Key Thinkers of the Radical Right

Home > Other > Key Thinkers of the Radical Right > Page 41
Key Thinkers of the Radical Right Page 41

by Mark Sedgwick (ed)


  36. Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post- Catastrophic Age

  (Arktos Media, 2010).

  37. “Richard Bertrand Spencer,” SPLC.

  38. Ibid.

  39. Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (Toronto: Little, Brown, 1997), 168– 183.

  40. Guillaume Faye, Le Système à tuer les peoples (Paris: Copernic, 1981).

  241

  Richard B. Spencer and the Alt Right

  241

  41. Alain de Benoist, Vu de droite, 19, 25.

  42. Sam Kestenbaum, “Richard Spencer Touts Himself as ‘White Zionist’ in Israeli

  Interview,” Fast Forward, August 17, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http:// for-

  ward.com/ fast- forward/ 380235/ richard- spencer- touts- himself- as- white- zionist-

  in- israeli- interview/ .

  43. Ibid.

  44. Alain de Benoist, “Confronting Globalization,” Telos 108 (Summer 1996):

  117– 137.

  45. George Grant, Technology and Empire (Concord, Ontario: Anansi, 1969).

  46. Spencer, “What Is the American Right?”

  47. GRECE, Le Mai 68 de la nouvelle droite (Paris: Labyrinthe, 1998).

  48. Alain de Benoist, Les Idées à l’endroit (Paris: Broché, 1979).

  49. Joel A. Brown, “Dylann Roof, the Radicalization of the Alt-

  Right, and

  Ritualized Racial Violence,” Sightings, January 12, 2017, accessed October

  13, 2017, https:// divinity.uchicago.edu/ sightings/ dylann- roof- radicalization-

  alt- right- and- ritualized- racial- violence.

  50. Johnson, New Right versus Old Right, 5.

  24

  15

  Jack Donovan and Male Tribalism

  Matthew N. Lyons

  O N O C T O B E R 3 1 , 2015, a powerfully built man addressed the annual

  conference of a little-

  known white nationalist organization, Richard

  B. Spencer’s National Policy Institute. Wearing a close- fitting T- shirt in-

  stead of the jacket and tie worn by most attendees, Jack Donovan urged his

  audience to reject “universal morality,” which, he told them, “makes men

  weak, leaves them lost, confused, dependent, helpless.” White European

  men, he said, had simply been putting their own people first when they

  conquered, killed, or enslaved people all around the world. “They basically

  did the same things other people have done in every other human society

  all throughout history. They were just fucking good at it,” Donovan shouted

  to applause. “If white men, if any men, want to be free, want to be strong,

  want to say yes to life again, they’re going to have to abandon universalist

  morality and liberate their tribal minds.”1

  Donovan’s “Tribal Mind” speech embodied several of the themes and

  tensions that have helped to make him one of the American Right’s most

  innovative and distinctive thinkers. He is a skilled writer and speaker

  who has a knack for expressing deeply controversial ideas in simple and

  compelling terms. He believes that human equality is a lie, violence is

  necessary, and exclusionary groups are the only real basis for a workable

  system of ethics. He has a history of seeking common ground with white

  nationalists, but he is actually not one of them: in Donovan’s ideology race

  is ultimately secondary to gender, and he is concerned with how not only

  white men, but “any men,” can be free and strong.

  The “Tribal Mind” speech also highlighted Donovan’s political use of

  his own body. Here, as in many online photographs, Donovan’s physique

  243

  Jack Donovan and Male Tribalism

  243

  advertised the masculine strength and power he idealizes, in a way that

  carried both class and sexual tensions. In a gathering that sought to present

  white nationalists as clean- cut professionals (not boots- and- suspenders

  skinheads or camouflage- wearing survivalists), Donovan looked like a

  lumberjack or stevedore, and while he is very much an intellectual (and

  an artist), he has in fact supported himself largely through physical labor.

  At the same time, showing off his body was also an implicit reminder that

  Donovan was an openly homosexual man speaking to a movement that

  has traditionally reviled homosexuality, and that his vision of masculinity

  encompasses sexual relationships between “manly men” even as it rejects

  and vilifies gay culture.

  Implicitly, Donovan’s “Tribal Mind” speech offered many core elements

  of his chief contribution to right- wing thought: the doctrine of male trib-

  alism, a form of male supremacist ideology that centers on the comrade-

  ship of fighters and departs from established patriarchal doctrines, notably

  that of the Christian Right. Male tribalism is distinct from, but comple-

  mentary to, white nationalism, and Donovan’s years of collaborating with

  white nationalists have helped them to forge a multifaceted supremacist

  ideology.2

  Writings and Activities

  Jack Donovan was born in 1974 and grew up in rural Pennsylvania. He

  has also lived in New York City and California, and for the past several

  years has lived in or near Portland, Oregon.3 He has worked at a variety

  of jobs, from go- go dancer to truck driver to tattoo artist. His first book,

  Androphilia: A Manifesto, was published in 2006 under the pen name

  Jack Malebranche. Three years later, he coauthored Blood Brotherhood

  and Other Rites of Male Alliance with Nathan F. Miller. Since then, he has

  self- published three books under the Dissonant Hum imprint: The Way of

  Men (2012), A Sky Without Eagles (2014), and Becoming a Barbarian (2016).

  Donovan has also put out numerous articles about masculinity and re-

  lated topics, either on his own Jack Donovan website, or on other right-

  wing sites. The Way of Men, arguably his most important and systematic

  work, has been translated into French, Portuguese, and German.4

  Since 2006, Donovan has been involved in various organizations and

  movements. As of 2007 he was a priest of the Church of Satan, which he

  described as “very much a do- it- yourself religion when it comes to per-

  sonal ethics,” but resigned from the church in 2009.5 He has had a limited

  24

  244

  E M E R G E N T T H I N K E R S

  connection with the “manosphere,” an antifeminist online subculture,

  which has fostered ideas about masculinity that are related to his own.

  From 2010 to 2017, Donovan was an active participant in the Alt Right.

  Since 2015, he has been a member of the wolf of Vinland, a Virginia- based

  neopagan group that embodies many of his male tribalist principles, and

  he founded a Pacific Northwest branch of the organization.6

  Core Ideas of Male Tribalism

  Donovan began to develop a philosophy of male bonding in his first book,

  Androphilia. Here he defines and celebrates a specific form of male ho-

  mosexuality. “I do not simply prefer to have sex with male bodies. I am

  attracted socially, sexually and conceptually to adult men and adult mas-

  culinity. . . . I am attracted to the expression of MAN as an archetype.”7

  In Androphilia, Donovan rejects the label “gay,” criticizes gay culture

  for promoting effeminacy among homosexual men and for allying with


  feminism, and argues that homosexual men should be held to the same

  gender expectations as heterosexual men. Donovan also rejected same- sex

  marriage on the grounds that society has an interest in promoting tradi-

  tional nuclear families. He regards the union between two men as some-

  thing fundamentally different from marriage. This led him to coauthor

  the book Blood Brotherhood, which draws on blood- bonding rituals from

  different cultures as a basis for formalizing homosexual relationships

  between men.

  From these beginnings, Donovan expanded his scope to address male

  bonding as a fundamental basis for male identity and society as a whole.

  “The Way of Men,” Donovan argues in the book of that title, “is the way

  of the gang.” “For most of their time on this planet, men have organized

  in small survival bands, set against a hostile environment, competing for

  women and resources with other bands of men.”8 These gangs, he claims,

  have provided the security that makes all human culture and civilization

  possible. They are also the social framework that men need to realize their

  true selves. Donovan’s gangs foster and depend on the “tactical virtues” of

  strength, courage, mastery, and honor, which together form his definition

  of masculinity.9 Gang life centers on fighting, hierarchy, and drawing the

  perimeter against outsiders (“separating us from them”). Homosexuality

  creates problems within gangs mainly if it correlates with submissive-

  ness or effeminacy, which weaken the gang’s collective survival capacity.

  Patriarchy, he argues, is the natural and rightful state of human affairs

  245

  Jack Donovan and Male Tribalism

  245

  because it is rooted in this primeval survival scenario where women are a

  prize that male gangs fight over.

  Donovan sees a basic tension between the wildness and violence of

  gang life and the restraint and orderliness that civilization requires: civi-

  lization benefits men through technological and cultural advances, but it

  also saps their primal masculinity— their strength, courage, mastery, and

  honor. For most of human history, he says, men have fashioned work-

  able compromises between the two, but with societal changes over the

  past century that has become less and less possible. Today, “globalist civ-

  ilization requires the abandonment of the gang narrative, of us against

  them. It requires the abandonment of human scale identity groups for

  ‘one world tribe.’ ”10 This attack on masculinity is being led by “feminists,

  elite bureaucrats, and wealthy men,” who “all have something to gain for

  themselves by pitching widespread male passivity. The way of the gang

  disrupts stable systems, threatens the business interests (and social status)

  of the wealthy, and creates danger and uncertainty for women.”11 With the

  help of globalist elites, feminists have supposedly dismantled patriarchy

  and put women in a dominant role. “For the first time in history, at least

  on this scale, women wield the ax of the state over men.” Women have

  “control over virtually all aspects of reproduction,” and “a mere whisper

  from a woman can place a man in shackles and force him to either con-

  fess or prove that he is innocent of even the pettiest charges.” Faced with

  the bumper- sticker slogan, “Feminism is the radical notion that women

  are human beings,” Donovan retorts that this should be rewritten as

  “Feminism is the radical notion that men should do whatever women say,

  so that women can do whatever the hell they want.”12

  To counteract the decline of masculinity, Donovan advocates a latter- day

  tribal order that he calls “The Brotherhood.” Like his imagined primeval

  gang experience, The Brotherhood consists of small, closely knit bands

  of men, all of whom affirm a sacred oath of loyalty to each other against

  the outside world. A man’s position is based on “hierarchy through mer-

  itocracy,” not inherited wealth or status. The Brotherhood would not be

  limited to any one economic or political model. It might be run as a de-

  mocracy or it might have a king, “as long as he had to start at the bottom

  and demonstrate his worth— and the next king did too.” All men would

  be expected to train and serve as warriors, and only warriors would have

  a political voice. Women would not be “permitted to rule or take part in

  the political life of The Brotherhood, though women have always and will

  always influence their husbands.”13

  2

  4

  6

  246

  E M E R G E N T T H I N K E R S

  In keeping with his rejection of “universalist morality,” Donovan does

  not advocate The Brotherhood as a dream for everybody. “I don’t believe

  that people with different interests who live far away from each other

  should have to agree on a way of living, and I believe that forcing them to

  accept a foreign or unwanted way of life is tyranny . . . the world is better

  and far more interesting if there are many cultures with different values

  and ideals.”14 At the same time, he does regard the reassertion of tradi-

  tional masculinity and male power as an ideal that cuts across ethnicities

  and cultures:

  For instance, I am not a Native American, but I have been in con-

  tact with a Native American activist who read The Way of Men and

  contacted me to tell me about his brotherhood. I could never belong

  to that tribe, but I wish him great success in his efforts to promote

  virility among his tribesmen.15

  Male Tribalism in ideological context

  Donovan’s male tribalism builds on several basic premises that are

  standard across most right- wing movements: that gender roles are nat-

  ural and immutable; that men as a group should hold power over women;

  and that women’s main roles should be to bear and raise children, and

  to provide men with support, care, and sexual satisfaction. Yet Donovan’s

  gender politics differ sharply from those of the Christian Right, which

  has been at the forefront of patriarchal initiatives in the US for several

  decades. Donovan’s reliance on evolutionary psychology contrasts with

  the Christian Right, which justifies male dominance as obedience to

  God’s law, and the “androphilia” he celebrates would be anathema to

  Christian Rightists, who have made open homosexuality a major political

  target.

  Christian Right ideology emphasizes an idealized model of the “tra-

  ditional” family, where women obey their fathers and husbands, who in

  turn provide them with security, economic support, and love. Although

  women are firmly subordinated to male authority, they are offered a sense

  of meaning as housewives and mothers. By contrast, Donovan’s vision of

  The Brotherhood makes the family itself peripheral, thereby devaluing

  women’s roles even more. As the white nationalist Jef Costello has noted,

  Donovan reverses the conventional idea that men hunt and fight to protect

  and provide for their families, arguing instead that women exist to bring

  247

  Jack Donovan and Male Tribalism
/>   247

  men into the world, and the family exists because it makes idealized male

  gang life possible.16

  In addition, sections of the Christian Right have appropriated elements

  of feminist politics in the service of the movement’s patriarchal agenda,

  claiming, for example, that abortion “exploits women” or that federal sup-

  port for childcare is wrong because it limits women’s choices, as well as

  encouraging women to become politically active, speak publicly, and even

  take on leadership roles. Donovan, on the other hand, is completely un-

  interested in speaking to women’s concerns or recruiting women to be

  politically active.

  Tracing Donovan’s intellectual influences can be difficult. He uses few

  footnotes yet refers to a wide range of other writers, ranging from clas-

  sical authors such as Aristotle and Livy to modern leftists such as Noam

  Chomsky and bell hooks [Gloria Jean Watkins]. Androphilia cites some

  other right- wing homosexual male writers such as Andrew Sullivan and

  Yukio Mishima. The Way of Men draws on the work of various authors

  who have called for reasserting traditional masculinity, such as Harvey

  C. Mansfield and James Bowman. Here and in his essay “No Man’s Land,”

  Donovan also draws on advocates of evolutionary psychology such as Lionel

  Tiger and Derek Freeman. Parts of Becoming a Barbarian, Donovan’s most

  recent book, draw heavily on Norse mythology, presumably reflecting his

  new membership in the Wolves of Vinland, which practices a form of

  Odinism. Yet Donovan reworks and synthesizes these eclectic elements in

  new and original ways.

  Some of Donovan’s ideas, such as his emphasis on male bonding and

  his belief that violence offers a kind of spiritual fulfillment, echo Conserv-

  ative Revolutionaries such as Ernst Jünger, whose work he has reviewed

  sympathetically.17 Some of Donovan’s ideas, such as his rejection of uni-

  versalist morality in favor of tribalist loyalties, may be influenced by

  European New Right authors such as Alain de Benoist. Yet their critiques

  of universalism differ, at least in emphasis: while de Benoist argues

  that universalism is wrong because different cultures answer “essential

  questions” differently, Donovan’s main critique is that it is smarter and

 

‹ Prev