuriate in the tasteless decadence of Wal-Mart, but if they have the lowest price on something you need for your survival or to advance your own concerns — GO BUY THAT SHIT.

No shot-callers care about your personal boycott, which matters about as much as your fringe vote, so refusing to buy something you could use or paying more to buy it elsewhere is self-destructive asceticism at best, and vapid in-group social posturing at worst. You’re not starving the beast. You’re starving yourself, or starving your cause.

Use the system. Use it like a whore. Take what you want from it and leave the rest for the rats.

And what’s more — instead of boycotting, turn the whole thing around.

Don’t worry about withholding money from the people you don’t like. Concentrate on putting resources into the hands of people doing things you enjoy or believe in.

Don’t go out of your way to avoid buying something from a company you hate. Go out of your way to buy something from a company you like.

And don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. It’s good practice in Portland to assume that everyone I come in contact with is some kind of Progressive, if not a complete hippy fruitcake. If I worried about that, I could never support anything local. If they’re doing something I think is essentially good, but for all of the wrong reasons, that’s probably still better than most of the alternatives.

Money is only a means — a way to achieve an end. Withholding money is a passive-aggressive scold, not a positive path forward. If you want to exert a positive influence, instead of being a miserable bastard who is always against everything, show people in your sphere how you are using money as a means to support ideas that matter to you.

This, too, can be obnoxious once it catches on, as you well know if you’ve listened to SWPLs (or urban elves, as I call them) brag about buying recycled toilet paper or “free trade” coffee beans.

It does, however, seem to be more effective than bitching all the time, or financially handicapping yourself by refusing to buy trivial things at the lowest price.

I’ve been working on some new essays for my upcoming essay collection, titled A Sky Without Eagles. I’m shooting to have it out in hardcover by the end of January 2014.  There will also be an audio version, with “live tracks” from two recent speaking engagements.

Until then…the Finnish site Sarastus (Dawn) has published at least three translations of my work there, and I’ve re-posted them here with permission for my own records. The English versions of all three will be included in A Sky Without Eagles.

“Mighty White”  - “Mahtivalkoinen.”  

Translated by Timo Hännikäinen for Sarastus.

“Anarcho-Fascism” – “Anarkofasismi“ 

Translated by Siegfried Adlercreutz for Sarastus

“Everyone a Harlot” – “Porttoja kaikki“ 

Translated by Timo Hännikäinen for Sarastus.

GermaniaA friend recommended Germania to me as a jumping off point for more research on European barbarians.

Germania has been called a dangerous book. That’s both hysterical and overly flattering. From what I can gather from introductions, research and from the text itself, it’s a kind of guide to the Germanic tribes pieced together from second hand accounts. Tacitus never traveled to “Germania” himself. Archaeology and other sources have verified many details in the book, but many more could be wrong, misleading or incomplete. There are familiar and inspiring segments worth reading, but they probably shouldn’t be read as absolute fact.

Here are 5 of my highlights. The first two are about the Germans, and the others are Tacitus’ general thoughts on strategy and life.


1. “The Germans do not think it in keeping with the divine majesty to confine gods within walls or to portray them in the likeness of any human countenance. Their holy places are woods and groves, and they apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eye of reverence.

2. “On the field of battle it is a disgrace to a chief to be surpassed in courage by his followers, and to the followers not to equal the courage of their chief.”

3. “Speed suggests something like fear, whereas deliberate movement rather indicates a steady courage.” 

4. “…mystery begets terror and a pious reluctance to ask what sight can be which is seen only by men doomed to die.” 

5. “Bordering on the Suiones are the nations of the Sitones. They resemble them in all respects but one — woman is the ruling sex. That is the measure of their decline, I will not say below freedom, but even below decent slavery.”


I especially like the bit about the gods. It has a natural animistic feel to it, and reminds me of that Thomas Carlyle quote I used in The Way of Men.

Tacitus also noted that “Their food is plain — wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled milk.” Paleo plus dairy? Apparently the Germanic tribes also drank some kind of beer and partied a lot, and were known to debate frankly and honestly when they were drunk.  However, he wrote that the Germans ” debate when they are incapable of pretense, but reserve their decision for a time when they cannot well make a mistake.”

The Paleo ManifestoPALEOFUTURISM

There are 3 types of people in the world: People who haven’t heard of the paleo diet, people who have tried the paleo diet, and people who can’t wait to tell you how stupid it is.

People in the last group want to tell you how we’re still evolving, how different groups evolved differently, how you couldn’t live like our ancestors even if you tried, how the paleo diet isn’t sustainable for the world’s growing population, how SCIENCE! can produce superior health and athleticism, and how all that meat and fat will make you obese and give you a heart attack.

None of these objections are very good responses to positions paleo advocates actually advocate.

Of course humans are still evolving. Of course different groups adapted to different environments and circumstances. (My 23andme profile — SCIENCE! — says I’m probably not lactose intolerant based on my ancestry, and I’m not, so I ignore the anti-dairy aspects of paleo that could be completely relevant for someone else.) No one is saying you should or could actually live exactly as our primitive ancestors did in the modern world. The world’s growing population is not sustainable, full-stop. And no, everything produced in a lab is not evil. Yes, some of it is very helpful. But, given the recent history of SCIENCE! telling us something is good for us — and then 20 years of deaths and side-effects later, DISCOVERING! that it is actually terrible for us –it makes sense to minimize one’s exposure to synthetic “nutrition.” (One could actually call this “dietary conservatism.”) Finally, over the next 10 years, look for Western nations and medical bureaucracies to begin revising what they’ve proclaimed, ex cathedra, about fat.

The paleo diet is an attempt to approximate a diet closer to the diet of our ancestors. Modern humans are partially domesticated animals with wild ancestors. Just as you’d try to feed a trained monkey what it would eat in the wild to improve it’s health and happiness in the zoo, it makes sense to feed people what they evolved to eat in the wild.

John Durant makes this point in his recent book, The Paleo Manifesto, and takes it a step further. The Paleo Manifesto covers the basic guidelines of the paleo diet in plain and sensible language, but it’s not another diet book and it’s not a cookbook. The Paleo Manifesto pushes a total lifestyle change. Durant isn’t just concerned with what you eat, but when you eat, how you exercise and how you work. The big idea is to bring all of this into better harmony with the lifeways we adapted to in our species’ first few million years on the planet.

However, John Durant is not the unabomber. He lives in New York City, and he’s not trying to get you to move to a cabin in the woods. He wants to help you live happier and healthier in the modern zoo. This is the mainstream appeal of The Paleo Manifesto, which is full of fun facts about fasting to beat jet lag, standing desks (I became a fast fan), the footwear industry, sunscreen, cancer, thermoregulation and sleep. It’s an easy, engaging read and a jumping off point for further thinking on how to use what is known about evolutionary biology to improve the way primal humans interact with modern technology and the demands of life in the 21st Century.

Durant is often called a caveman, but The Paleo Manifesto doesn’t argue for some ascetic retreat into ooga-booga primitivism. Durant looks forward with a reference to and some reverence for the past. In a recent presentation for Google, he called the paleo lifestyle “biohacking.”

The Paleo Manifesto is paleofuturism.


ArcheofuturismDurant’s paleofuturism complements Guillaume Faye’s subversive idea: archeofuturism.

Archeofuturism was published in 1999 as a response to the conservatism and negative (anti-) tendencies of the Right. Faye wanted to create a positive vision of the future that corrected the foolishness of enforced egalitarianism and what is often called secular humanism — but isn’t truly human at all, because it rejects any realistic understanding of human nature in favor of feel-good blank slate fantasies.

Faye writes that “over the past 50,000 years, homo sapiens has changed very little, and archaic and pre-modern models of social organization have proven valid.” Instead of seeing man as an “asexual and isolated atom possessing universal and enduring pseudo-rights,” Faye believes that should see him holistically, as the Greeks did — as social animal who properly belongs to a human community.

Instead of rejecting technological development and yearning for a return to total primitivism, as many on the Right do, Faye wants us to embrace technological movement and human creativity, but balance it with a rational understanding of human nature and a respect for forms of social organization that have been natural to the human animal throughout its history.

According to Faye, when “egalitarian hallucinations [..] have been sunk by catastrophe, humanity will revert to its archaic forms, which are purely biological and human.” He lists the archaic forms as follows:

  • the separation of gender roles

  • transmission of ethnic and folk traditions

  • visible and structuring social hierarchies

  • the worship of ancestors

  • rites and tests of initiation

  • organic communities (family and folk)

  • de-individualization of marriage (marriage as a concern of the community)

  • prestige of the warrior caste

  • inequality among social statuses (not implicit, but explicit and ideological)

  • definitions of peoples and groups (tribalism vs. globalism)

While somewhat idiosyncratic in its preoccupations, this list overlaps with Donald Brown’s list of “human universals.”

Faye tells us we should dream of the future and plan for the future, but temper this futurism with archaism, which he defines not as backward-looking nostalgia, but an understanding of and respect for the “founding impulses” of human social organization.

Using what is known about evolutionary psychology and tried forms of human social organization to inform humanity’s march into the future corrects the built-in mistake of modern life — which is truly driven by greedy commercialism and merely rationalized and pseudo-sacralized by “progressive” neophilia. In what passes for “social science” today, there is a tendency to throw out any traditional idea about human nature which cannot immediately be explained by scientific inquiry — some quick “study,” or the current perception of the barely understood brain — in favor of some theoretical form of social organization completely untried and unknown to our species. It was from the abstract academic fancies of a few, not collective human experience or wisdom, that the disastrous and inhuman experiment of feminism and the absurdity of “diversity is strength” have been imposed.

Together, Faye’s Archeofuturism and Durant’s Paleo Manifesto offer a total, positive approach to the future that is informed and guided by what is known about the human animal, both physically and socially. The details of either book can be debated and elaborated on, but the big, combined idea of looking to human evolutionary and social history as we envision the future is a philosophical starting point that could be a useful for many different kinds of people who find themselves increasingly wary of the social, psychological and physiological costs of runaway global commercialism and commercially driven, abstract notions of human “progress.

Columbia Gorge, clouds, from Hamilton Mt., WAToday, I finally had a chance to reboot.

After a 7 month slog of working and going to tattoo school, followed by a month of working, writing and travelling to speak on both coasts, today was the first day in a long time that really felt like what people call a “day off.” I had things on my whiteboard, but all of them could wait.

I picked up my pal Rex, and we drove out to the Columbia River Gorge to do some hiking. I wanted to get some fresh air and exercise.

I knew it was supposed to rain. The Gorge is always beautiful, but in the rain, it’s a Chinese painting. The mountains disappear and reappear as wraithlike clouds blow slowly around them. There’s a mythic feeling to it that makes it easy to understand why our barbarian fathers believed in mountain spirits.

As we drove past Hamilton Mt., some sunlight caught his cliffs and I said, “I want to go up there.” We crossed the Bridge of the Gods and backtracked to the trailhead. It’s a difficult hike. It’s not Everest, but the switchbacks are steep and precarious. If you keep a good pace it still takes a couple of hours to summit the mountain. I’ve done it before, and it was exactly what I needed.

It rained most of the way up. During the last half mile, there were fewer trees, and we were exposed. That’s when the rain turned to hail. We kept going, stopped at the top for a few minutes, then unceremoniously headed back down the mountain.

The hail really started pounding. I hadn’t bothered to wear a hat, so I was walking with my hands on my shaved, freezing head.

There was a flash of light that felt “right here” in the clouds — not “up there.”


Thunderstorms aren’t that common in the Pacific Northwest. I jumped a little, then chuckled at myself and shouted: “CROM!”

Rex and I laughed, exhilarated from the epic weather.

As we continued down the exposed path, I thought, “This is probably not the best place to be in a thunder and lightning storm.”

Then, I corrected myself. After everything I’d accomplished in the past couple of years, I realized that I couldn’t think of a better way to die.

What an awesome death story! I write a successful book about manliness, give a speech about becoming barbarians, hike up a mountain into a hailstorm, shout “CROM!” and get struck dead by lightning?

GODS die like that!


So, for about ten minutes on a mountain today, I was completely resigned to death by lightning strike. I was happy. I was scanning the clouds with a smile on my face. I was looking forward to it.

After the storm calmed down and we could hear each other, Rex said, “Well, I can’t feel my feet. If they have to cut off my foot, I’ll finally get to build that raptor claw.”, a leading online gossip magazine for cosmopolitan ladies, recently published Lauren M. Fox’s feelings about her experience at the 2013 NPI Conference in Washington, D.C.  Her story mentioned my presentation at the event:

“…the conference was open to any number of overlapping topics that might attract disaffected white youngsters. Jack Donovan, an anti-feminist writer and “advocate for the resurgence of tribalism and manly virtue,” served up his shtick.

Donovan has argued that feminists are trying to create  “gender-neutral utopias” that will make men into “doughy bonobos and chunky Chaz Bonos playing out their endless manic-depressive melodramas in a big bean-flicking circle of sterility, sickness and desperation.”

“Do black people as a group care what happens to white people as a group? Does a Mexican dad with three babies care about whether some white kid from the burbs gets a summer landscaping job? Of course not,” Donovan said during his presentation, adding later, “You cannot play fair with people who don’t care if you get wiped off the map.”

I was pleased to read that my speech was quoted correctly, and I’d like to thank the lovely Ms. Fox for selecting such a fun, catchy line to tell readers more about my work.  What a swell gal!

In other news, a bearded chap from Vice by the name of CJ Ciaramella seems to have enjoyed my “shtick” the most!

“Perhaps my favorite speaker was Jack Donovan, a writer from the “manosphere” who railed against the feminization of society and pens sweaty odes to masculinity. Donovan urged the crowd to become “barbarians” who live outside the state in like-minded, interdependent tribes.”

Thanks, man!

On ABC’s 20/20 Manosphere Exposé

On July 20, an intern from ABC emailed me and asked to speak with me on the phone about the “manosphere.” I agreed, and a couple of days later, the two of us had a nice talk about my work, MRAs, PUAs and the state of the “manosphere,” such as it is. (I told her that no one in the manosphere really even likes that name, because it sounds kinda like some kind of gay Thunderdome.)

On October 16, ABC finally came around and dipped its toe back in the manosphere with a  ridiculous blog post about how feminist activists “battle anti-woman hate online.”

Their big opener exposed the shocking truth that  poor Anita Sarkeesian, who raised over $158,000 with a Kickstarter project to launch career as a professional feminist, was being “attacked” by “hateful” manosphere groups…because she received some mean comments on the Internet. Seems legit. As far as I know, the 20/20 piece hasn’t aired yet, but predictably, the commercial for it features controlled opposition feminist Paul Elam as the voice of The Manosphere.

I offered to appear on-camera for this during my phone call with ABC’s summer intern. She was actually rather sweet, and naively said to me, “my producer wanted me to find a bunch of angry guys who would say crazy things, but so far you all seem very calm and your views are much more well thought-out than I expected.” This reaffirms everything we already know about how the media really works, so I hope that nice girl finds another line of work, before the business turns her into a sociopathic whore who will do or say anything for a trashy story.
ABC never got back to me about an on-camera interview.

The Daily Caller

Speaking of trashy stories, some SPLC shill at The Daily Caller mentioned me in a bitchy little post about the NPI Conference I spoke at this weekend. He referenced the 20/20 piece above.

Another interesting inclusion is Jack Donovan, straight out of the “manosphere,” a network of self-described anti-feminist bloggers and internet lurkers who seem to think there’s something courageous about misogyny. Donovan, for his part, is so manly he had to buy a dress shirt just for the conference.

It might seem that this is just a particularly nasty internet subculture, and it is, but their numbers are growing and they can be quite abusive, as a recent 20/20 report found.

Read more:

The comment about dress shirt came from a joke I made on this blog. We all had a good laugh about it onstage at the conference, where I assured the audience I normally only wear “the hides of my enemies. ”


The whole SPLC thing was funny, because in days before the conference, even as the Washington DC Anti-Racist Action was making posters denouncing me as a racist, sexist and white supremacist, Pastor Tom Robb of the Knights Party of the KKK was denouncing me as a sodomite on Facebook and harassing my WN associates for associating with me. He and some Jerry Springer white nationalists posted some very explicit fantasies about my sex life.

So I…uh…guess I’ve been taking it from all sides lately…


The NPI conference itself was excellent, and proved, as one attendee said, that all of the interesting thinking and true intellectual rebellion right now is happening on the right.  I’m sure videos and more commentary from the Alternative Right and the media will follow.

During the open bar, a reporter from the online women’s magazine Salon asked to speak with me. She asked me whether or not I thought more women should be involved with “the movement.” Since you never know how they are going to use your words, I figured I’d jot down my recollection of what I said to her, for the record.

I said I thought it was perfectly natural for men to be at the forefront of a political movement, and mentioned that Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate had referenced a list of human universals. Basically, the anthropological data from all known human societies shows that men are universally the primary political movers.

Then I said that some guys in “the movement” do say that there should be more women involved. It’s like the rape of the Sabine women. You see men in a group start to worry that they won’t have a future without children, and you need women around for that. And white men are obviously having a population decline, so that’s a major concern. So some of the guys try to figure out how to get more women involved.

I told her that my response to that is always “If you build it, they will come.”  Women want security and status, and right now any man who associates himself with White Nationalists is taking a big risk, socially. There is a big social cost because these guys are looked down on by mainstream society. It’s taboo. They are outcasts. So a lot of women aren’t going to want to associate with men involved in a movement like this, because they’re seen as losers and low status and women want winners.

Then I immediately realized how she might spin that comment, so I added, “To clarify, I’m not saying these guys are losers.”

(Afterthought: Actually, I met several guys who were there who read as  fairly “alpha” in the manosphere sense. Later that night, I even got to laugh along as one of guys cold approached some girls at a bar for fun. Some of the guys and I also discussed the idea that some women love “bad boys” and that there are plenty of girls out there who think the idea of dating a fascist is kind of hot. This is absolutely true, but that won’t put them in the conference room, and there’s no reason why they need to be there. One of the guys joked, “we don’t really need more women involved, we just need more groupies.” I’m sure the Christian traditionalist faction of the group would object to that statement, but we all had a good laugh at the time. White Nationalists aren’t known for having a sense of humor, but they’re actually pretty zany guys.)

Basically, when guys say they want women involved, I just think they mean they want girlfriends who are white nationalists.

Then she asked me if I considered myself a white nationalist. I told her, “no,” but added that I support white nationalists because I’m a tribalist. I think all people should be more tribal, and whites should be able to have a tribe if some of them want to. I told her I would speak at a Native American conference if they asked me to.

She seemed disappointed with that answer, and thanked me for answering her questions.

Hunter from Strength Beyond Strength recently posted a review of The Way of Men.

With that said, I have tried multiple times to read books by Tony Robbins and other popular self-help gurus. I could never get halfway through the demagoguery.  They’re just too gooey and preachy. I always felt like they were talking down to me.  If you feel the same way about the self-help world, then The Way of Men is a must read for you.

Read Hunter’s review here. I don’t consider The Way of Men a self-help book — but many men do find it helpful, so all the better.

Hunter is the owner and head trainer of a unique dinosaur gym in a barn in San Benito County, California.  He’s started blogging about training, and I look to forward to reading more of his posts. I liked his suggestion of trying 10 sets of 3 for a combination of strength and hypertrophy, so I incorporated it into my own lifting routine.

More news and reviews…

Roosh V- “10 Books Every Man Should Read”

Hold on tight during the second half of the book where the author clearly lays out how masculinity is being attacked and marginalized, increasingly seen as something that needs to be treated instead of exalted.

Read the rest of the post here.

Filibuster Cartoons

J.J. McCullough, who occasionally writes for The Huffington Post wrote an in-depth review of The Way of Men at his blog Filibuster Cartoons.

Jack’s critique of gender modernity unapologetically combines the darkest tropes of both right and left alike. Conservatives will doubtlessly enjoy his blistering critique of the politically correct establishment that has worked so tireless to purge every last lingering trace of “boys-will-be-boys” apologism from our schools, workplaces, and families, while lefties will savour his equally savage takedown of late-stage capitalism, a predatory economic system peddling the idea that men should be little more than “sociopathic metrosexual super-consumers.”

Read the rest of the review here.

“…Ragnar Redbeard redrafting Desmond Morris…”

Tony Sylvester, the new frontman for the Norwegian deathpunk band Turbonegro, reviewed The Way of Men for some UK print issue of vice, but neither he nor I have been able to figure out which issue and where to find it, so here are two snips of the review he sent me via Facebook:

The Way Of Men is partly a defensive rationale for man’s place in the pecking order and part polemic to ‘restart the world’, as he puts it: a call to arms where Men become the Wolverines in Millius’s Red Dawn against the invading forces of feminism.

It’s chilling in its directness and cold logic, in a similar way as its distant relative, Jim Goad’s The Redneck Manifesto, just without the laughs. Whilst it makes me glad that my life contains a certain degree of comfort and cissiness, you can bet your arse I’m gonna want a man like Jack Donovan on my team when the shit hits the fan.

Tony and his tailor are also doing interesting things with custom tailoring…

As always, Amazon…

I’ve received a lot of reviews from readers on Amazon over the past month or so. Thanks, guys. I do read every single one.

I can’t tell you how important Amazon reviews are for a writer. So, please, toss in you two cents, even if others have said similar things. More is always better — reviews from actual readers help drown out the bitchy reviews from people who obviously didn’t even read the book.

August 2013 was actually the book’s biggest month ever, and it’s almost a year and a half old. It’s a sleeper that is gaining steam, which means more men are reading it and getting the word out to their pals, brothers, co-workers, fathers and sons. That’s fucking awesome.