All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
33:02
Jack Donovan: "White Tribalism Disrupts Their Regularly Scheduled Programming" (2014)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our next speaker is Jack Donovan.
He's probably best known for his book, The Way of Men.
And this is what the book's publisher, how they describe the book.
The Way of Men captures the silent, stifling rage of men everywhere who find themselves at odds with the over-regulated, over-civilized, politically correct modern world.
I have not read that book, but I certainly intend to.
I first became vividly aware of Mr. Donovan at a National Policy Institute conference in which he gave a talk called The New Tribalism, or Becoming the New Barbarians.
That was it.
And he pointed out that anyone who says something truthful about certain things automatically is considered a barbarian, no matter how urbane or cultivated or civilized you are.
And I think that's certainly the case of anyone who speaks honestly about race.
We become barbarians.
And Mr. Donovan is interested in not just about the manly virtues but also about the importance of tribe.
The importance of tribe for whites as well as for anyone else.
So, my fellow barbarians, please welcome one of the most barbarous of us all, who will speak to us today about white tribalism.
Thank you.
All right.
So I'd like to thank Mr. Whitman for explaining diversity to us because I'm here to celebrate diversity.
I'm all for it.
I think the world needs a lot more of it.
Ethnic diversity, religious diversity, cultural diversity, authentic diversity that is alive and thriving in the present, not stagnant, recycled, sterilized artifacts of the past.
Other people said that they want to celebrate diversity, but too often they're just repeating slogans that make them feel good, but which ultimately facilitate entities and patterns of thought that can only destroy diversity.
A few years ago, I walked past the television and the World Cup was on.
Before the game started, two teams ran across the field.
Black, white, brown, red.
They met in the center, and both teams were holding a giant banner that said, say no to racism.
And what I immediately noticed is that these two teams, of all different colors, from two different nations, were all wearing Nike uniforms.
And that one image has captured for me...
Both the interests that merchants and global corporations have in promoting what is called diversity and the extent to which that diversity is allowed to be meaningful.
A bunch of competing athletes dressed in uniforms made by the same company promoting the end of racial boundaries demonstrated the ability of the global brand to transcend and undermine race, tribe, culture,
and nation.
You can be black, white, brown, red, and yellow.
You can be from different cultures.
You can compete against each other.
But when it comes right down to it, no matter who wins, Nike wins.
The image of all those players out there in the same logos on their uniforms, it reminded me of that Coke commercial from the 1970s.
The one where people from every race and nationality sing in perfect harmony.
About a sugary beverage that makes you fat and gives you the diabetes.
That commercial was made in 1971, three years before I was born.
People blame commie academics, Marxist scumbags, and whatever we just said, hippie school teachers, progressive politicians, and lefty chills in the media for the deracination of whites, but I would add that the deracination of almost everyone else.
But it is my habit to doubt the conspiratorial talents of hippies and academics and even politicians, though they all have their moments.
It always seems more plausible to me to rely on human weakness, ineptitude, sloppiness, selfishness, short-sightedness and greed for an explanation of everyday human affairs.
I've worked for small companies and I've worked for big companies.
And a feel-good, hug-the-world ideology is so...
It's just an easy personal rationalization for taking the path of least resistance to improve a balance sheet or justify that next pay raise.
Small businesses hire illegal immigrants so that they can make more money.
Big businesses.
Make anti-discrimination policies to avoid liability.
And perhaps even more importantly, because their interests are everywhere and their customers are everyone.
They have no interest in alienating potential customers.
They serve no one because they serve everyone.
And like Nike, Businesses want to play on every team.
They don't see us in them.
Businesses see existing markets and emerging markets.
Sure, hippies, commies, schoolteachers, reporters, activists, progressive politicians, they may have given what we call multiculturalism a push.
And they continue to be its best bumper sticker supporters.
But it works.
It spreads because it's viable, because it's profitable.
Loyalty of any kind necessarily limits your options.
Loyalty to no one makes you very flexible.
It opens up your options.
You become a mercenary, and so does everyone else.
Once a tipping point has been reached, and there is no social or legal deterrent to disloyalty, It becomes more profitable for everyone at every level to trade loyalty for opportunity.
Then, discrimination becomes the only dirty word.
Discrimination, in this sense, a product of loyalty to a group, becomes taboo.
Not because it is innately evil, but because it is simply unprofitable.
Preaching anti-discrimination becomes profitable no matter what men actually believe about themselves or other people because without loyalty to a group, every man is a free agent, a self-salesman with no other means of support, a loner who can't afford to alienate anyone who could one day become either an employer or a customer.
Almost everyone ends up participating willingly.
For their own immediate personal gain or convenience in the erosion of their own cultural and ethnic boundaries, connections, and identities.
And in return, they become part of the global economy.
But as they put on their Nike jackets and become people of the world, their culture dies.
Or becomes a commercialized caricature of itself.
A costume.
A folk dance.
A food cart.
What is called multiculturalism is not so much an acknowledgement of the separateness, uniqueness, or independence, as it is an invitation to put aside old loyalties and rivalries while maintaining some superficial elements of your old identity to help ease your transition into the new global commercial culture.
I was having dinner at an Italian restaurant a couple of weeks ago, And I was at a table next to a family of second or third generation Mexicans.
All of the men were talking very passionately about the same thing.
Do you know what they're talking about?
Multi-level marketing.
Amway. Avocare.
They were passionately debating marketing strategies and business plans, arguing about the best way to sell more products to their friends and neighbors.
And the one guy said to his brother or cousin, you have to set goals for yourself.
You have to figure out how much revenue you need to generate, to get there.
That big house, that nice car, that vacation.
And I thought to myself, you sure are Americans now.
applause Thank you.
Their grandparents might have been different.
They might have had a different culture, but these guys weren't different.
They were just like everyone else in the restaurant, as American as Tony Robbins.
Joel Alstein, the Olsen twins, and P.T. Barnum.
As I said earlier, I'm not much for conspiracy theories to explain what human nature already explains well enough.
And while there are elites and corporations with investments and customers all over the world who stand to benefit immediately from increased fluidity in the global marketplace, many similar decisions are also made by small business owners.
Job seekers, low-level bureaucrats, entertainers, and middle managers.
More than a conspiracy, what I see on the horizon reminds me of the nothing.
Some of you may be too old and some of you may be too young, but anyone who grew up in the 1980s will remember the movie The Neverending Story.
In The Neverending Story, a young boy acquires a book that he was told is not safe.
As he reads it, he becomes involved.
In the story of a dying world.
The world is not being conquered by some foreign invader.
It is simply disappearing.
Succumbing to a force known as the Nothing.
All of the creatures, the peoples, the rocks, the lakes, the mountains and the trees, they are all simply disappearing.
It is explained to the hero that the fantasy world of the book, the world that is disappearing, is the product of human dreams.
And the evidence, I'm sorry, the nothing, is the evidence that people are forgetting their dreams.
And the power behind the nothing, the mysterious force that moves it, is happy that people are losing their dreams because hopeless people without dreams are easy to control.
That's what is happening to human culture, to human difference, to diversity.
People are forgetting their connections to their ancestors, losing a sense of belonging in human groups.
And instead of replacing old identities with new ones, as they have throughout human histories, they're forgetting the idea of collective identity.
They're forgetting the idea of loyalty, of the discrimination between us and them.
To compete in the global marketplace for disposable jobs, And disposable goods to protect themselves from social and financial risk, people around the world are forgetting who they are.
They're forgetting the differentiation and individuation of groups that leads to collective actualization and collective becoming that makes authentic, vibrant, and diverse cultures possible.
They are assimilating and disappearing.
Into a world crowd, an endless crush of indistinct humanity.
They are lining up.
They are putting on their Nike uniforms, drinking their Coke, playing their pointless games as free and rootless agents for entertainment and profit.
And the synthetic thrill of playing for a temporary tribe.
The emptiness that is left is the nothing.
A world without culture.
A world without diversity.
A world defined by commerce and consumption that can only produce products.
Before I started writing about manliness, I actually went to art school.
I love culture and beauty and art and passion.
I grew up going to libraries, pouring over old art books.
I was fascinated by all the different styles and themes and ideas created by different people at different times, in different places, with different technologies and different materials, who spoke different languages and worshipped different gods.
I started art history and art movements, and I believe that culture is not just flash-in-the-pan fads and marketing gimmicks, but culture is the product of identity, of difference, of separateness.
Of proximity, of location.
And to some extent, culture is the product of isolation.
Living culture is the zeitgeist of a group of people who are connected to each other and separated in some way from everyone else.
Thriving culture is the product of human tribalism.
But anti-tribalism, anti-racism, human interchangeability, globalism, commercialism, the nothing.
It creates an environment that can no longer support the growth of new culture.
Many languages blend into a few because it is more convenient for commerce and negotiation.
People all around the world read the same news, go to the same websites, listen to the same music, work on the same computers, at different divisions of the same companies.
They watch the same Hollywood movies, play the same sports, shop at the same stores, wear similar clothes, read the same books, watch the same porn.
Everything seems to be recycled and half-hearted because it is.
Everyone converts to watered-down, all-inclusive, inoffensive, universalist religions or they become atomized, annoying atheists who always want everyone else to believe the same thing, just like the universalist religion people do.
No culture, no collective culture can grow and thrive in an environment where everyone is interchangeable.
And no distinction, no discrimination between us and them is possible.
There are subcultures, of course, but most of them are or quickly become commercialized.
They aren't about groups of people, more like producers and fans.
Music cultures, gaming subcultures, literary subcultures, sports subcultures, recreational subcultures.
These are many identities, disposable identities, consumer identities.
These recreational consumer identities mean that Most enthusiasts will have to keep one foot in the mainstream globalist culture to continue to participate and consume.
And the producers will have to invite everyone and exclude no one to make sure they can stay in business.
Too few can go all in.
Too few can commit completely.
For most, this subculture is a mini-identity.
It's a la carte.
One of many.
Take, for instance, the most conspicuous subcultural type of the past two decades, the hipster.
Hipsters aren't even a group.
They're anti-group.
The word hipster is a slur, an insult for young people who are fundamentally insincere.
They borrow bits and pieces of fads and fashions from more sincere times.
And I identify with that.
Everybody notices that something's wrong.
We're all searching for something that means anything.
And I can see what they're doing, but they're piecing them together in a safely ironic way.
Hipster culture is the perfect anti-culture.
It's the natural produce of global assimilization and commercialism.
Hipster culture is the smirking ghost of culture's past that echoes In the void created by the nothing.
Hipster culture is the product of people who are afraid to commit to anything that they won't be able to disavow later.
Hipster irony is a safety valve, an easy out.
The security of always being able to say, well, I wasn't really serious.
Salon actually posted a piece recently written by two obviously left-wing artists.
Titled, David Foster Wallace was right.
Irony is ruining our culture.
The authors wrote, For a while, it seemed no new ideas were possible.
Progress was an illusion, and success could be measured only by popularity.
Hot trends such as painted pornography, fluorescent paint, sculpture with mirrors, spray foam, and yarn were mistaken for art because artists believed that blind pleasure-seeking could be made to seem insightful.
When described ironically.
They added, at one time, irony seemed to reveal hypocrisies.
I think our site actually uses it a lot better.
Because there are hypocrisies to reveal.
But now it seems, it simply acknowledges one's cultural compliance and familiarity with pop trends.
The art of irony has lost its vision and edge.
The rebellious posture of the past has been annexed by the very commercialism it sought to defy.
So even these progressive salon guys are starting to realize that irony and insincerity are masked for emptiness.
They say that irony has been commercialized.
But I would say that the culture of safe irony is the only possible end of globalism.
And commercialism.
Another quote from the Salon piece.
Skeptics reject sincerity because they worry blind belief can lead to such evils as the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.
They think strong conviction implies vulnerability to emotional rhetoric and a lack of critical awareness.
But the goal of great art is the same, whether one approaches it seriously or dubiously, to make something new, to transcend.
One must have an honest relationship with what is, history, context, form, tradition, oneself.
Dishonesty is the biggest obstacle to making original, great art.
Dishonesty undermines a work's internal integrity, the only standard by which a work can succeed.
If work becomes a vehicle for one's ego, personal, or political agenda, Self-image, desire for fame, adulation, fortune.
Human as these inclinations may be, the work will be limited accordingly.
And I agree.
I believe that sincerity is the best weapon against the vacuousness of irony and cheap commercialism.
I don't believe that culture worth having can be the product of political or commercial triangulation.
I don't believe that culture worth having can be produced by people who are trying to please everyone or people who are worried that someone, somewhere, anyone, anywhere might be offended.
Great culture is the produce of passion and commitment.
Living, thriving culture is the product of love and hate.
According to Salon, Author David Foster Wallace believed that anyone who broke from the culture of hip irony, these rebels of sincerity, would be called out as backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic.
And it's true.
Sincerity is not of this age.
Sincerity is incompatible with what people think of as progress.
But we're all still human.
And that's what we really need, no matter what the cost.
At the end of the never-ending story, the boy reading the book finds himself in the void created by the nothing.
But he is told that the world was made from dreams, so his dream is to restart the world.
Our world is becoming a cultural void.
What passes for culture today is an echo.
Of cultures that are aging, dying or dead, repackaged for everyone, without compassion or sincerity, but with a safe, saleable smirk of irony.
The only way to stop the culture-destroying momentum of global commercialism, of the nothing, is to set boundaries, to draw lines, to say no, to discriminate.
Whether it is profitable or not.
To say this is for us, not for everyone.
To say this is who we are and what we're about.
Whether it is race, religion, ideology, or some other unifying idea.
To abandon the universal in favor of the tribal.
This is the new rebellion.
To become rebels of sincerity.
Tribalism, discriminationism is the only way to interrupt their regularly scheduled programming of the nothing, of Nike, of those forces which must undermine difference and identity and continue to expand and profit.
As I said, I'm here to celebrate diversity.
And the only honest way to celebrate diversity Is to make sure there is still some diversity left to celebrate.
Thank you.
All right, all right.
Jack, I think you provided a masterful critique of the
Betrayals by businesses large and small.
But something that puzzles me a little bit.
Businesses don't want to offend anybody.
That's what you said.
And yet they have no problems with their anti-discrimination policies or affirmative action policies of hurting whites, hurting our job opportunities and promotion opportunities.
And in terms of the latest favored minority du jour, the homosexual.
Companies like Starbucks are being defiant in telling even conservative Christian shareholders, buzz off.
We will favor and promote the homosexual agenda, and if you don't like it, sell your shares and get lost.
So how would you explain their willingness to offend white European Christians and yet not offend others?
A shoe in the door for us.
Well, I mean, they're playing the long game, aren't they?
I mean, they know where the market's growing and where it's receding.
In terms of, they see the writing on the wall as far as, as I said, discrimination becomes the new no.
And so the people who say, I want to discriminate, become the problem.
You know, and it's much easier for them to seem like the good guy by saying yes.
I mean, everyone wants to say yes.
I mean, that's like, you know.
A great rule of politics, if you can run around saying yes and give everyone what they think they want.
I think that that's the side that they're on, is the side of just saying yes.
As you know, it's very hard to organize those people to stand up for their own interests.
Maybe that's the real weakness.
Mr. Donovan, I really enjoyed your speech.
The question in regards to tribe, one of the biggest things we see in Europe is that naturally, in terms of tribe, a Frenchman knows he's French, he has an actual identity that's grounded in blood and soil.
Same with a German or a Russian.
But the problem here on the North American continent is, as you said earlier about the Mexican family, there is no American...
White identity.
That fundamentally from the beginning, America, the foundation was cracked and we built a house that was doomed to fall.
So my question for you would be this.
Given all of us want the same thing, to be able to see our people and our culture revive and thrive, how can we go about forming a new identity in the North American continent specifically because to adopt the American identity and the rallying cry of Take Back America is actually antithetical to our survival because it's repeating something.
That has already failed.
And as the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a definition of insanity.
So to be an American patriot is to literally be insane if you want to save the white race.
So I'm curious as to your thoughts on that.
Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said there.
Yeah, I mean, I think because I've always, since I was a little kid, even before I was involved with any of this, when I still believed all kinds of liberal things and whatever, I've always thought that America was too big.
It's too big of a-- there are natural groups, and I think many of us have probably seen the maps of the natural divisions of cultural boundaries.
I mean, I live in the Pacific Northwest.
No one in the Pacific Northwest should ever have to agree with anybody in the South about anything.
They'll never see each other.
They're different parts of the different country, and I think that that's-- That's why I'm a big fan of tribalism in all different kinds of ways, whether it be like religious tribalism or racial tribalism or whatever.
I think that if we break into smaller groups, I think that that's how you define culture.
That's how you could say the boundaries.
American is not a very good cultural identity, as you said, because it ends up being just kind of this commercialism and things that are doomed to fail again and again.
I deal with a lot of those guys.
A big part of my readership is gun guys who are really big into the Constitution and all that.
And that's kind of why I talk about this kind of stuff.
And I'm like, you see that this is not going to work again and again and again.
So, I mean, I just basically agree with you.
Excellent. Thank you.
Thank you for your talk, Mr. Donovan.
I have just a quick question.
You're most well known for writing in what is called the Manosphere, and I was wondering, it's considered another part of what some have termed the alternative writer, things like that.
What could people in this room right here, American Renaissance people, or racial nationalists, whatever you want to call them, learn from the Manosphere?
Any lessons from them they can learn since you're part of it?
Well, I think those groups have already overlapped a good bit, and I think that, I mean, The biggest chunk of the Manosphere, as I think I said to someone earlier, is that there's always an emerging market of young men that need to get laid.
And so, I mean, all these how-to books on how to get laid are always going to sell.
Forever. And so they keep doing this over and over again.
I mean, it's certainly something...
It's a great little...
Package to open up as far as for people who have grown up being told one thing about the relationships between men and women and so forth.
And then they realize that none of the things they're being told work.
You know, just the bring flowers, bend your knee and do what you're told is actually not a really good way to charm women.
And so they, you know, I think that that's very helpful for a lot of guys who are maybe used to behaving all the time who are really...
Good little white people who follow all the rules and maybe some of those rules didn't work for them.
So I think that's good for a lot of them.
For me, the stuff that I talk about is more general as far as masculinity.
They say the manosphere is dead right now.
I don't know if that's true or not.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi. Hi, I'm Paul.
There's a book called The Federalist Papers, which is informally the guide to how to interpret the Constitution.
It was written by some of the founding fathers, and they talk a lot about unity.
You know, we're all white, Christian, English, and that was a big part of the argument for the Constitution and for uniting the 13 colonies was the idea that, in some sense, we're all a tribe.
And actually, even in 1790, the federal government passed a law saying you have to be white to be a citizen.
So, you know, there's...
What I'm kind of getting at here is that it's recent developments that have taken us in the direction that we're in.
You know, French universalism, you know, the crosses of racial boundaries.
I mean, the original founding fathers who founded this country...
We're thinking probably more radically than a lot of people in this room.
So it's not so much in the founding documents, in the roots.
That's where we're okay.
It's just, you know, since the late 19th century we've been going to hell.
Yeah. Well, maybe one thing that I wrote into this speech and then wrote back out of it was that I think that maybe they, you know, the problem is that they weren't explicit enough, you know, about who they are and what they're for.
Obviously, it became something else, so they weren't explicit enough.
As Mr. Heimbach said, all these people in Europe, they have these established identities that came from warrior kings that have come down all these generations and generations.
They have this established hierarchy, and it was already there.
We didn't really have that.
One of the things I was going to say is that our hierarchy now is just based on money.
It's all these people who...
They had a great article the other day about Obama and his administration sitting down with all the new billionaire philanthropists.
And they're the Hiltons and the Marriotts, and these are the people who are going to control our destiny to a certain extent.
▲
Export Selection