In anticipation of the upcoming French language release of The Way of Men, I spent the last week developing a video introduction to the book, titled, “What Is Masculinity?”

I’m proud of the way it came out, and I think it will help bring the book to a whole new audience. Watch it here or on my YouTube channel.

I had a great time talking to Tucker Max, author of the notorious NYT Best-selling book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, and evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, author of The Mating Mind and Spent, on their new Mating Grounds podcast. I have to figure out how to get to Austin and go wild boar hunting with Tucker Max. That sounds like a good story…

Mating Grounds – Jack Donovan Interview

Ted Ryce and I also had an excellent two-part conversation about masculinity and a wide range of other subjects on his popular podcast, The Alpha Man Project.

The Alpha Man Project – Episode 61: Jack Donovan: Part 1: The Way of Men – Understanding Masculinity, Manly Virtue, and Men

The Alpha Man Project – Episode 62: Jack Donovan: Part 2: The Way Of Men: Understanding Masculinity, Manly Virtue, and Men

I also talked with Angel Donovan (no relation) about masculinity in the modern world on the Dating Skills podcast.

Dating Skills Ep. #70 Masculinity in a Modern World with Jack Donovan

Baphomet by H.R. Giger

Transsexuals, especially male transsexuals, are tormented souls torn between what they are and a desire to be something they can never truly become. I have some sympathy for their predicament, but I think the well-meaning progressive doctors and therapists who push them to “transition” are abusing them for ideological reasons, and because saying “no” feels mean. They’re indulging them and spoiling them like parents who let their obese children live on pizza and candy “because that’s what they want.”

Since homosexuality was decriminalized and gay marriage has become politically inevitable, forward thinking professional gay activists — who preferred to distance themselves from transsexuals when they were still seeking mainstream legitimacy for themselves — have recognized that “transsexual is the new gay.” Transsexualism is going to be pushed as completely normal by the progressive media for the foreseeable future, and objections will be drowned out by the outrage pornographers who now dominate mainstream American discourse.

I do believe a silent — petrified, even — majority believes that encouraging transsexuality, especially in children, is infuriatingly abusive to the point of being evil. But few will risk being vilified as bigots to question the narrative.  Provocateur Gavin McInnes, who I still think of as kind of a disgruntled liberal, was forced to take a leave of absence from a company he co-founded after his trans-faux-pas, and anyone who isn’t already independently wealthy will avoid making the same mistake.  Using the right pronoun for a man who had surgery to look like a woman will become thought crime, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it.

Instead of arguing about the validity of the claims made by transsexuals, I wrote a piece for RADIX about some of the reasons why transsexuality fits so harmoniously into progressive visions for the future — aside from it being the ultimate “fuck you” to the “cisgender community” and the ultimate progressive boogeyman — the masculine white male.  In many ways, the transsexual is the progressive ideal — a post-human, blank slate, interchangeable consumer who can be decorated with disposable and ultimately inconsequential identities.

Read it now at RADIX Journal:

“That’s Ms. Potato Head To You”

Transsexuality, Transhumanism, Transcendence, and Ecstatic Rites of Highly Conspicuous Consumerism

Polly Prissy Pants

Paying nine bucks for a simple drink seems like a waste of money, so when I go out to one of Portland’s many great restaurants, I try something made with ingredients I can’t afford to keep stocked in my globe bar at home.

I’m not going to play Garth Brooks and pretend I’m just too darn simple to appreciate anything but Jack Daniels and Budweiser. Dude probably laughs and guzzles champagne with Beluga and blinis every time he does an encore of “Friends in Low Places” for the Wal-Mart country crowd. I’ve been around good food for years, and I know what I like.

We’re living in a renaissance of fine drink mixing, and while you’ll never hear me say “mixologist” or “artisan cocktail,” bartenders really are doing some nifty things with booze. I’ve had some truly inventive, artfully-balanced and complex drinks in the past few years.

Unfortunately, the hipster trend is to serve them in foofy stemware.  Having learned this, I order whatever I feel like drinking, but ask the waitress to have it poured into a double-old fashioned glass, because I don’t want to sit around with my pinky out, pinching the fragile little stem of something that looks like it belongs at a tea party for Polly Prissy Pants.

So, last night I ordered this beverage I really like at a fine establishment that will go unnamed to protect the innocent, and told the waitress I wanted it in a DOF or “something a little more manly” than the champagne flute or whatever they were going to serve it in. She comes back with my drink the way I wanted it, but told me “the bartender says that glassware has no gender.”

Obviously, the bartender was a woman, and she must have confused her job pouring drinks with a Huffington Post comment thread.

But more importantly, she was also incorrect.

Many objects can be gendered, including glassware.

Hell, one of the guys at the gym told me the other day that I was using the girly ab roller and I should switch to the manly one. Apparently, you can also gender ab rollers.

One of the reasons I developed a comprehensive theory of masculinity was that I wanted to be able to apply a formula to reasonably assess whether a behavior or even a thing was more or less masculine.

Men all have their opinions about what is masculine and what isn’t, but they can’t usually explain why they think the way they do. Usually, they are just repeating something they’ve heard or making some kind of cultural association.

Culture matters — because culture is theoretically about what the men of our tribe associate with masculinity. It makes sense to care about what your father and grandfather thought was masculine.

But out in the gray zone of globalist modernity, where most people don’t even have a tribe or much of a culture that wasn’t advertised to them by some corporation, I think the formula is what really matters.

The opinion of some female is irrelevant — masculinity is primarily about signalling to men. My drinking buddy was a guy from my gym, and we agreed that we were probably the biggest, manliest guys in the dining room at that moment. (In downtown Portland, that isn’t a big achievement.)

We had no one to impress, but masculinity is a way of being. You don’t turn it off and giddily act like a teenage girl just because no one is there to judge you. I’m still watching me, and I have to respect myself in the morning.

Speakers of Latin languages have long believed that objects can be gendered — though sometimes strangely, arbitrarily, or for long lost cultural reasons. I can’t tell you why the French think a day is masculine or a table is feminine. They just do.

I was recently searching for the right font for a project, and users have tagged certain fonts as being “masculine.” The masculine fonts are predictably sturdier and stronger-looking, tend to be sans-serif (because serifs are kinda fancy), and related tags include “legible,” “clean,” “geometric,” “technical,” and “sturdy.” They read as direct, solid, functional, bold and authoritative. The “masculine” fonts fit the pattern and more or less communicate the universal masculine tactical virtues of Strength, Courage and Mastery as I laid them out in The Way of Men. (It’s hard for letters to have Honor.)

You can look at an object, compare it to other similar objects, and gender it according to the tactical virtues based on both how it looks and how a man would use it. It’s somewhat subjective, but if you asked a room with 100 men from all different cultures to pick out glasses and determine which ones were masculine and which ones were feminine, the more fragile looking glasses would consistently be rated as less masculine, and the heavier, sturdier glasses would be rated as more masculine. The masculine virtue of strength alone would be enough to gender the glassware. (I’m not sure how courageous a glass can really be.)

There’s another reason why men prefer certain kinds of glassware — it has to do with the way you hold the glass. For instance, a few years ago I had a little debate with a pal over martini glasses.

As a gin drinker, if I’m not driving anywhere and I really feel like getting my drink on, I’ll open with a dry martini or four. It’s basically a glass full of gin, and a classic man’s drink. (Ladies’ drinks like “chocolate martinis” are not regarded as martinis proper by any competent drinker or bartender).

After ordering my martini “up” in a martini glass, the guy I was drinking with chuckled in that snidely bemused way that men do when another man does something that seems a bit off.

I argued that, for me, the martini glass was a Las Vegas, Sinatra, “rat-pack” kind of thing. I started drinking martinis during that whole 1990s lounge music and cocktail revival period, so that was my cultural association. I’ve had a martini at Musso & Frank’s in Los Angeles, and that’s the way they’ve been serving them since Humphrey Bogart and Gary Cooper were drinking there.

I still think that’s perfectly valid, but my friend Andy won me over to the idea that the gesture and hand position required to hold a martini glass was more meaningful than the cultural association.

A pint glass, double old-fashioned glass, and a beer mug all offer a solid hold. With a mug, your hand is basically making a fist, and if you actually clobbered a man with the mug itself, you wouldn’t be the first. Same goes for bottled beer. Cans can be crushed on the forehead as a threatening gesture, but only at a hillbilly barbecue or a frat party. What are you going to do with a champagne flute or a martini glass? That’s right, not a damn thing. Pint glasses, beer cans and DOFs probably don’t make the best weapons, granted, but the hand position communicates strength and control, compared to the delicate pinching required to hold a martini or cocktail glass.

It’s a small thing, and it doesn’t matter much, but why not make the manlier choice?

These days when I’m out in public, if I order a martini, I order it shaken and neat, or on the rocks. And if I’m sampling a complicated drink with bitters or some imported liqueur that’s been made by monks for 300 years, I make sure I don’t have to drink it out of a vintage pink champagne coupe.

When I write about things like this, there’s always going to be some guy who says, “real men don’t think about whether what they do is masculine or not.” This is the fetishization of stupidity and the confusion of stupidity with masculinity.

One might as well say that real men don’t think about what they do at all. This is strange position, given that men invented philosophy.

Clearly, men do think about what they do and why they do it, and I guarantee you that if I were given a position of authority over any man who says he doesn’t care how other men perceive him, I could give him something to do that he would grumble about because he felt like it was emasculating.

“You don’t think about masculinity or about how other men perceive you? OK. Your new uniform is pink spandex with sequins, and every morning we’re going to start the day by doing pole dancing to “Single Ladies” by Beyoncé. We’re going to do this in public where hundreds of people will see you.”

If that’s not going to be a problem for you, you’re probably already too far gone to be reading this.

Granted, most men don’t sit around philosophically contemplating the relative masculinity of glassware. That’s my job.

Gendering objects, actions and gestures is an educational project, and doing it can bring you to a deeper understanding of masculinity and the behavior of other men. It’s also a good way to check yourself and determine whether you’re sending out some signals you’d like to change, or craft a better argument for why you’re going to keep doing it the way you want to anyway.


Hunter Cuneo

In Start The World Episode #8, I interviewed Hunter Cuneo, who runs his own private men’s strength and conditioning gym in California. I’ve talked to a lot of guys who want to start their own gyms for men, but no one seems to think it is possible. This guy is doing it. I asked him how and why. Check out his promo video below.


“The Iron” by Henry Rollins


Subscribe to START THE WORLD on iTunes here:

RADIX posted a new essay I wrote about the recently renewed interest in the death penalty debate and perversity of proxy bloodlust.

Who Will Swing the Blade? -Read it at RADIX


Heathen Harvest

I spent several weeks working on a back-and-forth email interview with Nathan Leonard for Heathen Harvest. I like doing interviews like this with men who are familiar with my work, because the answers become mini-essays with their own standout quotes and ideas. This one covers a lot of ground.

Action is Key; an Interview with Jack Donovan


Red Ice Creations

Lana Lokteff interviewed me for her Radio 3Fourteen program on the Swedish Red Ice Radio podcast network. I discussed all of the usual topics, but with a woman. Check it out.

Hangover Radio

For something completely different, Mark Zolo, the Naughty Nomad, and fellow blogger interviewed my for their zany new podcast, Hangover Radio.

Hangover Radio Ep 5: An Interview with Jack Donovan – Listen Here

Smug, Snobby Urban Elves in their True Form. WAKE UP AMERICA!


Now is the time for plain speaking.

It’s time to call a spade a spade.

Or, in this case, it’s time to call an Elf an Elf.

Oh, we’ve danced around the issue and called them by many names.

In the 1960s, our people called them “hippies.”

People today sometimes call them hipsters, but hipster-ism is a pose affected by rude, youthful elves who mock us with Pabst Blue Ribbon and vintage cigarettes because they know that when you live for an average of 700 years, you don’t have to take anything very seriously.

“SWPL,” or “Stuff White People Like” was also a cute euphemism, but we all knew we weren’t talking about “stuff white people like” in general. Lots of white people like Coors Light and know how to fix cars and listen to mainstream country music unironically.

We weren’t talking about those white people, and everyone knew it.

We were talking about creatures with white skin who AREN’T REALLY PEOPLE.

I’ve mentioned them in passing, but it’s time to identify the enemy. We must NAME THE ELF.

Elves are often mistaken for humans, because they have similar features and white skin, but they tend to be slender and slightly more delicate than the race of men.

I live in Portland, and that’s where I first noticed the obvious differences between humans who live in the suburbs and in the country, and urban elves, who live downtown, shop at Whole Foods, pretend to read UTNE, and see themselves as “stewards of the Earth.” They’re always saying queer, condescending things to humans, like, “why don’t you just evolve?”

The show Portlandia is actually complicated tongue-in-cheek Elvish humor. It’s self-deprecating and neurotic but somehow also celebratory and awkwardly amusing, like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Elves can breed with humans, but they are embarrassed of their attractions to brutish and short-lived humans so they prefer to murder the children before their Elders find out. This is why elves tend to be feminist and vote Democrat. Elves also tend to be outspoken feminists because the elvish race, which has much in common with the Dwarves (but we’re not going to get into the whole gold-mongering Dwarf thing here), is almost completely androgynous and elvish communities have been matriarchal since their Age of Vulvar began in 33 AD. Elves will often say that “gender is just a construct” because they like to tease “unevolved” humans, who they know full well have more fully differentiated sexes.

Hen-pecked Elvish males are secretly jealous of human men, though, so they work with the Dwarves to market birth control pills, human pornography, soy products, plastics and other products with dysgenic, emasculating effects. They don’t actually consume these products themselves, which is why they can often be spotted at “health food” stores. “Health food” and “organic” are both shortened versions of unpronounceable Elvish words that translate roughly to “not the poison slop we feed stupid humans.” Sadly, wealthy and high-born humans often collude with Elves to push these products on the lower human castes, to keep them weak, compliant and easy to control.

However, it was the courage of an Alabama congressman that inspired me to finally “come out of the closet” as an elf hater.

Congressman Mo Brooks came out and said what I’ve known for some time.

The thoroughly Elf and Dwarf-controlled Democratic Party has long been waging a “War on White People” by conducting a massive university-based re-education campaign to get white people to “reject their whiteness” which is code for rejecting their basic human nature, and act more like white Elves. Elves see white humans as a nuisance, and know that if white humans hate themselves and adopt Elvish breeding habits and matriarchal lifeways, they will die out in an Elvish decade or two because of their shorter life spans. Elvish Democrats have also moved to import non-white peoples, orcs and goblins into white human areas as part of their ethnic cleansing campaign. Their secret slogan, which sounds far more sinister in Elvish, is “no white people, no white people problems.” After the extinction of white people, the elves will quickly move to enslave the unsuspecting non-whites, orcs and goblins, and rule planet Earth in alliance with the clever gold-hoarding Dwarves.

Most white people laugh at ideas like a “War on White People,” because they have been glamoured by Elvish magic, so they cannot see the Elves’ pointy ears or creepy high cheekbones. Also, it seems like the people in prominent positions on both sides of this “war” are white. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, for instance, are not Elvish, but Elvish yes-people who have been promised immortality by Elves in exchange for their treachery. The joke will be on them, because the Elves lost the secret of passing immortality to humans in 1323 BC, during the Tutankhamen debacle, and this was well known to human scholars until the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in 642 by the Goblin Caliph Omar.

I do not mean for this to sound partisan, because the Republican Party in America, for the most part, simply wolf-whistles about the “War on White People” to create confusion and advance the interests of moneyed white humans, who hope to bargain with Elves after the majority of their white human rubes have been exterminated. They are sneaky backroom dealers and cannot be trusted.

That’s why I’m reaching out to you, common white human.

Let the scales fall from your eyes, my brothers and sisters.

The Elves are not your friends.

Stop taking their “diversity” and “women’s studies” misinformation classes. Stop supporting their puppet “parties.” There is only one political party. THE ELVISH PARTY.

Stop listening to their Elvish “Hollywood” folklore.

These are not your people.

They aren’t even people!

They’re elves, and it’s “us” or “them”



Jack Donovan at NPI


Translated by Sebastián Vera for Fuerza Nacional-Identitaria.

Volviéndonos los nuevos bárbaros

Discurso pronunciado por Jack Donovan en la segunda conferencia del National Policy Institute, realizada en el Ronald Reagan Building en Washington DC el 26 de octubre del año 2013. Publicado y transcrito originalmente como “Becoming The New Barbarians”, en Traducción por Sebastián Vera.

Puede que haya un colapso. Puede ocurrir. Puede que sea mañana. Dioses vengativos pueden arrojar peñascos desde los cielos, purificando la tierra con incendios e inundaciones. Podría haber sangre en las calles y rechinar de dientes. Una plaga de langostas o abejas asesinas, una gripe china o el apocalipsis zombie. Tus tarjetas de crédito pueden quedarse sin fondos y tus smartphones pueden volverse muy tontos. Podemos ser forzados a agruparnos en pandillas primitivas y luchar por nuestra supervivencia. Podríamos estar obligados por circunstancias más allá de nuestro control a redescubrir formas de vida más familiares a nuestra especie (a nuestros cerebros ancestrales) que este interminable y banal revolcón de parques corporativos y centros comerciales.

O quizás sólo puedes ponerte un día como león, para morir como naciste: pateando, gritando y cubierto en la sangre de otra persona.
Tiene un cierto atractivo.

Pero mientras nada o todo esto pueda ocurrir (y puede ocurrir mañana), también es posible que este acabado y corrupto sistema cojee por un largo tiempo.
Sí, debería fallar catastróficamente. Merece fallar. Pero no importa cuanto el mundo necesite un botón de reseteo, es mucho más fácil en el día a día de gente en todos los niveles de la sociedad seguir remendando el Sistema y hacerlo lo mejor posible hasta que se les acabe el hilo.

Entonces… hasta que ese día llegue… hasta que a todos se les acabe el hilo… hasta entonces, casi todos, incluso los líderes norteamericanos, parecen estar de acuerdo en que Estados Unidos está en decadencia.
Y durante aquella decadencia, podemos esperar ver más de lo que ya hemos visto. Para la mayoría de la gente, eso significará una disminución progresiva de la calidad de vida y una baja en las expectativas.
Lo que no veremos es algún tipo de gran despertar o un cambio dramático en el liderazgo o dirección. La gente que conduce EEUU no van a volver a sus cabales.
Mientras EEUU declina y se vuelve un Estado fallido o deficiente, las corporaciones, hombres de negocios y burócratas que lo manejan continuarán predicando la globalización, el multiculturalismo y el feminismo.

Continuarán condenando todo lo que pueda ser considerado racismo o tribalismo, especialmente entre los blancos, hasta que estos estén seguramente en minoría.  Continuarán condenando el “sexismo machista” y seguirán promoviendo cualquier clase de sexismo femenino que debilite o devalúe a los hombres. Continuarán haciendo reverencia a su propia clase sacerdotal académica mientras que condenan como “extrema” cualquier creencia religiosa que desafíe la autoridad moral de las creencias progresistas. Continuarán promoviendo dependencia en el Estado por razones de seguridad, ingreso y servicios de salud, por la vida en si.

Y, sin importar cuantos conflictos intensifiquen o cuantas personas maten o metan en prisión o cuan militarizados se vuelvan los matones del Estado policial, continuarán condenando la “violencia”.
Seguirán haciendo todo esto porque para ellos tiene sentido.
Si ustedes fuesen los gobernantes de una nación en decadencia, cuya gente estuviera condenada a perder riqueza y status, mientras que ustedes quisieran proteger sus propios intereses junto con conservar sus cabezas, ¿por qué no querer mantener a esta gente separada, debilitada, dependiente, sin esperanza, temerosa y no violenta?
Caudillos pueden ir y venir, pero no veo ninguna razón para que el mensaje cambie.

Muchos de ustedes pueden verse a si mismos como hombres civilizados. Hombres cuerdos en un mundo cada vez más loco, vulgar y bárbaro.

¡Pero se equivocan! Ustedes son los nuevos bárbaros.

-Si creen que no todos los hombres son iguales.

-Si creen que los hombres libres deben tener derecho a tener armas de fuego.

-Si creen que al gobierno no se le puede confiar la regulación de todos los aspectos de tu vida.

-Si creen que la raza significa sangre y herencia, no sólo “color de piel”.

-Si creen que hombres y mujeres son diferentes y crees que deberían tener diferentes roles.

-Si creen que los hombres debieran comportarse como hombres.

-Si creen que los desfiles del orgullo gay y el matrimonio homosexual son ridículos.

-Si creen en alguna religión ancestral.

Si creen en algunas o todas aquellas cosas entonces, de acuerdo al Estado y las corporaciones, la academia y los medios de comunicación, son unos estúpidos, psicópatas, campesinos, neo-nazis, misóginos, golpeadores de mujeres, homofóbicos, anticuados y neandertales reaccionarios. Ya lo saben. Disfrútenlo. Hagan una canción con ello. Porque no hay equivocación: ustedes son peligrosos, traidores y posiblemente sediciosos.

Esto me recuerda a las palabras del rapero Eminem: “Soy todo lo que digas que soy. Si no lo fuera, ¿por qué diría que lo soy? En el periódico, en las noticias, todos los días lo soy. La radio ni siquiera tocará mi canción”[1]

No importa lo que ustedes crean que ustedes son. Son todo lo que ellos digan. Ellos controlan el mensaje. No importa cuán razonable sea su mensaje, la radio no lo va a publicitar. No importa lo que ustedes crean que ustedes son, para ellos ustedes son unos bárbaros. Así que aduéñense de ello, sean unos bárbaros. Y, si van a ser bárbaros, entonces piensen como bárbaros.

¿Qué quiere decir esto? ¿Qué significa ser un bárbaro? Hablando clásicamente, un bárbaro es alguien que no es del Estado, de la polis. El bárbaro no es debidamente civilizado, de acuerdo al standard prevaleciente del Estado. Sus hábitos son extraños y tribales. El bárbaro es un extraño, un foráneo.

¿Cómo puede el pensamiento de un hombre cambiar cuando está alienado por el Estado donde nació?

¿Cómo puede un hombre pasar de ser un hombre de la polis a ser un forastero, un bárbaro, en su propio país?
Estas son preguntas importantes porque si no ves ninguna solución viable a la necia e inhumana trayectoria del progresismo (yo no lo hago), entonces cualquier cambio significativo va a requerir mucho más que recolectar firmas o apelar al sentido común del público o a elegir el candidato correcto.
Lo que se necesita es crear un cambio fundamental en la manera en que los hombres se ven a si mismos y a su relación con el Estado. No se preocupen de cambiar el Estado. Cambien a las personas. Corten el cordón y déjenlos nacer en un nuevo sistema de pensamiento más allá del Estado.

Muéstrenles como volverse bárbaros y separarse del Estado. ¿Cómo hacer esto? Bueno, eso es algo sobre lo que estaré pensando y escribiendo durante los próximos años.

Pero les puedo ofrecer cuatro líneas de pensamiento que creo podrían ser útiles.

I. Separarnos a “nosotros” de “ellos”

Esta conferencia es sobre el futuro de la identidad. ¿Qué identidad? ¿De quién estamos hablando? ¿Quiénes somos nosotros? Cuando hablo con gente sobre lo que está ocurriendo en el mundo rápidamente me dicen lo que deberíamos hacer, pero ¿quiénes somos nosotros?

¿Ustedes y las corporaciones que les venden comida chatarra, arruinan su tierra y los dejan sin trabajo?  ¿Ustedes y los “expertos” que transforman sus valores en “problemas psicológicos”? ¿Ustedes y los medios de comunicación que se burlan de ustedes? ¿Ustedes y los banqueros de Wall Street que financian la economía para su ganancia a corto plazo? ¿Ustedes y los burócratas que quieren desarmarlos y manejar cada pequeño aspecto de sus vidas? ¿Ustedes y los políticos que abren las fronteras y se abalanzan para consentir a un nuevo grupo de potenciales votantes en vez de trabajar por los intereses de los actuales ciudadanos del país a los que juraron representar?

¿Ese “nosotros”?

Los estadounidenses especialmente están acostumbrados a hablar en términos de “nosotros, el pueblo”. Pero hay 300 millones de personas viviendo en EEUU y eso es mucho “nosotros”. Sean más específicos.

Sean más tribales.

Uno de los mejores consejos para escribir que he recibido es este: nunca digas “pueblo” cuando te quieras referir a “hombres”. Bueno, mi consejo es que nunca digan “nosotros” cuando quieran decir “ellos”. Dejen de usar un lenguaje democrático. Dejen de pretender que somos todos del mismo equipo, porque no lo somos. Y no tenemos por qué serlo. Decidan por quien verdaderamente se preocupan. Descubran que tienen en común. Definan sus fronteras. Decidan quien está dentro y quien fuera. La gente que está dentro, esos somos “nosotros”. Todos los demás son “ellos”.

II. Dejen de enojarse porque las cosas no tienen sentido

Casi nada de lo que leen o escuchan en las noticias hoy parece tener sentido.

La gente se enoja mucho, se frustra mucho y se siente traicionada. Es como si “nuestros líderes” fueran locos o estúpidos, o ambas. No tiene sentido colocar mujeres en la infantería. ¡Eso obviamente es desquiciado! No tiene sentido el decirle a los jóvenes que contraten préstamos para estudiar que no podrán pagar. No tiene ningún sentido invitar a gente al país cuando no puedes mantener a la gente que ya vive ahí. ¡Eso es una locura!

No tiene sentido empezar guerras y después decir que estás tratando de ganar “corazones y mentes”. ¡La guerra no es una buena forma de ganar corazones y mentes! ¡Y preocuparse de corazones y mentes no es una buena forma de ganar una guerra!
No tiene sentido que banqueros y gerentes obtengan paracaídas de oro y vayan de vacaciones o consigan trabajo en la administración después de que conciente e intencionalmente hayan destruido compañías, trabajos, vidas, medioambiente ¡y sectores enteros de la economía!

Pero si piensan que ellos, la gente que controla el país, hacen las cosas por beneficio propio y no por el suyo, entonces todo tiene sentido.

Consideren la posibilidad de que los líderes del país no se preocupan por si los soldados viven o mueren. Consideren la posibilidad de que a las universidades y a los banqueros no les importe si viven el resto de sus vidas adeudado. Probablemente así lo prefieren. Consideren la posibilidad de que los políticos se preocupan más de asegurar sus trabajos en el corto plazo y de verse bien en la prensa en vez de preocuparse de lo que le pase a la gente de su país en el largo plazo. Considera la posibilidad de que “tú” no eres parte del “nosotros” del que “ellos” se preocupan. Te prometo que si meditas sobre esto, las cosas empezarán a tener mucho más sentido.

Si abandonan la idea de que esta gente supuestamente debieran preocuparse por ustedes o por el país y empiezan a verlos como pandillas e individuos trabajando en pos de su propio interés, entonces se pueden relajar y apreciar su planeada estrategia.
Dejen ir tontas expectativas sobre lo que esta gente debiera estar haciendo. Retrocedan y mírenlos como son. No te enojes. No te sientas ultrajado. Sé sabio.

Como Nietzsche recomendaba: sé despreocupado, burlesco y violento.

III. Desuniversaliza la moralidad.

Los hombres que fueron criados con valores estadounidenses, igualitaristas y “post-occidentales” quieren ser “buenas personas”. Quieren ser amables y justos, quieren que todos sean como ellos. Esto puede ser absolutamente paralizador.

De verdad crea un conflicto interno para los hombres (buenos hombres) que son especialmente atléticos o tienen alguna clase de trasfondo militar o policial. Fueron enseñados y creen en valores de respeto, igualdad y justicia.

Quieren hacer “lo correcto”, sin importar qué.

Quieren ser Batman.

Sin embargo, está también en la naturaleza de estos hombres, incluso más que en otros hombres, el pensar verticalmente, jerárquicamente, tribalmente, pensar en términos de “ellos” y “nosotros”. Para evaluar a otros naturalmente, primeramente, por las virtudes masculinas y tácticas de fuerza, coraje, maestría y honor.

Pero en cuanto el partido de fútbol o la película de superhéroes se acaba, el EEUU progresista vuelve a odiar y a castigar estas virtudes. Estos “chicos buenos”…estos que quieren ser héroes son culpados, se burlan de ellos, se les pasa por encima y se los trata como basura.

No importa lo que diga el mensaje oficial de los Estados Unidos progresista, cuando se trata de hombres que se comportan como hombres (especialmente hombres blancos) a nadie le importa si son tratados de forma justa o no.

Aún así, estos hombres no quieren excluir a las mujeres de nada porque les parece injusto ya que tienen hermanas y madres y quieren que todos tengan una oportunidad. Pero a las mujeres, como grupo, no les importa si los hombres se sienten excluidos.
De hecho, cuando los hombres protestan por algo, grupos de mujeres son los primeros en llamarlos “quejones” o “perdedores”. Los chicos buenos blancos como grupo se preocupan de lo que le ocurra a la gente negra como grupo. Quieren que todo los negros sean tratados de forma justa y en igualdad de condiciones y se aseguran de que ellos mismos no estén discriminando.

¿Acaso los negros como grupo se preocupan de lo que le ocurre a los blancos como grupo? ¿A un papá mexicano con tres bebés le importa si un chico blanco de los suburbios obtiene un empleo de verano o no?

El problema con estos valores post-occidentales es que funcionan mejor como valores intra-tribales.

Sólo funcionan cuando todos los demás están conectados y son interdependientes. La amabilidad, la justicia y el respeto al otro promueven la armonía dentro de una comunidad. Pero al mismo tiempo, hay que establecer límites. Pero en algún momento tienen que decidir quiénes son parte de esa comunidad y quiénes no.

No puedes jugar limpio con gente a la que no le importa si te borran del mapa. No tienes que odiar a todo aquél que no es parte de tu tribu, pero es tonto seguir preocupándose de gente que no se preocupa por ti.

Estos prototipos heroicos son los guardianes naturales de cualquier tribu, pero sus naturalezas heroicas son desperdiciadas y abusadas cuando se les pide que protejan a todos, incluso a enemigos, ingratos y a aquellos quienes los desprecian.

Si los bárbaros occidentales quieren aferrarse a cualquier porción de su herencia e identidad occidental necesitan resolver estos conflictos morales.
No necesariamente tienen que abandonar la moral, pero necesitan volver a su eje y volverse, como en ‘La República’ de Platón, “perros nobles que son amables con sus familiares y lo opuesto con los extraños”.

Sé responsable moralmente, pero sólo con la tribu.

Si van a prosperar y durar en una nación defectuosa, los nuevos bárbaros deben dejar esa trágica e incomprendida rutina de héroe y darse cuenta de que no son Batman. ¿Por qué alguien querría serlo?

IV. Vuélvanse independientes del Estado e interdependientes entre ustedes.

Los Estados Unidos de América y sus corporaciones relacionadas ofrecen una amplia gama de productos y servicios. Todas tienen lazos y mientras más dependan de ellas, más fácil les es controlarlos.

No es una real amenaza para ellos si te conectas a la red y le colocas “me gusta” a una página traviesa o descargas tu solitaria e impotente ira, mientras que el resto de tu identidad se enrolla lindamente en el burgués estilo de vida americano.

Mientras aún puedas conseguir un trabajo en una compañía importante y mantenerte ocupado durante 40, 50 o 60 horas a la semana para que puedas costear la amplia gama de productos y servicios.

Y que luego, en el tiempo libre que te queda, te conectas a internet y te transformas en un ortodoxo, romano u odinista y posteas imágenes geniales de vikingos, centuriones y cruzados.

Pero esa no es una identidad real ni una tribu real ni una comunidad real. Por todos los medios posibles, usa al Estado progresista y toma todo lo que se pueda tomar de él mientras aún quede algo que tomar, pero si de verdad quieren un tipo de estilo de vida alternativo a lo que el Estado tiene que ofrecerte, si quieres mantener algún tipo de identidad tribal que pueda sobrevivir al declive y al colapso del país (también conocido como la repentina ausencia de productos y servicios adecuados) en vez de “organizarse comunitariamente” en internet o retirarse al campo con la esposa y los hijos, trae a alguna de esa gente de internet cerca tuyo y vivan cerca el uno del otro. Tómense un vecindario o un complejo de departamentos, comiencen negocios y prevean servicios que la gente realmente necesite.
Es bueno tener escritores y pensadores, pero también se necesitan mecánicos, plomeros y costureras.  Sirve a todos, pero sé leal a la gente “de la familia” y hazla “tuya”.

No tiene que ser nada formal. No lo publiquen en la prensa. Sólo comiencen tranquilamente a construir una comunidad de hombres y mujeres con pensamientos afines en algún lugar, en cualquier lugar.
No se preocupen por crear un partido político masivo o de reclutar miles o millones de personas. No se preocupen de cambiar al Estado. Los bárbaros no se preocupan de cambiar el Estado. Eso es para hombres del Estado, que creen y pertenecen al Estado.
Apunten a unas 150 personas. Una comunidad de personas pequeña que trabajen juntas para ser menos dependientes del Estado y más dependientes unas de otras.

Inmigrantes recientes, muchos de los cuales son literalmente no del Estado, pueden servir de ejemplo. No hace mucho los irlandeses y los italianos vivían en comunidades aisladas. Piensen en las partes rusas del pueblo.

Miren lugares como Chinatown en San Francisco: cada pocas cuadras puedes ver edificios marcados: “Algo…algo….algo… Asociación Benéfica”.

¿Suena bien, cierto? Podría ser la fachada de una triada. Podría ser para ayudar a escolares chinos. No tengo idea, pero estoy seguro de que es para chinos. También hay consultas médicas, oficinas de abogados y tiendas de abarrotes. Hay una red entera de gente preocupándose primero de los suyos.

Ahí hay una comunidad de gente que es exclusiva, aislada e interdependiente. Van primero donde uno de los suyos cuando necesitan algo. Son difíciles de observar y de controlar. Son menos dependientes del Estado y más dependientes entre ellos. Y cuando el colapso llegue, cuidarán primero de ellos mismos mientras que el resto estará preocupado de que el Estado haga algo.

Quienesquiera que “nosotros” seamos, cualquiera que sea tu “tribu”, es sólo una idea en tu cabeza hasta que tengas un grupo de gente verdaderamente interdependiente que compartan el mismo destino. Eso es lo que es una tribu. Eso es lo que es una comunidad. Ese es el futuro de la identidad en América.
La tierra pertenece a los que la tienen y la conservan. Y esta tierra ya no es tuya ni mía, sino que oficialmente en su tierra. Puede que no seas capaz de reclamarla, por lo menos no ahora, pero puedes volverte un bárbaro y vivir felizmente como tal, como un extranjero dentro, y trabajar para construir las clases de comunidades resistentes y redes de trabajo de gente calificada que pueda sobrevivir al colapso y preservar sus identidades después de la caída.


[1] Eminem – “The way I am”



When I posted “Clickbait Country” a few days ago, I was making observations based on the kinds of headlines I’d been seeing from formerly “respectable” news sources over the past year.

A Portland pal responded, mentioning the recent transformation of Oregon’s primary paper of record, The Oregonian.

According to the left-wing weekly, Willamette Week, last June the paper’s owners at Advance Publications (which owns more than 25 papers in comparable markets) laid off a quarter of The Oregonian‘s newsroom staff and more than 50 other employees, split up the company, and reduced home delivery to four days a week. That October, they officially switched to a “digital first” model, prioritizing posting to the website. Then, frustrated that the paper website was still not web-oriented enough, early this year Advance created incentives for generating traffic and posting shorter articles more often, even if that meant relying more heavily on celebrity gossip, sports, polls, ” news stories written solely about readers’ comments, and photo essays on such subjects as obese cats.”

The Oregonian, still in some sense regarded as the most credible mainstream news source in Oregon, converted to the Gawker model.

Everything is yellow journalism now. No news source is trustworthy. Everything is entertainment.

This has to be driving the uptick in outrage politics, hysterical political correctness, and the virtual tarring and feathering of anyone who becomes the focus of a Twitter hashtag campaign.

If there was ever a rule in yellow journalism, it was “scandal sells.”

Instead of creating news in the absence of news, today’s digital reporters create scandal in the absence of scandal. Because scandals sell.

Take, for instance, the case of Stephen A. Smith, ESPN commentator. After saying at least 7 or 8 times that any many who hits a woman is wrong, should be beaten by other men, and should be put in prison (where he’ll probably be beaten and raped by other men), gingerly suggested that some women may provoke domestic violence. Michelle Beadle, a female colleague at ESPN, then attacked him on Twitter, and used the medium to draw attention to herself and garner victim status based on an admission that, at some point, she’s been in an abusive relationship — whatever that means to her. Hundreds of blogs picked up on the issue, vying for traffic, upping the “shock and outrage” ante. Smith was forced to tape an awkward apology for saying something that was obviously true — of course women intentionally provoke male violence, look at all the sympathy fake violence gets them! — and has now been suspended for a week.

How many “reporters” received traffic bonuses for stirring up that madness?

How many people racked up social media affirmation for expressing solidarity with that manufactured outrage?

How many women followed Michelle Beadle’s lead and took the opportunity to divulge a history of victimhood and bask in the fake sympathy of friends and the desperate reassurances of beta orbiters?

This isn’t genuine outrage. It’s not serious debate.

It’s a pay-per-click gravy train, and an online brothel for attention whores.


Earlier this week, Radix published an essay I’d been working on for a while, which was bound to cause some controversy.

Beauties in Beast Mode

Read it at Radix Journal

Some guys who objected couldn’t manage to stop tripping over their dicks, and their main beef seemed to be that “chicks who lift are hot.” The point of the essay wasn’t about who men should or shouldn’t find attractive. Feminists don’t get this, because they don’t understand men or the male experience, but boners aren’t political. I could try to project, but frankly I have no idea what the boner that woke me up at 4AM this morning had to say about gender issues or feminism. Men control their words and actions, but erections kinda do what they want.

The essay also wasn’t about attacking women, or athletic women. I have two younger sisters. Both are mothers working hard to stay in great shape, and I’m proud of them both for refusing to become typical American land beasts.

The main point of the essay was that while feminists nag us from their blogs, magazines and Twitter accounts, it is in many cases men who are pushing women to get involved in extreme sports that many feminists would criticize as “hypermasculine” in men — like fighting, strongman, powerlifting, bodybuilding, and so on. These are usually men who would mock effeminate men and hipsters and complain that men aren’t men anymore, but they encourage women to be more masculine, as if the sexes exist in separate vacuums and changes in women don’t influence men. I wrote about some of the reasons why I think men do this, and while their motivations are probably innocent enough, I wanted them to think about how they are impacting men around them, and how their actions contribute to the erosion of sex roles. The places where men train for these “hypermasculine” sports are some of the last redoubts for men who no longer have any other exclusively male spaces. We can’t just expect men to spring forth from the loins of their forefathers as exemplars of manliness without any kind of support or paternal influence. Our manliest forefathers spent much of their time in male groups, being influenced by other men. Females interrupt that process, exert their own influence on male cultures and turn men against each other.

Having observed this over and over again in the real world, and having heard about similar progressions from friends and readers, here’s a basic rule for female participation in male groups.

Donovan’s 10% Law of Female Sex Pollution

A long as females make up less than 5% of the total group, and they are unattractive or no more than moderately attractive, they will be gender-nonconforming exceptions who will adapt to male group culture, respect it, and strive to be considered “one of the guys.” If a majority of the males find her attractive, many of them will be extremely distracted and go out of their way to accommodate, assist, flatter and please her (whether they are married/committed or not). When female participation edges toward 10% and beyond, females will adapt the culture and environment to suit their own tastes and interests. This begins with “the curtains.” Music selections will change, and “family feel-good inclusivity activities” like potlucks, birthday celebrations, mixers and so forth will be introduced. Males will stop speaking freely to avoid offending the females, and when they don’t, females will either confront them directly (uncommon) or attempt to influence a prominent male member to intervene on behalf of women to make the group more “female friendly.” If successful, and the females do not then become bored, as time progresses, they will introduce less adventurous, gender-conforming women to the mix, and those women will require additional cultural changes to feel comfortable in what they still perceive to be a “testosterone-heavy” environment.

Following a consistent 10%-15%  female inclusion rate, a phenomenon called “gender pollution” will occur as the group is perceived to be more feminine and loses masculine prestige. Males will “lose interest” in the mixed sex group, which can no longer be seen as the masculine group they were initially drawn to, and membership in the group no longer increases their honor, validates their masculinity, or gives them an opportunity to interact with men without female interference. Because outright sexism is taboo, especially after prominent male members have made “female-friendly” inclusivity overtures, many males will find other “official” reasons to leave the group to save face. Following this purge, the group will become thoroughly mixed, sexism will be rigorously policed and considered absolutely taboo, and there is a high probability that group will become progressively more female-oriented.

The percentages above will vary according to how aggressively feminist the women involved are, but even one extremely aggressive feminist can’t make enough cultural changes to alienate men without some help from “sisters.”