The Church is my fatherland and Christ my only King at this point; and this is only one of the reasons why I’m not a white nationalist, and actually share a lot of the anger and embitterment you can find in Jack Donovan’s recent critique of white nationalism. That being said, though, I see at least two fundamental flaws in his critique:
1. He insists that white nationalists are “broken”, “shitty”, and spending most of their time “gossiping about each other (usually anonymously), stabbing each other in the back and jockeying for power and influence.” He fails to see, however, that every group that is being treated like a cult will eventually develop cult-like traits: paranoia, aggression, in-fighting, weirdness and revenge fantasies. If white men weren’t so busy professing to be invulnerable and pretending that there are individual solutions to structural problems (“Just lift, brah!”) they could easily see that the effects of marginalization and disenfranchisement are simply not pretty. Once an oppositional group is big enough to have appeared on the radar screen of the ruling class, the group will be attacked and in the process ugly things will happen. Ugly things that will scare away people who still have more to lose, and attract only people who don’t have anything to lose anymore. If you’re part of the resistance, you should plan ahead and expect that to happen, instead of being caught by surprise and then complain about “weak” men afterwards.
2. It is simply not true that even “strong white men” are afraid of fat lesbians and of genderqueer hipsters. It’s a lie just as the idea of “homophobia” is a lie. I don’t know any man who is afraid of those who suffer from same-sex attraction; but what men have reason to be afraid of are the legal, social and financial consequences that come with challenging the sodomite agenda. Just consider these small bakers and small florists who got destroyed because they had refused to bake some cakes for sodomite “weddings.” The court system and the police attacked them, not merely “a fat lesbian.” Escapism into the woods might be a viable option for uncommitted homosexuals who just want to hang out with other “manly” gays and worship pagan stones. But as Henry Wolff said in his reply to Jack Donovan, “You may not care about politics, but politics cares about you.” Once you appear on the radar screen of the ruling class, they will also shut your little love nest down. Or simply sell the forest, cut it down and build a center for Muslim “refugees” over your pagan shrines.
Of course, Jack Donovan is still an interesting writer (I even have one of this books here), and it’s not like I disagree with everything he says. After all, a “Smultronstället” idiomatically signifies an underrated gem of a place, often with personal or sentimental value. Also, the Bible speaks about going “outside the camp” since Jesus, too, was crucified “outside the camp.” Finally, even Donovan himself, see my “About” page, once described the “Barbarians” we are supposed to become, as those who lived outside the gates of the empire’s cities; outside the camp, so to speak. So it’s not like this attitude is completely foreign to me. We should just be realistic about the possibilities of unpolitical escapism, and remember that “LARPing” was a thing long before the internet came into existence. Painting a black sun on your actual face instead of just using a black sun as an avatar on a discussion board, doesn’t magically make you “real.”