Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘jack donovan’

Interview With Matt Forney

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

When you live under a control-based regime, your brain longs for accurate depictions of reality, because almost everything you encounter is propaganda, whether advertisers trying to trick you into buying useless products, chatty acquaintances pimping their bands and lifestyles, or outright ideological mental viruses beamed into your head by media, government and academia.

Back in the day, many of us encountered a site called In Mala Fide whose author was notoriously pseudonymous, and since that time those who thirst for pragmatic realism have followed the work of Matt Forney, an incredibly talented writer with whom we are pleased to present an interview that must have taken no short amount of time to complete. Please join me in extending a big thank you to Matt Forney, and reading his very deliberate words with a sense of intellectual curiosity.

You have been active for nearly twenty years as a writer, moving from a Men’s Rights direction to a more Alt Right perspective and now, sort of choosing your own path. How did you get into writing, and how did these different outlooks lead to one another and to where you are now?

I got into writing back in 2009 due to persistence and luck. At the time, I was graduating college and moving into an unrewarding civil service job, as well I was coming off a couple of crises in my personal life. I’d spent the past three years obsessively reading books on politics, sociology, and philosophy, and I also followed proto-manosphere/proto-alt-right sites such as Steve Sailer’s blog, Taki’s Magazine, Roissy in DC, CORRUPT.org and others.

I started a blog called In Mala Fide mainly to vent and talk about the ideas I’d learned about and thought up. I’d attempted to start blogging before several times but gave up because I wasn’t able to earn an audience. With In Mala Fide, I struck paydirt: I didn’t just earn a large audience (peaking at 50,000 unique visitors a month), but an intelligent one, one that was able to help me grow and mature as a thinker and a man. Some of the people I encountered online during that period have become close real-life friends of mine. The site has also been acknowledged by many as a formative influence on the manosphere and alt-right.

I transitioned to writing under my real name in 2012 after reading Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men and realizing that I would eventually have to stop being a pseudonymous shadow if I wanted any credibility. I was also tired of the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pen name and wanted to take my writing in a different direction. Since then, I’ve gone through several different focuses, from travel writing to sex to anti-feminism to political journalism to morality and ethics.

With regards to the different outlooks I’ve had over the course of my writing career, I’ve always been good at studying and synthesizing different viewpoints — men’s rights, white nationalism, etc. — to see the merit in them. In the In Mala Fide days, I had an excessive amount of free time at my job and spent it reading blogs and websites (because reading a book at my desk would get me in trouble), and would link to interesting stuff on my blog on a weekly basis. At NPI’s fall conference two years ago, a reader of mine told me that my weekly roundups of manosphere and white nationalist/alt-right articles were a big influence in driving the growth of the alt-right, because they helped connect segments of the Internet that had overlapping ideas but little contact.

Can you tell us what your worldview is comprised of today? What are your philosophy, religion, political direction and general existential outlook?

I describe myself as a nationalist, full stop. Labeling in the social media era is more about group identity and posing than actual belief: for example, see how “alt-lite” personalities like Paul Joseph Watson used to describe themselves as “alt-right” when it was fashionable, then dropped the branding after the Heilgate incident. The same can be said for anime-watching teenagers who claim to be “alt-right” despite also being Satanist furries or whatever (and claiming I’m not “truly” alt-right even though I started writing before they entered puberty). I describe myself as a nationalist (or more generically as “right-wing”) because it encapsulates my beliefs — white identity, ethnic pride, putting family and nation first — without the baggage that other labels such as “alt-right” have accumulated.

Economically, I have libertarian leanings, but libertarianism as a complete ideology is unworkable because it cannot address the fact that our world is already post-capitalist, as James Burnham described in The Managerial Revolution. It’s because of managerialism that corporations are now enforcers of leftist orthodoxy and Silicon Valley has done an end-run around the First Amendment: big business and government are essentially fused at the hip. At the same time, I’m utterly opposed to socialism, because socialism breeds weak people who are more focused on anal sex and smoking pot than being productive, which is obvious to anyone who’s spent time in a left-wing area.

I used to consider myself an agnostic or apatheist, but I’ve gradually warmed to Christianity for many reasons, one of which is its importance as a unifying force in European and American life. I’ve realized over the past year that a large amount of whites’ problems are self-inflicted, due to our fixation on pleasure and comfort above all else. It’s evident in the mass acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, and the 31 flavors of gender in white countries, evident in our cowardly rationales for mass immigration (we “need” immigrants because whites can’t be bothered to have children to prop up failing social welfare programs with their taxes), it’s evident in the way we stick our heads in the sand when the third-world immigrants we import openly hate us and try to kill us.

While the churches of the West have become deeply corrupted (as evidenced by an Argentine communist becoming pope), it’s also true that the only white countries that are actively resisting globalism — such as Poland and Hungary — are overly Christian ones. Atheism is a social experiment that has failed miserably. Ultimately, I believe that a shift towards right-wing and nationalist politics is insufficient on its own to preserve white and European societies; some sort of spiritual revival needs to occur in order to stem social decay. The events of the past two years have (depressingly) borne my predictions out.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve also become more comfortable in admitting that I don’t know as much as I thought I did. Young people are always overconfident in their knowledge and abilities: I can’t look back on some of my In Mala Fide-era writing of mine without cringing a little. This overconfidence is driving a lot of dysfunction in the alt-media (my term for non-mainstream right-wing commentators, including the alt-right and alt-lite) landscape, as people make snap decisions based on incomplete information. For example, see Richard Spencer’s completely pointless and unnecessary anti-war protest in the wake of President Trump’s Syria strike in April. It’s because of this that I’ve pulled away from commenting on day-to-day politics.

Did you always want to be a writer, and how did you break into writing professionally? If you could do it again, would you do anything differently?

I’ve obsessively written privately since I was a kid — journal entries, short stories, the like — so expanding into blogging and online writing was a natural extension of what I was already doing. As Jim Goad put it, “If I don’t work, I’ll starve. If I don’t write, I’ll die.” I started out in college as a journalism major primarily because I wanted to write: a really dumb move, and I ended up transferring out of the program a year later after uncovering widespread plagiarism among my colleagues.

While I switched to majoring in English after that, most of my important writing experience and work came from studying and reading on my own and networking with like-minded people. I spent most of my teenage years reading books by the likes of Philip K. Dick, Hunter S. Thompson and Charles Bukowski; it didn’t help my sad social life, but it paid off as an adult because I knew what separated good writing from bad. I also owe a great debt to Mark Ames and John Dolan; as dumb and pathetic as they’ve become, they were my gateway to understanding the mechanics of good writing and honest journalism.

If I were to do anything differently, I’d have studied how to monetize my writing much earlier. I started In Mala Fide basically as a hobby, and had I figured out how to make money doing it sooner, I’d have been able to get my career going earlier. Alternately, I would have skipped going to college entirely, or majored in something useful like engineering.

You had quite a following as “Ferdinand Bardamu,” but changed direction to write under your real name. What encouraged you to go in that direction? Did it coincide with your desire to write about more than manosphere themes?

As I mentioned above, three years into In Mala Fide’s existence, it felt like I had outgrown the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pseudonym. I started the blog during a time of upheaval in my personal life and it felt like I was being forced to write in a voice that was no longer authentically mine. To paraphrase my friend Trevor Blake, when you need to cross a river, you build a bridge, but you don’t take the bridge with you when you get to the other side. I didn’t feel the need to keep using a name that was tied to a period in my life that was ancient history by that point.

Moreover, while I recognize the value of pen names (and encourage anyone who wants to write in this day and age to use one), the danger with them is that you can develop an unhealthy divide between your private and public lives. Internet anonymity has the side effect of encouraging defective personalities to develop elaborate fantasy lives in pursuit of narcissistic supply. See: all the manosphere dweebs who brag about “spinning plates” and having multiple LTRs, yet still have time to post on r/TheRedPill twenty times a day. When people like this get doxed, it usually ruins their lives, because the gulf between what they claim to be online and who they are in real life destroys their credibility.

Writing under my real name with my real face keeps me accountable. My friends and family know I’m a writer, and I can’t lie or pump myself up online without them calling me on it. While there are haters and critics who will try to attack me for my beliefs, I don’t care because almost none of them are actually reading what I write, but skimming it and filtering it through their own skewed perspectives. For example, I love it when people claim I’m not really an “alpha male” or a “PUA,” because I’ve never once claimed to be either of those things. I’m just a writer who observes the world and tells people what I think.

Do you think there is a particular style in which people have to write for the web, and does it dumb down content ever? It seems to me that you are frequently rebelling against this style… do you have any tips for people who want to push the envelope?

I’m not good at fitting into cliques, and past a certain point, to become more popular you need to join an online clique. That means adopting their look, their lingo, and their beliefs, even the dumb ones. This is plainly evident with what the alt-right has become, with Macklemore whoosh haircuts, gay electronic dance music, and speaking in terms like “normie” and “fashy” now required if you want to be one of the cool kids. Same thing happened with the manosphere years ago: it went from normal guys talking about how to get girls and trying to understand modern sexual dysfunction to nerds spazzing out over “N-counts” and the “feminine imperative,” making it impenetrable for mentally adjusted people.

I think a large part of this is due to the fact that when movements or subcultures become popular, they inevitably attract defective people who want to use the movement/subculture as a substitute for a normal life. While there’s nothing wrong with turning online relationships into real-life friendships — many of my closest real-life friends are people I’ve met online now — there’s something wrong with entirely substituting organic meatspace relationships. I blame social atomization.

The shift to social media as the primary form of online communication has also seriously dumbed down online discourse. When I was starting out eight years ago, Twitter was still relatively obscure and Facebook was basically for keeping in contact with friends. Smartphones were still relatively new. The primary means of spreading ideas back then was blogs and websites. Fast-forward to today and social media companies have a stranglehold on communication. This not only conditions people against deep thought — how much nuance can you put into a 140-character Tweet? — but also rewards mindless attention whoring, due to the Skinner box-like environment that social media provides.

This is evident in how the alt-right and the alt-media in general has melted down over the past year. The constant drive for social media re-Tweets, likes and one-ups drives people to do and say provocative things solely for attention. I’ve also noticed a disturbing trend among young alt-righters and alt-leftists: they’re utterly incapable of communicating in anything other than memes and one-liners. I think this is the result of exposure to social media and smartphones at a young age combined with a lack of meaningful real-world relationships. They’ve sustained brain damage from constantly repeating memes and quips from whatever clique they claim allegiance to. It’s so bad that teenagers aren’t even dating and having sex anymore, because they’d rather fish for attention on Instagram or whatever. The adults in the alt-right and these other movements aren’t providing them with any masculine guidance or leadership, either.

I’ve always strived to grow my audience — egomania is part of being a writer — but I’m not going to blatantly spread falsehoods just so I can fit in with an online community of people I’ll never meet and probably wouldn’t want to. While I’ve engaged in attention-getting stunts in the past, I’ve gradually realized that doing so is self-defeating, because I just end up attracting morons who I can’t stand and who don’t appreciate the nuances in my writing. As a friend put it, when you get together with dysfunctional people who have dysfunctional ideas, you end up with dysfunctional results.

As for people who want to push the envelope, I recommend you don’t get too invested in any online community or political movement. As Common Filth puts it, do not put your faith in man. Get off the computer and interact with people in real life. Hang out with your friends. Get laid. Take up a hobby, like playing the guitar or chess. Gain some perspective. Life isn’t as bad as mental defectives on Twitter claim it is. Stay out of online echo chambers and your view on life — and your mental state — will be much healthier.

How relevant do you think men’s rights is these days, or has it been eclipsed by the overall struggle against false equality?

Men’s Rights is dead and decomposing. I was a men’s rights sympathizer years ago due to the fact that they were one of the few groups that was bringing attention to divorce law, false rape accusations and other major injustices against men and families. However, feminists massively overplayed their hand during Obama’s second term, and the UVA rape hoax, Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz and other massive blunders have woken up much of the population to their perfidy. We now have a Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is basically implementing the men’s rights program by rolling back overzealous feminist rape policies and more.

Moreover, the men’s rights movement (as well as Men Going Their Own Way) was subverted by the left years ago. Stealth leftists such as Dean Esmay and Bar Bar infiltrated men’s rights organizations such as A Voice for Men and began pushing the lie that men’s rights’ was “beyond” politics and that there was “no difference” between the left and the right, despite feminism being part of the left’s political program. This lead to absurdities such as Esmay accusing the victims of Muslim-led rape attacks in Germany last year of being “liars” and Paul Elam declaring that he would vote for Hillary Clinton unless Trump pledged to legalize marijuana. Men’s rights was effectively blunted as a political force because of this.

Finally, feminism itself is receding in importance in white countries due to the rise of demographic-driven racial identity politics. Feminism is largely a preoccupation of upper middle-class white women: concerns over “manspreading,” “mansplaining,” and nonexistent rape epidemics on college campuses don’t register with black or brown women. As white countries become less white, feminists will gradually lose political power.

We’re already seeing this in Europe due to the migrant crisis: feminists have been ignoring the rapes that Muslim men commit against European women and attacking right-wingers who bring attention to the problem. In the Netherlands and Sweden, Muslim populations have formed their own ethnic interest political parties, like Michel Houellebecq predicted in Submission. Hillary Clinton was the last gasp of white feminism in American politics: future leftist leaders will be non-white and will exclusively engage in racial identity politics.

You have been critical of the Alt Right of late, and so it makes sense to ask: where did they lose the narrative, and what should they be doing instead?

The alt-right focuses on material problems and ignores the fundamental spiritual maladies that have led to whites’ current predicament. As I mentioned above, whites are fixated on pleasure and comfort above all else: to quote Common Filth again, they want to be “veal wrapped in cotton.” Virtually every problem that the alt-right lays at the feet of other groups stems from whites’ own spiritual emptiness, and even if the white ethnostate were to be established tomorrow, it’d tear itself apart in less than fifty years as the same problems reemerged.

For example, the alt-right is correct to criticize Jews for their disproportionate involvement in movements that erode public morality and social cohesiveness. Thing is, the Jews didn’t invade our countries and impose themselves on us at gunpoint: we invited them in. The first country to emancipate the Jews was France in 1791, in the throes of the French Revolution, the birth of leftism. Nobody forced the French to liberate the Jews: they did it on their own. In 1791, the French also legalized homosexuality, again without any prompting from the Jews. Filmic pornography was also invented by whites. Jews are merely exploiting character traits that whites have embraced on their own. The merchant cannot sell what the goyim will not buy.

Similarly, the whitest cities and countries in the U.S. and western Europe are degenerate fleshpits right now. Seattle, one of the whitest major cities in the U.S., elected a homosexual mayor who was forced to resign after he was caught molesting children. Portland, Oregon, is full of bluehairs, feminists, homeless junkies, and the biggest wastes of white skin on the planet. Iceland, which has no Jewish or non-white population to speak of, is the chlamydia capital of the world, is aborting babies in record numbers, has a culture revolving around having casual sex while blackout drunk, and elected a radical lesbian as prime minister.

The alt-right has done nothing to address these spiritual problems and is arguably making them worse. When Richard Spencer is enthusiastically endorsing universal healthcare, a furry is moderating AltRight.com’s Discord server, and so-called intellectuals are claiming that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish,” there’s a major problem going on. As I mentioned above, social media and smartphone addiction has also rendered many young people — including alt-righters — incapable of genuine thought. This is evidenced whenever any right-winger criticizes the alt-right, even if the criticism has nothing to do with politics: “Don’t punch right!” “Don’t counter-signal!” “Don’t purity spiral!” It’s no different than when SJWs whine about being “tone policed” whenever people accuse them of being histrionic.

If the alt-right wants to recover, they should stop acting like the white version of “WE WUZ KANGZ” and start addressing the spiritual maladies of white people. Cast out the homosexuals and other reprobates from their ranks and start encouraging spiritual and philosophical growth. Instead of staging big, ineffectual public events like Charlottesville, focus on building connections and affecting change in their local communities, which are supposed to be the most important part of any person’s life. Yes, the alt-right should bring attention to the problems caused by racial diversity, but they should do so with an eye to exorcise the demons in whites’ souls that led to these problems to begin with.

The alt-right also needs to accept the fact that Christianity will be an unavoidable part of social revival. I have sympathy for neopagans and I’m interested in Greek and Roman mythology, but the only faith traditions that work are ones that are already rooted in peoples’ traditions and communities. Most whites have some connection to Christianity through their families and communities, but vanishingly few have a real, organic connection to Odinism or pagan traditions. Christianity provides meaning to peoples’ lives, a moral framework that is time-tested, and a system of social organization that binds people without reliance on government. Moreover, religious Christians are by far the most receptive audience to identitarian and nationalist ideas (as shown by Trump’s popularity among evangelicals and Catholics and nationalist governments in eastern Europe), making the alt-right’s anti-Christian attitude self-defeating from a practical perspective.

America is changing, and so is Europe. Where do you think things are going? What should people do to encourage this change, and to shape it toward positive ends?

I believe we’re on the verge of a great shift in political perception: what Jim Donald calls a “left singularity,” a period when the leftward drift of politics ends. I don’t know what ultimate form that shift will take. However, it’s clear that the status quo of corporate liberalism cannot last much longer. The problems of diversity, sexual deviancy, social atomization and economic decay have made life for many whites intolerable, which is what fueled both Donald Trump’s election victory and the Brexit campaign. Similarly, non-whites in many Western countries have become belligerent and openly antagonistic towards whites.

We’re likely going to see major upheaval in countries such as Canada and France which are desperately trying to maintain the corporate liberal status quo. For example, Emmanuel Macron, who was feted as the “centrist” antidote to the evil racist Marine Le Pen, has seen his approval ratings collapse after implementing the austerity programs he’d been pledging to implement during the campaign. Islamist terror attacks will be met with vigilante responses and political violence between leftists and right-wingers will become commonplace. The latter is already happening in the U.S. Some countries will be able to stem the worst of it by electing nationalist governments, while others are doomed.

My advice to people who want to aid nationalism and fight leftism is to keep their heads down and work on improving their personal lives. As Jordan Peterson puts it, clean your room. Cultivate your friendships, find a wife or husband, consider having a family. Work on making your local community stronger. If you’re not in a white, right-leaning, Christian community, find one that you can integrate into. Disengage from social media and the 24/7 news cycle; it’s out of your control anyway, so focus on what you can control. If you must get politically involved, keep it on the local level (think city council or school board), where you can do the most good.

How do you think the Right — those on the Alt Right and other non-mainstream forms — can protect itself from the Great Erasure led by Google and other large companies?

I recommend that right-wingers stay away from pointless social media and real-life publicity stunts, such as Charlottesville or the umpteen million dramas that are playing out across the alt-media right now. All attention will accomplish now is earning you the ire of the left’s electric eye without any guarantee you’ll have a positive impact. Focus on cultivating clear thought, purity of soul and real-life networks: past a certain point, seeking fame is detrimental to the quality of your work.

In many ways, we should think of ourselves as living in the Soviet Union or any repressive police state, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Until such time as we can break the stranglehold the corporate left has on online discourse, we should avoid taking dumb risks that result in being deplatformed and unpersoned for little or no gain. The general population is moving in a rightward direction anyway, thanks to the left’s open contempt for whites and white men, so the gains of the past three years aren’t going to be erased simply because we aren’t trolling lefties on Twitter as vigorously as we used to.

You have a large body of work, and it is a bit hard to keep track of. What should people read that you have written, and how should they follow what you are up to now?

Everything I’ve ever written online is archived at MattForney.com, including articles I’ve written for other sites: you can find a chronological archive here. I haven’t been as active lately because I have another job that’s been taking up much of my time, but you can find everything I do there. I also host an infrequent podcast, which can be found on YouTube, SoundCloud, and my website. I’m also on Gab, though I try to avoid social media as much as possible these days. I write for Return of Kings occasionally, and I also recently joined Alternative Right as a co-editor. Along with co-editors Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, I’m hoping to bring the alt-right back to its original values.

I’ve written several books, but the most relevant for Amerika readers is Three Years of Hate, a compilation of the best writing from my In Mala Fide days. You can buy it direct from MattForneyBooks.com or from Amazon and other booksellers. I’m currently nearing completion of a book on the 2016 presidential election based on my first-hand coverage, as well as a compilation of my best articles from the past five years and a series of memoirs about my adventures when I was younger. Follow MattForney.com to find out more about those books when they’re ready for release.

Former White Nationalists Agree On The Demise Of White Nationalism

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

Weight in on the demise of white nationalism as we know it, which seems to be the issue of the week, Counter-Currents has declared the demise of white nationalism to be followed by something like Billy Roper’s “balkanization” theory:

Without white people having an interest in “white America”—not because it never existed, but because it is dead—and without the advantage of military strength, on what grounds should we call ourselves “white nationalists?” In the most semantically precise sense of the word, it may be accurate: nation, after all, refers to a people, and is separate in meaning from the geopolitical entity we call a state. But for most people, “white nationalist” means “white statist,” especially if that state happens to look similar to the United States in its current shape.

…Towards this end, whites should work at a local level to establish healthy and functional communities: tribes that challenge and enrich each others lives. They are agile, adaptive, and bring out the best in their members, from whom they derive their strength.

This follows a great article by Jack Donovan entitled “Why I Am Not A White Nationalist” in which he lays down roughly the same theory:

In fact, there’s very little new to say, except that, if anything, I’ve learned to hate white people and White Nationalists more than any of their opponents. Not because they are evil monsters, but because they generally suck. I hate white people and White Nationalists because they are weak, broken, phenomenally autistic, or all three.

…As anyone familiar with my work knows, I support tribalism always and everywhere. As the 1970’s motto goes, I believe that “small is beautiful” when it comes to human communities. However, a tribal community has to have a lot more going for it than race. And this is where the idea of White Nationalism falls apart for me. Race alone isn’t enough to unite a people.

…America is pluralistic by design not because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the rights of women or racial or sexual minorities — but because white European Christian men have spent centuries murdering and imprisoning each other over religious differences. I see no reason why this phenomenon would not immediately become a problem within a “diverse” population of whites.

This follows by twelve years my own critique which takes several forms, but includes the fundamental accusation that white nationalism is a form of ethno-Bolshevism:

White power movements have simple dogmas: “if it’s white, it’s right” and the idea that if all non-whites are excluded, society will somehow become good “again.” They address (what they see as) a symptom, and not the problem. They also ignore almost all other important issues outside of race. It is as if they are more provocateurs than political thinkers, here to hit us with a quick and repellent suggestion before fading away, laughing at our discomfort in their discontent. They are not alone in this, since almost every special interest group from Environmentalists to Pro-Lifers to Black Power groups falls into this category; it may be a failing of our political system itself that makes agreement so difficult that political movements must be distilled to the ultimate simplicity and singular focus. But if all non-whites died tomorrow, what would happen? The basic problems of whites would remain.

We can distill these problems to two things:

  1. Predominance of low-quality whites.
  2. White society in the grips of an insane design of a civilization.

In addressing the first, we have to look at the problem this way: not all things Caucasian are identical. Any society, no matter how wonderful, produces destructive or stupid people; this is the nature of genetic recombination and environmental factors. If you plant a field of corn, you’re going to end up culling the weak plants and the mutants that do not have beneficial attributes. With every generation, some great people are born, and some weaker — inferior — ones. If the culture in question manages to have the great people breed more than the weaker, it rises to a higher overall standard. If not — decline. And what has happened in white culture? First we overthrew the aristocracy and guaranteed universal rights. This places the choices and attributes of the individual beyond criticism. It’s illegal, immoral or some combination thereof to discriminate against people because they are delusional, stupid, corrupt, disgusting, ugly, perverse, etc. This leads to a reversal of the equation of healthy societies, and explains why white societies have gone from producing Beethovens and Shakespeares to Britney Spears and Anne Coulter.

It also includes some more vitriolic criticism:

While we support Nationalism and the Indo-European tribes, the members of this site have nothing to do with neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, or White Power groups. And this isn’t because of social taboo: we agree with said groups on many things, most fundamentally that Indo-Europeans (“Caucasians”,”whites”) have the right to establish nations where no other races are welcome as residents. This is nationalism, by its very definition (nation = a people), and in my belief it should be extended to every ethnic group, from Basque to Eskimo.

…Further, “white power” people want to accept all “whites” as being of the same tribe, which is error. The French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any “white nationalist” who endorses mixing Indo-European tribes clearly doesn’t understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed “white” people as English, and you can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves ethnically as well as politically.

I could go on. White nationalists don’t understand caste; they believe in societies without distinction. While I’m no fan of class, which uses the insane doctrine of social Darwinism to rank us by “ability” according to how much money we’re willing to earn, “caste” makes sense to me. Some were born to be warriors, some to be priests, some to be leaders, and some to be cooks. Each job is vital and none is more important than the others. Mixing those together produces people with no specialization who are thus incompetent at any and every job they undertake.

It gets even more extreme:

Mixtures of caste, race and background have produced people of a lowest common denominator, who can agree on sports and television and movies and music, but not much else, and are swayed by the simplest argument presented to them. Therefore, they in every case opt for the most simplistic and idiotic solution to any problem. The “white nationalist” approach is not to change this basic tendency, but to play into it.

I’m not interested in saving the world, or saving “the white race”; I’m interested in solving the ideological split among white people (because this is my race, and for no other reason; were I black, I wouldn’t give a damn at all and it wouldn’t be any of my business; hence, I have the same disinterest in the black race) and in nurturing and giving power to those “white” people who have brains, strength, character and moral leadership ability. Most of you, including the squareskulls who hang around “White Nationalist” outfits, I don’t care about saving or even aiding.

There are some other idiots who reject “white nationalism” and talk about the importance of some “new future movement” but these people are just as stupid: they don’t realize that no new answers are needed, because the answers never change regarding the biggest questions in life. Technology changes; what PDA do I use? But questions of culture, breeding, education and character never do and never will. Nothing will ever change the basic parameters of mortality and thus, a certain amount to accomplish before death, and certain behaviors that are ascendant and others that bring one closer to the lowest common denominator.

Among other things, I criticized white nationalism for avoiding the problem of caste, which is the social order that glues a society together. Without order, we are rabble; mass culture always shifts Leftward, and this has been our problem for centuries. White nationalism does not address this.

My thinking has advanced since that time. I agree with Roper and Donovan that we are going to balkanize into small tribes, but from those are going to come larger nations, united by type of European (Western, Eastern or Southern) and held together by strong culture, a caste system and aristocratic leadership. These are the only way to have civilization, and we are rediscovering it.

The death of white nationalism cannot come too soon. Simplistic solutions will not beat decay; only new life will. New life consists in accepting that humanity has never changed and so, the ideal form of our civilization has never changed, and we only must accept this traditional form and then attempt to improve it qualitatively as we can.

As Bruce Charlton and Mencius Moldbug both point out, modernity is a religion in which there is only one god, the Self. From this comes egalitarianism, where the individualist Self demands that no one can tell it that it is wrong and thus exclude it on that basis, and all other variants of modernity, including band-aids like National Socialism, Communism, Socialism and white nationalism.

We need more than just a band-aid. We need to escape from this entire system. White nationalism will not do it, but more comprehensive civilizational structures will. It is time for all of us to recognize the real enemy, modernity and its root in the ego, and opt for order and virtue instead through a traditional civilization.

Why the Right Needs Feminism

Saturday, December 17th, 2016

I want to start this article off with a simple statement: the Right needs feminism. I can hear your cries of indignation echoing through the tubes of the Internet, but hear me out.

The so-called “crisis of masculinity” – that is to say “the ongoing and ever changing struggle to find an acceptable compromise between the primal gang masculinity […] and the level of restraint required of men to maintain a desirable level of order in a given civilization”1 – is, as Jack Donovan notes, an inevitable result of modern civilization. The question has never been ‘is there a crisis of masculinity?’ Nay, that “problem is as old as civilization itself.”2 Instead, the question is ‘under what conditions can we address this crisis?’

It is my contention that, although seemingly counterintuitive, feminist epistemology has been the impetus (if not the primary force) behind movements to solve the crisis of masculinity. To understand why, we must journey back to 1949 and examine the introduction to the French existentialist Simone de Beauvoir’s seminal work, The Second Sex.3

In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir lays out a Hegelian (and arguably structuralist) understanding of womanliness and femininity. While we will not get into a detailed analysis of her argument, a cursory understanding is necessary before moving forward. For her, masculinity (whatever that may mean) has been the culturally hegemonic force in history and has shaped the identities of those around it. Specifically, she argues that masculinity has been the norm – “both the positive and neutral” electric poles in philosophical inquiry whereas women represent “only the negative, defined by limiting criteria”4 – and that womanliness and femininity have been defined as a “lack” of masculine qualities.5 What is important to take from de Beauvoir’s analysis is the concept of binary opposition. Binary opposition, in a word, is the idea in linguistics and semiotics that says that things get their meanings by reference to what they are not.

de Beauvoir’s analysis, indeed her entire project, hinges upon a view of the world that holds masculinity as the dominant, culturally hegemonic force which, for centuries, it was. As she noted in 1949, “[a] man would never get the notion of writing a book on the peculiar situation of the human male.”6 But this is The Current Year™ and times have changed. Not only does Jack Donovan’s excellent book, The Way of Men, do precisely what de Beauvoir says is impossible, but the scores of authors Donovan cites show that, indeed, “the peculiar situation of the human male” is being examined.7 The question we must thus ask is why? de Beauvoir’s analysis was certainly correct in the late 40s and early 50s – there were no major analyses of masculinity – but her commentary doesn’t hold up today. What changed? Simply, the change was the rise of feminism and female identity politics.

In the early days of feminist theory, the questions of femininity and womanliness were only raised due to the hegemony of masculinity. Because masculinity was such a dominant force, it was used as a thesis by Hegelian feminists off which to bounce an antithesis of femininity. This feminist dialectic directly resulted in the rise of female identity and a more multipolar conception of gender. This multipolar conception of gender – that is to say, a world where female identity politics were recognized alongside masculine hegemony – gave masculinity a thesis off which to bounce its own ideas. It’s true, as Donovan notes, that the growth of civilization, the bountifulness of food, and the peacefulness of society made inevitable a crisis of masculinity insofar as men are now unable to partake in traditional activities that made them good at being men; instead they are confined to simulated, vicarious, and intellectualized masculinity.8 Indeed, “[w]hat are men supposed to do when there’s no land to settle and no one to fight?”9 However, Donovan only takes the analysis so far. Just because the crisis of masculinity was inevitable does not mean the study of manliness was. Just because modern society produced a crisis of masculinity does not mean that modern society would have necessarily produced an answer to it. Rather, something was needed to force the issue of masculinity to the forefront of people’s minds. That something was feminism. Feminism created a reactionary male counterpart.

Absent a counterhegemonic force, we would be paralyzed by the crisis of masculinity with no way to define ourselves as men. There would be no male studies absent the rise of feminism; there would be no attempts to define masculinity absent an understanding of femininity; there would be no ‘manosphere’ and no understanding of The Way of Men absent feminism. Why? Because absent an opposite – a counterhegemonic force – there is no way to define the self. Absent opposition there is no tension and nothing to compare masculinity to. Without The Way of Women, there is no Way of Men.

  1.   Jack Donovan, The Way of Men (Dissonant Hum, 2012), 135.
  2.   Donovan, The Way of Men, 135.
  3.   Simone de Beauvoir, “The Second Sex,” in Continental Philosophy: An Anthology, ed. William McNeill and Karen Feldman (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 161-166.
  4.   de Beauvoir, “The Second Sex,” 162.
  5.   Ibid.
  6.   Ibid.
  7.   Donovan cites, among others, Sam Sheridan’s A Fighter’s Heart, Waller Newell’s What is a Man?, and Harvey Mansfield’s Manliness.
  8.   Donovan, The Way of Men, 97-98.
  9.   Ibid., 93.

NPI conference Become Who We Are: The Identity and Spirit of Our People, October 31, 2015

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

become_who_we_are_the_identity_and_spirit_of_our_people

The National Policy Institute will present a conference entitled Become Who We Are: The Identity and Spirit of Our People on October 31, 2015. Festivities — with speakers Jack Donovan, Guillaume Faye, Kevin MacDonald, Roman Bernard, Keith Preston, Richard Spencer and Sam Dickson — will commence from 10 AM – 9 PM at The National Press Club in Washington, DC.

NPI describes the event as follows:

BECOME WHO WE ARE ARE is an all-day, one-track conference on Saturday, October 31, 2015, taking place at The National Press Club in Washington, DC. It features presentations, discussions, lunch and dinner, and, in the evening, a live musical performance renowned folk artist R.N. Taylor.

This looks like an exciting event which shows a focus on the right shifting from racial issues to identitarian ones, and of mainstream conservatives removing themselves from the liberal apologist regime and once again tackling the problems that will define our future.

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan

Monday, March 26th, 2012


The Way of Men
by Jack Donovan
62 pages, Dissonant Hum, $6

Very many academics have studied gender but very few have studied masculinity. As the presumed original privileged gender, masculinity does not interest those who are looking to re-make nature in the image of human preferential notions. But Donovan, along with only a handful of others at the top of the masculinist ecosystem, has undertaken a penetrating analysis of what it is to be a man.

His latest, The Way of Men, first gives us a working definition of masculinity as an expression of the ideals men must share to be effective in hard times. It then describes the inherent tension between masculinity and society, expressed as the contrasted ideals of “being a man” and “being a good man.” Donovan disentangles the two, showing that the masculine imperative of the former conflicts with the type of compromise-based society favored by committees, merchants and the politically-correct that the latter endorses. Finally, he gives us a roadmap for the time after such a degenerated society, and hints on how to get started before that downfall.

A man who is more concerned with being a good man than being good at being a man makes a very well-behaved slave. (32)

For an e-book that runs to 62 pages, that’s a lot of information in a compact form, much less an ambitious thesis. Donovan keeps the writing interesting throughout with eclectic examples and analogies. His verbiage doesn’t sparkle, or quirk, or do any of the other stuff that self-pitying literary magazines do. Instead it keeps a solid focus on its theme while yanking in related ideas to broaden our horizons. The result reads like it could be a keynote address and keep the interest of a large audience. This enables him to tackle controversial ideas from their gentlest sides, as if discussing rotor diameters for automatic transmissions.

What is most convincing about the prose however is that for writing that could appear in a mainstream magazine, The Way of Men is forceful and direct in a way that modern people would consider feral. It is not apologetic, or evasive. It is not indirect or passive. Like a boxer, it walks right to its objective and begins the pummeling. It is not a tantrum, or a rant, or any of the other artifacts of the democratization of language. It is Jack London-style writing, words applied with intent and unrelenting pressure, yet with an inner soul and attention to detail. Nothing is unnecessary. This alone lifts it from the cloud of frustrated impotence that is most writing about masculinity and manliness.

The central theme of The Way of Men is the definition of masculinity not as an individual trait but a social one. Masculinity according to Donovan is a sense of being able to uphold one’s role in a tribe by virtue of the four cardinal abilities of a man, which are Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor. In his architectural description of these abilities, Donovan relates them to the ability of men to rely on each other in pursuit of the objectives that have been the traditional domain of men: hunting, defense, conquest and exploration. These are things men will live for, or die for, and it’s the latter that gives them the significance to convey meaning to life through them.

Men respond to and admire the qualities that would make men useful and dependable in an emergency. Men have always had a role apart, and they still judge one another according to the demands of that role as a guardian in a gang struggling for survival against encroaching doom. Everything that is specifically about being a man—not merely a person—has to do with that role. (12)

The Nietzschean undertones to this book are not concealed, but are downplayed from the almost metaphysical ideals of the German philosopher and translated into an assessment of human experience and what makes existence worth surviving. This is an existential view, not a utilitarian one. Most of our social rules and regulations consist of utilitarian thinking, like “What quantity will materially benefit the majority of people?” and never concern themselves with the quality of existence. Donovan’s point, and Nietzsche’s, is that we should look at life as artists: what will make our experience here the most intense, the most vivid, and the most worth living?

By embarking along this line of thought, Donovan touches on where the right-wing and the masculinists combine. Both groups believe that morality and civilization, through their equalizing and leveling tendencies, both adulterate our population with incompetents and also reduce life experience from a natural, organic, inequal and exciting existence to a hum-drum and dull one in which we make few important choices and as a result, feel impotent in daily life. What do we really have control over? The TPS reports? We are manic consumers and individualists because we are seeking a meaning that no longer exists for us, Donovan argues, and so we have embarked on surrogate activities that much like the relationship between pornography and sex, replace an experience with a symbol.

Cosmopolitan journalists from elite schools like Betty Friedan filled women’s imaginations with fantasies of exciting big-city careers that only a few could ever hope to attain. For every woman living that fantasy today, there are a bunch of women scanning merchandise through a checkout line at some big-box retail store, or doing repetitive data-entry in some gray office…Many of those women would probably rather be spending more time actively engaged in the lives of their children, but they no longer have the choice to stay home.

The cost of civilization is a progressive trade-off of vital existence. It’s a trade of the real for the artificial, for the convincing con, made for the promise of security and a full belly. (45)

It’s best not to be fooled by the seemingly specialized title. This book is about men, and being a man, but it’s also about “being good at being a man” and not “being a good man” as defined by the selfish desires for control and equality of others, which become the voice of civilization. However, that is the doorway to its underlying topic, which is about civilization itself. We know we can regulate ourselves into a stupefactive state of no risk, but how much should we?

Between the primal state and the neutered over-socialized state, is there a stopping point? Civilization has for centuries been headed in one direction only. Conservatives put out a hand to halt progress, but Donovan snarls and turns on progress itself, suggesting that when we let our fears rule us, we eliminate the few things that make us feel actually alive. This underlying tension makes The Way of Men a challenging and provocative read.

Masculinity Versus the Age of the Chinless

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

a_new_vista

Gentlemen:

Every age has its moniker, and I believe we live in the age of the chinless. Since our modern political system is based on the idea that every person is a precious snowflake, the golden rings go to the men who find a way to avoid offending others, not the men who actually fix problems.

This means that any man who stands up and says, “By golly and gee whiz, I’m going to fix this problem once and for all!” is a massive threat. If he gets away with that, the whole system unravels. Suddenly, people are going to want to see results again, instead of reassuring promises that we’re all special and unique. If that happens, being inoffensive isn’t going to cut it anymore, and since most people aren’t really good at anything, they really fear a time when they have to actually perform and be useful instead of simply being “nice.”

As a result, the chinless gather and form little groups that write laws, issue studies, or complain loudly with nasal whining voices in the mainstream press. Their goal is to humble you so that you cannot rise up, proclaim your masculinity, and fix some problems once and for all. In order to tie you down, they invent all sorts of -isms and accusations, but the underlying message is the same: we want you to be like us, domesticated and totally without virility, so that you are not a possible threat. To us.

Someone finally put up a wall to keep the wolves away, and as a result we live in a society of obese, ignorant, self-centered people who are each sure they are God’s gift to humankind, but because they want others to extend them the same courtesy, will tell us vociferously how we’re all important, all unique, and yet all equal. But if that’s true no one is important, you might add. They don’t understand that kind of complex logic and so they’ll call you stupid.

If you want to know what you fight, it is this gang of the chinless and their lynch mob tendency to tear down anyone who rises above the crowd. It’s not feminists that hold you back, although the feminists probably like to think it is. Feminists can barely get their act together enough to puke out some useless volume like Feminist Perspectives on Aeronautical Engineering which just about files itself on the last shelf in the library. No one cares about feminists, except when it’s time to sell products to women, get votes from women, or talk your way into their (calloused, dry and yip-yapping like a Chihuahua) vaginas.

All of this is a way to introduce to you what is the opposite of what you want to be.

The chinless horde would like you to be kept men. When they don’t need you, they want you to play around with your toys, your video games, and even your girly-girls. But when they need you, it’s time for you to step up and make love to mama like a man, or at least someone who plays one on TV. Why do I think of the stunned simper that Ashton Kutcher always has on his face? He is a kept man, when you think about it. He can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t offend the boss, which “happens to be” a woman.

A kept man — I’m thinking here of a gigolo, a boy-toy, or even a catamite — is defined by two things:

  1. He is free by not being free. He does not need to struggle, in the normal sense. He has no family to strive for, or any real career goals. He is free because he has no purpose. Other than to enjoy himself, except when…
  2. He is enslaved by being free. The tradeoff of being “free” most of the time is that one single thing connects you to your daily meal, and that’s the boss. When the boss lady calls, he comes. When the boss lady is unhappy, he must be there. The rest of the time he’s free except when (see above).

Ashton, for example, has his career and can screw around without whatever weird project has infested his Hollywood drama-choked mind of late (poor fellow – Hollywood is a neurotic place, and they like to keep their people neurotic so they’re easy to control). But when the elder Wifey Dearest calls, he hops on a plane and goes home, and has to do what she says and exactly what she says until the crisis passes. Then it’s recess again.

Men in this modern time are all kept men. You are kept because living in this society is easy if you don’t have any large goals. If all you want is a job, an apartment, some hobbies and a little fun, you are living in the period of history when this is easiest. True, the girls are all crazy and most of them are fat or have diseases, but that’s like the damaged goods shelf at Kroger, lower prices… and true, your apartment is in a trash-strewn wasteland where you’re as likely to get shot as noticed, but it’s at a discount too. You can just pass your whole life away in this method, without ever forming any goals that take you close to the edge of self-discovery or worse, challenging yourself. It’s a paradise for the chinless.

All of the above is a rather complicated way of telling you that masculinity is to you an unknown quantity. No one in the media, government or high society wants it to exist. None of your friends know anything about it. And if you start getting close to any idea approximating masculinity, the armies of the chinless will rise up and start complaining about how you offended them.

Jack Donovan offers a good introduction to masculinity with this somewhat cosmological definition:

Masculinity is that which is least feminine; femininity is that which is least masculine.

Another way to view this is that like hot and cold, masculinity and femininity define each other. If we did not have hot days, but only had cool ones, we would not have a word for the difference in temperature. Instead, the two define each other. A day is hotter than or cooler than another. This enables us to measure without knowing absolute limits.

In the same way, masculinity and femininity together add up to the sum of all roles possible as a human being. We do not know masculinity as a fixed idea, but instead as a relative idea, which allows it to adapt to any situation. The problem with this is that if the definition of masculine or feminine gets corrupted, it takes down its opposite as well, since they are each defined by the other.

Mark from Post:Masculine gives a more concrete definition (via Koanic):

  1. Emotional dissociation.
  2. Initiation.

If we see Jack’s definition as an axis, Mark’s definition helps us nail down what one of the poles is. He sees masculinity as a force that conceptualizes and executes independent action without being forced to react (initiation), and as one that removes emotions from consideration as it approaches a decision. Without Jack’s definition to mellow out this view, we might think of men as robots. But instead they are that which is more likely to initiate, and less likely to be emotional when doing so.

Both of these attributes are completely heretical in this modern age. Initiation does not take into account the feelings of the precious snowflakes involved and, as if even more blasphemous, emotional dissociation refutes the ideas that our individual feelings and feelings of being offended are important. It’s pure heresy.

But as they say, those who do not learn from history will be condemned to repeat it. Only we, those who are in the driver’s seat in this time of re-making civilization as its previous incarnation fails, can tell what the future will be. It’s in our hands now. If we have any brains, we’ll make it a future that values masculinity and tells the chinless ones to go piss up a rope.

Recommended Reading