What do you think?
Rate this book
The Way of Men
The Way of Men answers the question: “What is Masculinity?”
The so-called experts give the answers that suit their masters. They tell just-so stories to protect their ideology, their religion, their way of life. They look to women for a nod of approval before speaking. They give socially acceptable answers and half-truths.
If what they have to say resonates with men, it is only because they manage to hint at the real answer.
The real answer is that The Way of Men is The Way of The Gang.
Manliness — being good at being a man — isn’t about impressing women. That’s a side effect of manliness.
Manliness isn’t about being a good man. There are plenty of bad guys – real jerks –who are manlier than you are, and you know it.
Manliness is about demonstrating to other men that you have what it takes to survive tough times.
Manliness is about our primal nature. It’s about what men have always needed from each other if they wanted to win struggles against nature, and against other men.
The Way of Men describes the four tactical virtues of the survival gang.
The Way of Men explains what men want, and why they are rapidly disengaging from our child-proofed modern world.
The Way of Men examines the alternatives, and sketches a path out of our “bonobo masturbation society” through a new Dark Age.
The so-called experts give the answers that suit their masters. They tell just-so stories to protect their ideology, their religion, their way of life. They look to women for a nod of approval before speaking. They give socially acceptable answers and half-truths.
If what they have to say resonates with men, it is only because they manage to hint at the real answer.
The real answer is that The Way of Men is The Way of The Gang.
Manliness — being good at being a man — isn’t about impressing women. That’s a side effect of manliness.
Manliness isn’t about being a good man. There are plenty of bad guys – real jerks –who are manlier than you are, and you know it.
Manliness is about demonstrating to other men that you have what it takes to survive tough times.
Manliness is about our primal nature. It’s about what men have always needed from each other if they wanted to win struggles against nature, and against other men.
The Way of Men describes the four tactical virtues of the survival gang.
The Way of Men explains what men want, and why they are rapidly disengaging from our child-proofed modern world.
The Way of Men examines the alternatives, and sketches a path out of our “bonobo masturbation society” through a new Dark Age.
Audible Audio
First published March 22, 2012
1249 people are currently reading
10377 people want to read
About the author
Jack Donovan
7 books481 followersJack Donovan has been writing and speaking about masculinity, masculine philosophy and spirituality for over a decade. His foundational book, The Way of Men, has sold over 100,000 copies worldwide and has been translated into French, German, Portuguese, Spanish and Polish.
Donovan is an occasional speaker and often appears on podcasts to discuss masculinity and the challenges faced by men who want to live masculine lives in the 21st Century.
He lives in the Pacific Northwest, where he has constructed an “experimental pagan ritual space” called “Waldgang,” somewhere in the hinterlands.
Donovan is an occasional speaker and often appears on podcasts to discuss masculinity and the challenges faced by men who want to live masculine lives in the 21st Century.
He lives in the Pacific Northwest, where he has constructed an “experimental pagan ritual space” called “Waldgang,” somewhere in the hinterlands.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 625 reviews
March 12, 2014
Jack Donovan is bluntly honest, very precise, but not accurate. I agree with a lot of concepts in this book, like the way men view men - manliness is made of strength, courage, mastery, and honor - etc. However, his conclusions are misguided and frankly disappointing. This book was written by a trucker, and his disconnect with politics and economics show (not trying to bash - but the last two chapters elucidate this and really ruin the book for me).
Some abstractions are exaggerated - like women's lack of a role patriarchal society and manliness. Other chapters are incomplete - He talks about Rome and it's bellicose era of Romulus; disregarding the contrasting successor Noma or any understanding of the complexity of the Roman Empire.
However, the Bonobo Masturbation Society chapter is a Must Read... the chapter hit home describing where manhood is in our culture right now, and why it's so frustrating.
I'm just not satisfied with what he says in response as the conclusion, and therefor can't recommend the book - who wants to read a book with a huge caveat? Check it out if you're interested, but I'd rather read an excellent fiction with extractable truths.
Some abstractions are exaggerated - like women's lack of a role patriarchal society and manliness. Other chapters are incomplete - He talks about Rome and it's bellicose era of Romulus; disregarding the contrasting successor Noma or any understanding of the complexity of the Roman Empire.
However, the Bonobo Masturbation Society chapter is a Must Read... the chapter hit home describing where manhood is in our culture right now, and why it's so frustrating.
I'm just not satisfied with what he says in response as the conclusion, and therefor can't recommend the book - who wants to read a book with a huge caveat? Check it out if you're interested, but I'd rather read an excellent fiction with extractable truths.
October 4, 2016
Horrible. This is what happens when a bro gets a thesaurus and learns about how to reference other authors. The first few chapters have some real insight, that's the only reason why I'm giving this book two stars. The rest of the book has some real jewels like the author's fear of capitalist-feminist world government conspiracy taking over, and how men should break up into self-sufficient gangs. I shit you not he says something like: why should men compete in politics if women can compete in it too, then men just compete to impress women, not each other. I recommend this book for anyone who likes to lift weights, and watch WWE with a tin foil hat on. In short, just any paranoid bro who feels like their masculinity is being threatened by equality and progress in general
June 14, 2015
I try to read stuff that provokes me and challenges my assumptions. This is one of those books.
I found so many things annoying about this. Mainly the notion that men perhaps should rule because it's in our nature. That allowing females to occupy spaces where men traditionally and evolutionarily have been the "best".
I get that, for the longest time it's been that way and it has been beneficial for us as a species. Now, it's not been the best possible version of it because of, well, we've seen what's been done, right?
That being said, I do agree to a certain extent with the author's views. I also feel that physically strong, perhaps less "intellectually inclined" men have been pushed aside. We've come to view hard manual labor and physical strength as somehow "lesser" than either academic or artistic pursuits.
And that's really unfortunate. All people should have opportunities to have their skills put to the best possible use. The author mentions that this could be a possible reason for a part of the issue with criminality.
He does make a point of stating that there needs to be balance between the different types of manliness. That's probably what I'll take as the main point.
The reason I gave it 4 stars is that it fulfilled its intended purpose for me. Was it the best book I've read on the subject? No. Did it actually make me reconsider some of my prior beliefs? Yes.
I feel that there are better and more productive ways of learning the same lessons. My first thought is Mike Rowe's concept of "Dirty Jobs".
We really should find ways of balancing the different types of manliness because right now it really is kind of skewed.
It's understandable though. Look at history. For the longest time the physical manliness has been disproportionately revered. Then came the intellectuals. After that the artistic.
It seems that the scales always need to tip a little too far in each direction before we find ways of striking a semi-perfect balance.
I know I felt a lot better back when I used to go fishing and exploring the woods with my manly man buddies. There was something really primally alluring about it.
Now? I go hunting and fighting in games like "Borderlands", "GTA" or "Elder Scrolls". Emotionally it's the same kind of bonding but nothing beats catching & gutting a couple of perches, then building a fire and cooking it among friends.
So, to anyone wanting to brush up on their manliness this is a good read. You'll be sighing out of frustration at some of the ideas while others actually help you understand the issue a little bit better.
And that's what we all need. A little more understanding.
I found so many things annoying about this. Mainly the notion that men perhaps should rule because it's in our nature. That allowing females to occupy spaces where men traditionally and evolutionarily have been the "best".
I get that, for the longest time it's been that way and it has been beneficial for us as a species. Now, it's not been the best possible version of it because of, well, we've seen what's been done, right?
That being said, I do agree to a certain extent with the author's views. I also feel that physically strong, perhaps less "intellectually inclined" men have been pushed aside. We've come to view hard manual labor and physical strength as somehow "lesser" than either academic or artistic pursuits.
And that's really unfortunate. All people should have opportunities to have their skills put to the best possible use. The author mentions that this could be a possible reason for a part of the issue with criminality.
He does make a point of stating that there needs to be balance between the different types of manliness. That's probably what I'll take as the main point.
The reason I gave it 4 stars is that it fulfilled its intended purpose for me. Was it the best book I've read on the subject? No. Did it actually make me reconsider some of my prior beliefs? Yes.
I feel that there are better and more productive ways of learning the same lessons. My first thought is Mike Rowe's concept of "Dirty Jobs".
We really should find ways of balancing the different types of manliness because right now it really is kind of skewed.
It's understandable though. Look at history. For the longest time the physical manliness has been disproportionately revered. Then came the intellectuals. After that the artistic.
It seems that the scales always need to tip a little too far in each direction before we find ways of striking a semi-perfect balance.
I know I felt a lot better back when I used to go fishing and exploring the woods with my manly man buddies. There was something really primally alluring about it.
Now? I go hunting and fighting in games like "Borderlands", "GTA" or "Elder Scrolls". Emotionally it's the same kind of bonding but nothing beats catching & gutting a couple of perches, then building a fire and cooking it among friends.
So, to anyone wanting to brush up on their manliness this is a good read. You'll be sighing out of frustration at some of the ideas while others actually help you understand the issue a little bit better.
And that's what we all need. A little more understanding.
September 25, 2012
This book should take its place between the gun rack and self-defense books. While I will not give a full review, as I feel it should be read to full grasp this important piece, I will say that Mr. Donovan has once again hit many nails on the head with all the precision of a Bostitch pneumatic nail-gun. In this world of "politically correct" language and redundant male guilt, Jack not only slashes through the pervasive pantywastism, he gives a clear view in the difference between being a good man and being good AT being a man for starters. One of my favorites thus far is asking what is the Parameter. This book gives a solid and unencumbered view into a subject that would get a many-fold answer if the question was given to men on what it means to be a Man.
Once again Jack Donovan is to be commended for his works on this vagina-forbidden topic in a world gone to a lavender hell, Mr. Donovan will be that guiding light to a pragmatic viewpoint on what it means to be a man. Do yourself a favor, purchase this book and really question your values as a male in this current and overt sea of unmitigated male bashing.
Once again Jack Donovan is to be commended for his works on this vagina-forbidden topic in a world gone to a lavender hell, Mr. Donovan will be that guiding light to a pragmatic viewpoint on what it means to be a man. Do yourself a favor, purchase this book and really question your values as a male in this current and overt sea of unmitigated male bashing.
January 13, 2020
Should have been titled The Way of Assholes.
Pseudo-intellectual garbage. He references Hobbes, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates in order to lend some credibility to his “arguments” but he only succeeds in confirming his idiocy.
I’ll give him credit for being entertaining - like the morbid way a train wreck or a car crash with multiple fatalities is ...entertaining.
Might even be seen as a call to arms or MANifesto for the whiny and insufferable man-child who feels so victimized he has to endure the indignity of a crap job and in his time off alternates between playing video games and masturbating all damn day.
Obviously this book is written for a very narrow audience.
You’d better be an angry, white, heterosexual male, with low to average intellect, physically fit loin-cloth wearer who enjoys hunting, aggressive sports, brawling with other men, and beating females just to show them what’s what (one of the reasons he prefers chimps over bonobos).
If you are a fat man, smart, or female, he basically thinks you are inferior and should content yourself to a role of submission in the tribe.
He blames the Way of Women for the intellectualization of civilization. He believes intellectual pursuits are problematic because women can play the game just as well as men. He prefers activities that require brute force because men (typically) have more muscle and can overpower women. He wants a return to the Way of Men.
For a big man he seems really threatened by a little woman.
The most frustrating aspect of this book, however —aside from its misogyny, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, closed-mindedness, and advocacy of violence— is that he concludes his ideas are all common sense and that science and human history back him up.
Pseudo-intellectual garbage. He references Hobbes, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates in order to lend some credibility to his “arguments” but he only succeeds in confirming his idiocy.
I’ll give him credit for being entertaining - like the morbid way a train wreck or a car crash with multiple fatalities is ...entertaining.
Might even be seen as a call to arms or MANifesto for the whiny and insufferable man-child who feels so victimized he has to endure the indignity of a crap job and in his time off alternates between playing video games and masturbating all damn day.
Obviously this book is written for a very narrow audience.
You’d better be an angry, white, heterosexual male, with low to average intellect, physically fit loin-cloth wearer who enjoys hunting, aggressive sports, brawling with other men, and beating females just to show them what’s what (one of the reasons he prefers chimps over bonobos).
If you are a fat man, smart, or female, he basically thinks you are inferior and should content yourself to a role of submission in the tribe.
He blames the Way of Women for the intellectualization of civilization. He believes intellectual pursuits are problematic because women can play the game just as well as men. He prefers activities that require brute force because men (typically) have more muscle and can overpower women. He wants a return to the Way of Men.
For a big man he seems really threatened by a little woman.
The most frustrating aspect of this book, however —aside from its misogyny, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, closed-mindedness, and advocacy of violence— is that he concludes his ideas are all common sense and that science and human history back him up.
June 5, 2016
I debated what to rate this because I vacillated between love and hate with so many points in this book. At its core, it is an attempt to make an amoral analysis of masculinity, and ultimately fails to make a convincing argument.
I LOVED parts of this book. His discussion of the "perimeter" and his explanation of his four "tactical virtues" (four amoral, universal traits of masculinity) were great. I also found his description of viewing the state of society and its history through a lens of masculinity both fascinating and challenging.
The biggest problem with this book is that it really can't commit to making amoral claims of masculinity without condoning immoral behaviors of men throughout history. Donovan tries to explain that men respond to four distinctly male virtues: courage, strength, mastery, and honor. And while I agree with him on these points, they seem incomplete. Frankly, it seems like there really needs to be 1-2 more virtues, one of them being a clear moral component. While Donovan doesn't sugar coat his explanation, it's clear that he won't commit to the logical conclusion of masculine amoral virtues: blatant exultation of immorality. Throughout history, one can think of dozens of examples of men behaving in their "best interest", e.g. rape, murder, pillaging, violence. He tries to back-peddle some by saying that women essentially tame men--another awful conclusion. The obvious reason this is flawed is that it's an easy out. Men's best interest isn't really all that bad stuff, because their best interest is what lies BEYOND the bad stuff, until he also makes the claim that peace and prosperity seem to be detrimental to masculine values too. He wants it both ways. He wants to talk about masculinity without being tied down to a moral code, but can't hide the elephant in the room of men's morality.
One of his absolute worst explanations--which he seems to be really proud of--is his dichotomy of chimpanzee and bonobo behaviors, saying that chimpanzee behavior and social structure is more akin to the way of men, the ideal for masculinity, while bonobo ape behavior is apparently more like men of today, a neutered version of masculinity. While the contrast is intriguing, are we really going to look at the animal world for what is right and wrong? Do we need to discuss how many forms of animal behavior are patently immoral from a human point of view? Are we really going to say that chimps hold the standard for human masculinity? That is utterly absurd. Also, someone could come along and write a book about how bonobos are the evolution of human masculinity, making the same contrast, but in the reverse order. His argument seems to be built on sand.
There are other points of contention that I have, like his seeming glorification of anarchy, though he tries to back-peddle here too. He randomly includes foul language in the book, which doesn't bother me in itself, but the way he uses it makes me dislike him and respect him less. There's also the fact that many people will see him as a bigot, homophobic, sexist Neanderthal. I wouldn't say that about him, but the topics in this book would lead many leftists to think that.
Ultimately, this book was a good attempt, but falls so short. It's not consistent and feebly makes arguments that try to ignore morality altogether. It's clear that he is an atheist trying to make a case for objective values outside religion, but the points are incoherent. Parts of this book really resonated with me, but because he can't face the moral dilemma, it's just not a complete book. I think--and I hope--that Donovan makes a follow-up to this book that both clarifies and expands upon the points in this book.
I LOVED parts of this book. His discussion of the "perimeter" and his explanation of his four "tactical virtues" (four amoral, universal traits of masculinity) were great. I also found his description of viewing the state of society and its history through a lens of masculinity both fascinating and challenging.
The biggest problem with this book is that it really can't commit to making amoral claims of masculinity without condoning immoral behaviors of men throughout history. Donovan tries to explain that men respond to four distinctly male virtues: courage, strength, mastery, and honor. And while I agree with him on these points, they seem incomplete. Frankly, it seems like there really needs to be 1-2 more virtues, one of them being a clear moral component. While Donovan doesn't sugar coat his explanation, it's clear that he won't commit to the logical conclusion of masculine amoral virtues: blatant exultation of immorality. Throughout history, one can think of dozens of examples of men behaving in their "best interest", e.g. rape, murder, pillaging, violence. He tries to back-peddle some by saying that women essentially tame men--another awful conclusion. The obvious reason this is flawed is that it's an easy out. Men's best interest isn't really all that bad stuff, because their best interest is what lies BEYOND the bad stuff, until he also makes the claim that peace and prosperity seem to be detrimental to masculine values too. He wants it both ways. He wants to talk about masculinity without being tied down to a moral code, but can't hide the elephant in the room of men's morality.
One of his absolute worst explanations--which he seems to be really proud of--is his dichotomy of chimpanzee and bonobo behaviors, saying that chimpanzee behavior and social structure is more akin to the way of men, the ideal for masculinity, while bonobo ape behavior is apparently more like men of today, a neutered version of masculinity. While the contrast is intriguing, are we really going to look at the animal world for what is right and wrong? Do we need to discuss how many forms of animal behavior are patently immoral from a human point of view? Are we really going to say that chimps hold the standard for human masculinity? That is utterly absurd. Also, someone could come along and write a book about how bonobos are the evolution of human masculinity, making the same contrast, but in the reverse order. His argument seems to be built on sand.
There are other points of contention that I have, like his seeming glorification of anarchy, though he tries to back-peddle here too. He randomly includes foul language in the book, which doesn't bother me in itself, but the way he uses it makes me dislike him and respect him less. There's also the fact that many people will see him as a bigot, homophobic, sexist Neanderthal. I wouldn't say that about him, but the topics in this book would lead many leftists to think that.
Ultimately, this book was a good attempt, but falls so short. It's not consistent and feebly makes arguments that try to ignore morality altogether. It's clear that he is an atheist trying to make a case for objective values outside religion, but the points are incoherent. Parts of this book really resonated with me, but because he can't face the moral dilemma, it's just not a complete book. I think--and I hope--that Donovan makes a follow-up to this book that both clarifies and expands upon the points in this book.
October 15, 2022
Drawing its stance from sociobiology, this book starts by a very strange and flawed assumption: that males define and judge themselves only in regard to what other males think. Mmmh?
Now, this is not completely untrue, but it's only part of the picture. And, because this whole book relies only on 'part of the picture' (that the author completely misunderstands/ misportrays on top of that!) it ends up by being a very shoddy read indeed... For those interested, I've reviewed it in more details here: https://www.aurelienthomas.org/post/t....
Now, this is not completely untrue, but it's only part of the picture. And, because this whole book relies only on 'part of the picture' (that the author completely misunderstands/ misportrays on top of that!) it ends up by being a very shoddy read indeed... For those interested, I've reviewed it in more details here: https://www.aurelienthomas.org/post/t....
November 27, 2015
I tend to write shorter reviews of stuff I'm reading for my book group so I can share my opinions with real live people. I'm struggling to write a short review of this that expresses my vitriol at how moronic it is.
(Deep breath)
I see your entire book and raise you a single Wilfred Owen poem.
(Deep breath)
I see your entire book and raise you a single Wilfred Owen poem.
August 19, 2013
What an outstanding book! The entire time you'll simultaneously say to yourself;
Geez... this is incredibly obvious & self-evident, and,
Geez... why is nobody else writing/expressing this against the cacaphony of anti-male dicrimination!?!?
It goes on the "must read" list for my son...
Geez... this is incredibly obvious & self-evident, and,
Geez... why is nobody else writing/expressing this against the cacaphony of anti-male dicrimination!?!?
It goes on the "must read" list for my son...
July 25, 2016
My first 1 star review...
This book infuriated me, it spews a load of bull crap about aggression, tribes and men working in packs to overthrow others by means of tribal war. Absolute bollocks, leadership is skewed, I highly doubt the author of the book even knows who Sophocles is, let alone what the cause of the Peloponnesian war was, not to mention the battle between Achilles & Hector or how Agamemnon abused his women.
This book would be cash to a beggar, water to the dehydrated man, fire to the Neanderthal; If we were still barbaric, savage blood thirsty non civilised "tribes."
On a final note, good luck finding medical breakthroughs if everyones mindset is that of adopting Darwins survival of the fittest. Consider Nash equilibrium, previously Adam Smith heralded as the father of economics claimed selfish behaviour benefits the group, hmmm I wonder how that plays out, would we even have the internet? Nash came along and earthed us, equilibrium is what matters not this god awful joke of "dominance, aggression and sweaty brutes"
This book infuriated me, it spews a load of bull crap about aggression, tribes and men working in packs to overthrow others by means of tribal war. Absolute bollocks, leadership is skewed, I highly doubt the author of the book even knows who Sophocles is, let alone what the cause of the Peloponnesian war was, not to mention the battle between Achilles & Hector or how Agamemnon abused his women.
This book would be cash to a beggar, water to the dehydrated man, fire to the Neanderthal; If we were still barbaric, savage blood thirsty non civilised "tribes."
On a final note, good luck finding medical breakthroughs if everyones mindset is that of adopting Darwins survival of the fittest. Consider Nash equilibrium, previously Adam Smith heralded as the father of economics claimed selfish behaviour benefits the group, hmmm I wonder how that plays out, would we even have the internet? Nash came along and earthed us, equilibrium is what matters not this god awful joke of "dominance, aggression and sweaty brutes"
January 12, 2020
Ok. This will be a hard review. On one hand, the ideas in this book were so so angry-boy-going -through-puberty with a love of philosophy as deep as the movies Fight Club and The Matrix (both good, but we all know that guy who thinks he's deep after watching). On the other hand, this dude was so outrageous and unapologetic that I had a couple of good laughs. Among these laughs was the chapter titled "The Bonobo Masturbation Society" which is basically just a big rant (and the rants seem to be Jack Donovan's strength) about man in the modern world: playing video games, watching porn, being a good yes-man in their little colorless cubicle, etc. But still, the premise is this: we need to pretty much be cavemen again. I mean he literally said this. "The new Way of Women depends on prosperity, security, and globalism. Any return to the Way of Men and the eventual restoration of balance and harmony between the sexes will require the weakening of all three." And then, "If you want to push things toward the Way of Men and start the Interphase, create disappointment." (Sidenote: I suspect many of Jack's fan are quite good at disappointing people.) And maybe it's just me, but I was picking up a pretty homoerotic-village-people type vibe from this. To summarize, bad ideas with kinda fun execution, recommended for people who like crazy stuff like me, but keep it away from little internet troll type guys. I'll leave a couple more quotes to round out the ideas here.
"I have no idea how people manage to be confused about something that simple and obvious, but I'm pretty sure our ancestors would have killed them and taken their stuff."
"A man once said, "If I allow a man to steal my chickens, I might as well let him rape my daughters." That's reflexive honor."
"I have no idea how people manage to be confused about something that simple and obvious, but I'm pretty sure our ancestors would have killed them and taken their stuff."
"A man once said, "If I allow a man to steal my chickens, I might as well let him rape my daughters." That's reflexive honor."
August 13, 2015
This is an essential read for anyone cognizant of the unsustainability of the cheap oil, infinite credit, and infinite "progress" paradigm.
If you see the end of that paradigm coming sooner rather than later then you need to get your hands on a copy of this book. On the other hand, If you believe the cultural and spiritual vacuum of modernity still has plenty of "life" left in it's undead corpse; and long for the day of it's demise (and would like to give it a push over the edge) than this book, is also, for you.
"The Way of Men" is a philosophical treatise on traditional masculinity and a veracious argument for it's vindication, an indispensable piece-of-the-puzzle in diagnosing the source of the degeneracy of our age, and a plan of action to Start the World.
If you see the end of that paradigm coming sooner rather than later then you need to get your hands on a copy of this book. On the other hand, If you believe the cultural and spiritual vacuum of modernity still has plenty of "life" left in it's undead corpse; and long for the day of it's demise (and would like to give it a push over the edge) than this book, is also, for you.
"The Way of Men" is a philosophical treatise on traditional masculinity and a veracious argument for it's vindication, an indispensable piece-of-the-puzzle in diagnosing the source of the degeneracy of our age, and a plan of action to Start the World.
March 22, 2017
Possibly one of the worst books I've ever read. Donovan has some very outdated thoughts on what a man should be, haven't learned anything useful from this.
May 4, 2018
All men should read this book. It explains the difference between being a good man and being good at being a man....most times people are one or the other. We need to strive, especially in modern times, to be both because we are drifting towards what the author describes as “a masturbatory bonobo society” in which we don’t take anything seriously anymore, including sex and meaningful activities. Whether you are progressive or a conservative, you should read this book-everyone has something to learn from it.
September 10, 2022
If Atlas Shrugged is Mein Kampf for toxic jerks, then this book is The Turner Diaries for toxic jerks in that it is dumber and easier to read. I read about 1/3 of the book. I don't usually pass judgment on unfinished books, but I think my perspective on this book is important enough to justify it without harming my brain with the other 2/3.
Summary
*In the preface, Donovan states that this book exists outside of concepts of politics, religion or morals and consists of his impartial study on the matter. Remember that, now.
Chapters 1-3
*Donovan extrapolates much of his book from the idea that the acts of pregnancy and breastfeeding are more time-consuming than the male act of procreation.
*Donovan invokes the concept of a small, interdependent group of males as a building block of survival. The approval of other men is essential for this "gang." Women will base their approval on a man's standing in the gang.
*The ancestral imperative was for the men to form a perimeter around the women and children.
*Page 6 has this quote, "If you are going to survive, your group will need protection from predators- animal, human, alien or undead."
*On page 9, Donovan invokes the chimpanzee analogy for the first time.
*On page 14, Donovan claims that the settlement of the American West proves his point.
*Part of drawing a perimeter is deciding how to define your "tribe" and who to include or who to exclude. Donovan offers no guidance on this, other than stating it is an independent step before the "tactical virtues" come into play.
*The tactical virtues are the qualities by which men judge each other. These virtues determine your ability to "guard the perimeter," which Donovan continues to reference in a very literal way.
*The tactical virtues are: strength, courage, mastery and honor. People who lack them either genetically or through choice will be less regarded by other men.
*Corollary to these tactical virtues is the need to maintain reputation and retaliate against "disses."
The Bonobo chapter:
*It is the male imperative to create a patriarchy for the purpose of obtaining and retaining women.
*On page 110, Donovan cites the Roman rape of the Sabine women and a planned sexual assault in a zombie movie as supporting evidence for this claim.
*Donovan contrasts chimpanzee and bonobo social structures. Chimps form male cliques who raid other tribes for females and resources. Female chimps are submissive to the males. Female bonobos form matriarchies that prevent the males from becoming violent and resolve conflicts through promiscuous sex.
*Page 118: "Aren't most men today spoiled mama's boys without father figures, without hunting or fighting or brother-bonds, whose only masculine outlet is promiscuous sex?"
*Exercise for its own sake is just "tricking" your body.
*The evils of the feminization of America include: children getting in trouble for fighting at school; men going to jail for barfights; gun control; regulating violent sports; mandatory drug testing (this one gets mentioned a lot); CrossFit; bicycle safety and sexual harassment laws.
*Sex without procreation is just masturbation.
*The endgame of global feminism is the creation of a small power class and a vast number of obedient clerks.
*Page 125, "There will probably be more Byzantine sexual harassment laws and corporate policies and more ways for women and protected identity groups to accuse you of misconduct."
Critiques
*When Donovan says that his book is not concerned with religion, politics, or morals, he is lying. This book is clearly written from a right wing (probably alt-right) perspective. Religion and morals exist to guide choices, but Donovan flatly states that his virtues supercede any other priorities. This book is essentially a religious text.
*The fact that prehistorical groups of humans functioned the way Donovan describes does not mean that that is the way we should function today. Donovan seems to regard the last 3000 years of civilization as an attack on his personal freedoms. He needs to understand that civilization was invented so that we do not have to function as patriarchal gangs.
*Invalidating the opinions of women is creepy and anyone who practices this will experience a lot of loneliness.
*Donovan's description of the American West is very stupid and so wrong that it hurts my brain.
*The whole "pick your tribe" thing feels like a racist dog whistle. Even if it wasn't meant that way, many will read it that way.
*Nothing wrong with the tactical virtues unto themselves. However, if you focus solely on those, then you will miss out on essential life skills such as empathy, listening, expressing your feelings, and getting along with people who are different than you are. Failure to develop these skills will cause you to become a dysfunctional adult.
*The obsession with "disses" is deeply dysfunctional. I worked as a teacher in a very low income inner city school for two years. Many students and families were so obsessed with "getting their licks back" that it completely ruined their lives. There is a hormone called cortisol that enables fight/flight responses and suppresses learning. There is so much cortisol flowing in a diss-oriented environment that no one can learn anything. Many of the students' parents were clearly damaged by this environment as well, and it creates a cycle of violence and failure.
*Genetically, humans are closer to Bonobos than Chimps, so by Donovan's logic, it would make more sense if we copied Bonobos.
*This book is kind of rapey and does not place any priority on sexual consent. Maybe that's covered in the chapters I didn't read, but it's hard to get past the implicit denial of consent in the bonobo chapter.
*Donovan's dichotomy of a society that serves male needs vs. a society for female needs is really stupid. Most things that benefit women also benefit men, either directly or indirectly. For example, less fighting in school means more learning for everyone.
*No, most men today are not held back by being mama's boys. They are held back by the concept that physical aggression, tribalism, avenging disses and forcibly obtaining women are the keys to manliness.
*I would argue that the key to better sex is a healthy relationship.
*Most of the things Donovan complains about in a feminized society seem like good ideas to me. I'm neutral on CrossFit, though.
Final thoughts
This book encourages vulnerable, insecure young men to practice toxic behaviors that will make it hard for them to have meaningful lives.
Side note
While writing this, I noticed that The Turner Diaries is no longer listed in the Goodreads database. This is a bad decision. It is hard to discuss white supremacy when there is no space for the conversation to happen.
Summary
*In the preface, Donovan states that this book exists outside of concepts of politics, religion or morals and consists of his impartial study on the matter. Remember that, now.
Chapters 1-3
*Donovan extrapolates much of his book from the idea that the acts of pregnancy and breastfeeding are more time-consuming than the male act of procreation.
*Donovan invokes the concept of a small, interdependent group of males as a building block of survival. The approval of other men is essential for this "gang." Women will base their approval on a man's standing in the gang.
*The ancestral imperative was for the men to form a perimeter around the women and children.
*Page 6 has this quote, "If you are going to survive, your group will need protection from predators- animal, human, alien or undead."
*On page 9, Donovan invokes the chimpanzee analogy for the first time.
*On page 14, Donovan claims that the settlement of the American West proves his point.
*Part of drawing a perimeter is deciding how to define your "tribe" and who to include or who to exclude. Donovan offers no guidance on this, other than stating it is an independent step before the "tactical virtues" come into play.
*The tactical virtues are the qualities by which men judge each other. These virtues determine your ability to "guard the perimeter," which Donovan continues to reference in a very literal way.
*The tactical virtues are: strength, courage, mastery and honor. People who lack them either genetically or through choice will be less regarded by other men.
*Corollary to these tactical virtues is the need to maintain reputation and retaliate against "disses."
The Bonobo chapter:
*It is the male imperative to create a patriarchy for the purpose of obtaining and retaining women.
*On page 110, Donovan cites the Roman rape of the Sabine women and a planned sexual assault in a zombie movie as supporting evidence for this claim.
*Donovan contrasts chimpanzee and bonobo social structures. Chimps form male cliques who raid other tribes for females and resources. Female chimps are submissive to the males. Female bonobos form matriarchies that prevent the males from becoming violent and resolve conflicts through promiscuous sex.
*Page 118: "Aren't most men today spoiled mama's boys without father figures, without hunting or fighting or brother-bonds, whose only masculine outlet is promiscuous sex?"
*Exercise for its own sake is just "tricking" your body.
*The evils of the feminization of America include: children getting in trouble for fighting at school; men going to jail for barfights; gun control; regulating violent sports; mandatory drug testing (this one gets mentioned a lot); CrossFit; bicycle safety and sexual harassment laws.
*Sex without procreation is just masturbation.
*The endgame of global feminism is the creation of a small power class and a vast number of obedient clerks.
*Page 125, "There will probably be more Byzantine sexual harassment laws and corporate policies and more ways for women and protected identity groups to accuse you of misconduct."
Critiques
*When Donovan says that his book is not concerned with religion, politics, or morals, he is lying. This book is clearly written from a right wing (probably alt-right) perspective. Religion and morals exist to guide choices, but Donovan flatly states that his virtues supercede any other priorities. This book is essentially a religious text.
*The fact that prehistorical groups of humans functioned the way Donovan describes does not mean that that is the way we should function today. Donovan seems to regard the last 3000 years of civilization as an attack on his personal freedoms. He needs to understand that civilization was invented so that we do not have to function as patriarchal gangs.
*Invalidating the opinions of women is creepy and anyone who practices this will experience a lot of loneliness.
*Donovan's description of the American West is very stupid and so wrong that it hurts my brain.
*The whole "pick your tribe" thing feels like a racist dog whistle. Even if it wasn't meant that way, many will read it that way.
*Nothing wrong with the tactical virtues unto themselves. However, if you focus solely on those, then you will miss out on essential life skills such as empathy, listening, expressing your feelings, and getting along with people who are different than you are. Failure to develop these skills will cause you to become a dysfunctional adult.
*The obsession with "disses" is deeply dysfunctional. I worked as a teacher in a very low income inner city school for two years. Many students and families were so obsessed with "getting their licks back" that it completely ruined their lives. There is a hormone called cortisol that enables fight/flight responses and suppresses learning. There is so much cortisol flowing in a diss-oriented environment that no one can learn anything. Many of the students' parents were clearly damaged by this environment as well, and it creates a cycle of violence and failure.
*Genetically, humans are closer to Bonobos than Chimps, so by Donovan's logic, it would make more sense if we copied Bonobos.
*This book is kind of rapey and does not place any priority on sexual consent. Maybe that's covered in the chapters I didn't read, but it's hard to get past the implicit denial of consent in the bonobo chapter.
*Donovan's dichotomy of a society that serves male needs vs. a society for female needs is really stupid. Most things that benefit women also benefit men, either directly or indirectly. For example, less fighting in school means more learning for everyone.
*No, most men today are not held back by being mama's boys. They are held back by the concept that physical aggression, tribalism, avenging disses and forcibly obtaining women are the keys to manliness.
*I would argue that the key to better sex is a healthy relationship.
*Most of the things Donovan complains about in a feminized society seem like good ideas to me. I'm neutral on CrossFit, though.
Final thoughts
This book encourages vulnerable, insecure young men to practice toxic behaviors that will make it hard for them to have meaningful lives.
Side note
While writing this, I noticed that The Turner Diaries is no longer listed in the Goodreads database. This is a bad decision. It is hard to discuss white supremacy when there is no space for the conversation to happen.
March 17, 2017
The Way of Men is probably the biggest letdown I've read this year. From its cover design to the subject matter to the title of the work and even the freaking name of the author, everything about it screams 'exciting'. I was fully prepared for it to be thoughtful, offensive, intense, but not - of all things - boring. The Way of Men suffers from the same problem as Might Is Right or The Ego and Its Own: Halfway into the book, you already feel like you have finished it, and yet it keeps dragging on. What aggravates this problem is that the last four or five chapters all feel like the concluding remarks. I cannot quite pinpoint why this is so, but I suspect it's the writing style.
I'm aware that not every book needs to be a fun ride, and I wouldn't have rated The Way of Men as low as I did only because it wasn't quite as entertaining as I had hoped. Sadly, not only is it not entertaining, it isn't very smart, either. The thoughts on male nature were decent, how they were suppressed (and also expressed) in modern society was at least interesting, but then it all went downhill with the ramblings on how dehumanizing the global economy is and how masculine primitive, xenophobic "gang"-lifestyles are. There's so much wrong with some of what he says that I don't know where exactly to start: Donovan doesn't so much as mention that the supposed courage of street gangs and tribes also comes from the fact that their members have little to lose. He doesn't see a contradiction in masculinity being about carrying your own weight and being able to survive and masculine lifestyles leading to an early death. He claims that men are not just soulless brutes, yet the majority of his examples for masculinity are gangsters, prisoners, bandits and tyrants, and the narrative that he spins is one of masculinity being about fighting and killing even when that is immoral, as in the tale of Romulus and Remus. These are just some oddities and inconsistencies.
The Way of Men has some valuable insights to offer, the writing is very good at times, and the subject matter is quite important, I have to give it that. But none of it is enough for me to round it up to three starts, not when it falls so short of its ambition to be a serious treatise. It just isn't one; it's pop-philosophy at its finest, and not even very good one.
I'm aware that not every book needs to be a fun ride, and I wouldn't have rated The Way of Men as low as I did only because it wasn't quite as entertaining as I had hoped. Sadly, not only is it not entertaining, it isn't very smart, either. The thoughts on male nature were decent, how they were suppressed (and also expressed) in modern society was at least interesting, but then it all went downhill with the ramblings on how dehumanizing the global economy is and how masculine primitive, xenophobic "gang"-lifestyles are. There's so much wrong with some of what he says that I don't know where exactly to start: Donovan doesn't so much as mention that the supposed courage of street gangs and tribes also comes from the fact that their members have little to lose. He doesn't see a contradiction in masculinity being about carrying your own weight and being able to survive and masculine lifestyles leading to an early death. He claims that men are not just soulless brutes, yet the majority of his examples for masculinity are gangsters, prisoners, bandits and tyrants, and the narrative that he spins is one of masculinity being about fighting and killing even when that is immoral, as in the tale of Romulus and Remus. These are just some oddities and inconsistencies.
The Way of Men has some valuable insights to offer, the writing is very good at times, and the subject matter is quite important, I have to give it that. But none of it is enough for me to round it up to three starts, not when it falls so short of its ambition to be a serious treatise. It just isn't one; it's pop-philosophy at its finest, and not even very good one.
January 9, 2017
Shallow logic, analysis to fit the stereotype. What a waste of time.
October 22, 2022
Literal garbage. Whatever good it has to offer is overshadowed by the autistically incoherent and degenerate worldviews of the author, who's apperantly a semi-closeted homosexual bodybuilder misogynist?
It's mostly my fault for getting this book without first reading up on what it's about, so I'm obviously not the target audience, but honestly the target audience is cringe. This book is goofy af.
It's mostly my fault for getting this book without first reading up on what it's about, so I'm obviously not the target audience, but honestly the target audience is cringe. This book is goofy af.
March 22, 2017
This book was...interesting. Though I thought there were some great insights into "The Way of Men", I found myself disagreeing with the author more and more. For every 1 or 2 sentences of brilliant insight, there were 2 or 3 of intolerant nonsense that would be better suited for a Trump rally. It's worth a read for sure, but I can't say I'd recommend it to many.
October 13, 2024
I am generally interested in books that explore ancestral ways of living, as they often provide a clearer perspective on human evolution. In my view, understanding our evolutionary roots can offer valuable insights into combating many modern challenges, including mental health and social issues. I feel that when we stray too far from how we evolved, our systems can become disrupted.
However, this book occasionally conveys strange implicit messages. Whether intentional or not, some of the ideas were difficult to accept. Still, I appreciated the more explicit message toward the end about forming strong, tightly bonded friendships within small groups. This is a topic discussed in other books, particularly in relation to combating depression, as socializing and maintaining real-world contact can help address this issue.
The author is certainly bold in tackling recent developments in defining what it means to be a man, but at times, the thoughts felt disorganized, especially in the second half of the book. There were moments where it almost seemed like he was glamorizing criminal gangs, which came across as unsettling. Additionally, some of the examples he used to argue his points about the importance of serious, tough times felt odd, almost as if he was calling for war at certain points.
On a side note, the audiobook version was disappointing in terms of quality. Although it’s available on Audible, the sound quality was poor, which is unfortunate since the author narrates it himself.
I don’t regret reading this book—it’s short and presents a perspective we rarely encounter these days. However, the mixed messaging and some unsettling undertones made it a challenging read at times.
However, this book occasionally conveys strange implicit messages. Whether intentional or not, some of the ideas were difficult to accept. Still, I appreciated the more explicit message toward the end about forming strong, tightly bonded friendships within small groups. This is a topic discussed in other books, particularly in relation to combating depression, as socializing and maintaining real-world contact can help address this issue.
The author is certainly bold in tackling recent developments in defining what it means to be a man, but at times, the thoughts felt disorganized, especially in the second half of the book. There were moments where it almost seemed like he was glamorizing criminal gangs, which came across as unsettling. Additionally, some of the examples he used to argue his points about the importance of serious, tough times felt odd, almost as if he was calling for war at certain points.
On a side note, the audiobook version was disappointing in terms of quality. Although it’s available on Audible, the sound quality was poor, which is unfortunate since the author narrates it himself.
I don’t regret reading this book—it’s short and presents a perspective we rarely encounter these days. However, the mixed messaging and some unsettling undertones made it a challenging read at times.
June 3, 2017
I've started this book expecting to read on how to become a better man.
Instead, I read about how to create a better community of men.
Why is our nature different from the men in the primal era? Our activities now and then are totally different, which is completely alright. Unfortunately, it makes us weak. Men aren't getting more rational. They're getting more fearful. They're giving up more and more control.
The technological progress made men less actionable, use technologies instead of hunting and protecting the tribe, which we don't need today. It shaped the meaning of courage and honor. Now, physical power is the most associated picture of masculinity. We forgot about protection of the ones we love, do not encourage the ones we believe in, we keep ourselves detached from the others.
Men want to be remembered, they want their tradition to survive.
The only way out for men is The Way of the Gang. If you know some guys you can connect with, and who are on more or less the same page philosophically, make sure you make time for them.
Men need activities that empower their masculinity. Go to the shooting range. Go hunting. Play paintball. Go to the gym. Take martial arts classes. Join a sports team. Take a workshop. Learn a useful skill. Fix something. Break something. Build something. Make something.
Instead, I read about how to create a better community of men.
Why is our nature different from the men in the primal era? Our activities now and then are totally different, which is completely alright. Unfortunately, it makes us weak. Men aren't getting more rational. They're getting more fearful. They're giving up more and more control.
The technological progress made men less actionable, use technologies instead of hunting and protecting the tribe, which we don't need today. It shaped the meaning of courage and honor. Now, physical power is the most associated picture of masculinity. We forgot about protection of the ones we love, do not encourage the ones we believe in, we keep ourselves detached from the others.
Men want to be remembered, they want their tradition to survive.
The only way out for men is The Way of the Gang. If you know some guys you can connect with, and who are on more or less the same page philosophically, make sure you make time for them.
Men need activities that empower their masculinity. Go to the shooting range. Go hunting. Play paintball. Go to the gym. Take martial arts classes. Join a sports team. Take a workshop. Learn a useful skill. Fix something. Break something. Build something. Make something.
November 5, 2021
I still like the idea of a tribe of my own.
April 14, 2023
2023 reads, #35. It was...let's see, 15 months ago now that I decided to become a completist reader of famed and widely admired alt-right writer and "Dark Enlightenment" philosopher Jack Donovan, not because I'm an alt-right person myself (I repeat, I'm not an alt-right person myself, I want to state that unambiguously at the start of today's write-up), but because as a middle-aged straight white male there is of course some overlap here between my life and what Donovan talks about in his "masculinist" or "meninist" books of the 2010s or whatever you want to call them, far-right thought has something like a hundred different terms and movements by now, so I guess it doesn't really matter what exactly you call it anymore. I also must admit that I'm picking up his work again specifically because I'm in the outlining stage of what's about to be my very first romance novel as an author, not being done to make a success of it myself but rather to give advice and better understand the romance-writing clients I have as a freelance book editor; and just to have fun and be original, I decided to make my romance novel a dark BDSM "unwilling sub" tale, but instead of setting it in a world of vampires or werewolves or space aliens like most of the others are, mine is set within a post-apocalyptic US Midwestern settlement called "New Sparta" started by a group of Proud Boys-type guys, who partly based their city-state on the actual details of ancient Sparta, and partly on a sort of religious devotion to Donovan's "how do men live with other men" thoughts here in his early books on the subject, and so I was reading this book with that specific filter in mind, of how it could help me plot a novel set in a world where a group of guys actually are getting to run a political patriarchy city-state (i.e. only men can vote) and what that might actually look like.
And the good news here is that Donovan gives us a lot to chew on when it comes to that specific subject, in that a good portion of this book (easily 30 to 40 percent of it) is set among exactly this kind of theoretical world, in which he invites us to think back to the distant past or forward into a dystopian future and imagine a world of chaos again, with no strong national military or police to keep everyone in line through mere threat of authority and a working justice system. If we imagine a group of men trying to band together to protect what's theirs in that environment, what are the traits those men need to have to make a real go out of it? What kinds of things do they need to prove to each other in order to work as a group, and what kinds of things do such men need to prove to themselves to feel like they belong there? That's the most interesting part of the book by far, when Donovan delves into the virtues most treasured and needed in a survival situation specifically by men (being defined here as humans who have more testosterone in their bloodstream than estrogen -- Donovan's big on biological differences between genders), which is basically strength, courage and mastery, with the resulting honor being basically a summation of how well you did at the first three. In this part of the book he's simply not talking about women at all -- he's imagining a purely hypothetical situation where those who primarily have estrogen aren't around to want to be in leadership positions in the first place -- giving us this Ayn Randian all-clear to come in and picture how Rule By Men would work in a theoretically perfect world where everything goes right for the meninists who would want something like this to work. That's very interesting, and not what I would call inherently sexist; I think it's fine to be interested in your own gender if you want, as long as you're not slagging on the other one.
Where Donovan loses me, though, and where this book goes off the rails, is when he takes all this "great on paper" theories about how to run a society by male-only rule, and how a perfect version of that society might run if everything was to conveniently go the plotters' way, and just basically uses it as a big excuse to slag on women for just dozens of pages at a time for no particular reason other than that they exist, as well as the more effeminate side of the gay community. This of course is easily where Donovan is most controversial (and most well-known) as a writer, being a gay man himself who violently disagrees with being called "gay" and being lumped in with the "rainbow flag" crowd, calling himself instead an "androphile" and defining his attraction to other men in a much more tribalist and politically conservative way. To be fair as fast as I can, even Donovan himself has been walking a lot of this back since around 2017, for the exact reasons I saw myself when reading this 2012 book; that a lot of it is just sloppy, messy thinking, being heavily influenced in a way he couldn't admit to himself at the time by his still high level of confusion over his identity as a man who loves other men (even he admits that he himself was a part of this "rainbow flag crowd" as recently as the mid-'00s, and I imagine there was still a lot of lingering unprocessed stuff still there from his personal life when he was writing about it politically in this book a mere five years later), where he just spews a lot of very base hatred towards groups that he didn't need to, when his writing about masculine issues divorced from gender and sexual orientation is just really smart and complex on its own without needing all that. That's why I believe Donovan when he says he's trying to separate himself these days from those hate groups that spun up during the Tr*mp years who were waving his books around like bibles, illuminated by tiki torch as they made their way to the latest lynching; I can clearly see that this is the work of someone ten years younger than they are now, and who I bet has much more nuanced and sophisticated ways to express his thoughts now about masculinity and homosexuality than he did when he wrote this original half-manifesto half-screed.
So like everyone who writes about radical politics, no matter what the subject, that makes Donovan (and especially early-'10s Donovan from the beginning of his career) a mixed bag; there are interesting concepts being floated about, but you must forgive him a lot of literary transgressions, and see this work as the "unpolished diamond in the rough" his thoughts were back then. You must also do some literal forgiving of him too -- he's quite rough on all women in this book, in a way they don't deserve (I mean, he's making rational points, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't have to be so fucking cruel and insulting about it), which goes even double for gay men guilty of the "crime" of being born with more effeminate genetic personalities. And for sure, this makes me want to throw myself into some Roxane Gay next just to sort of karmically balance myself out some, which I think I might just in fact actually do next, with her now classic Bad Feminist from these same 2010s years (and to be clear, I am not a far-left liberal either, so get ready now for me perhaps having bad things to say about your saintly fucking hero Roxane Gay, who knows, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED).
But, you know, the whole reason I decided to read Donovan in the first place is because a writer I greatly admire, Chuck Palahniuk, claims that Donovan writes more smartly on the subject of what it is to be a man than any other living writer today; and that for sure is something I can confirm with The Way of Men, which has me not only thinking a lot about my own behavior these days as a middle-aged man myself, but also gave me tons of new ideas for the New Sparta post-apocalyptic community I'll be creating for my dark BDSM romance novel. So take that for what it is, but understand that you're getting a bunch of extra baggage with that interesting philosophical stuff when you take on a book like this, that you may be able to discard from your brain and you may not, depending on who you are. Pick it up or not based on how you think you yourself would respond.
And the good news here is that Donovan gives us a lot to chew on when it comes to that specific subject, in that a good portion of this book (easily 30 to 40 percent of it) is set among exactly this kind of theoretical world, in which he invites us to think back to the distant past or forward into a dystopian future and imagine a world of chaos again, with no strong national military or police to keep everyone in line through mere threat of authority and a working justice system. If we imagine a group of men trying to band together to protect what's theirs in that environment, what are the traits those men need to have to make a real go out of it? What kinds of things do they need to prove to each other in order to work as a group, and what kinds of things do such men need to prove to themselves to feel like they belong there? That's the most interesting part of the book by far, when Donovan delves into the virtues most treasured and needed in a survival situation specifically by men (being defined here as humans who have more testosterone in their bloodstream than estrogen -- Donovan's big on biological differences between genders), which is basically strength, courage and mastery, with the resulting honor being basically a summation of how well you did at the first three. In this part of the book he's simply not talking about women at all -- he's imagining a purely hypothetical situation where those who primarily have estrogen aren't around to want to be in leadership positions in the first place -- giving us this Ayn Randian all-clear to come in and picture how Rule By Men would work in a theoretically perfect world where everything goes right for the meninists who would want something like this to work. That's very interesting, and not what I would call inherently sexist; I think it's fine to be interested in your own gender if you want, as long as you're not slagging on the other one.
Where Donovan loses me, though, and where this book goes off the rails, is when he takes all this "great on paper" theories about how to run a society by male-only rule, and how a perfect version of that society might run if everything was to conveniently go the plotters' way, and just basically uses it as a big excuse to slag on women for just dozens of pages at a time for no particular reason other than that they exist, as well as the more effeminate side of the gay community. This of course is easily where Donovan is most controversial (and most well-known) as a writer, being a gay man himself who violently disagrees with being called "gay" and being lumped in with the "rainbow flag" crowd, calling himself instead an "androphile" and defining his attraction to other men in a much more tribalist and politically conservative way. To be fair as fast as I can, even Donovan himself has been walking a lot of this back since around 2017, for the exact reasons I saw myself when reading this 2012 book; that a lot of it is just sloppy, messy thinking, being heavily influenced in a way he couldn't admit to himself at the time by his still high level of confusion over his identity as a man who loves other men (even he admits that he himself was a part of this "rainbow flag crowd" as recently as the mid-'00s, and I imagine there was still a lot of lingering unprocessed stuff still there from his personal life when he was writing about it politically in this book a mere five years later), where he just spews a lot of very base hatred towards groups that he didn't need to, when his writing about masculine issues divorced from gender and sexual orientation is just really smart and complex on its own without needing all that. That's why I believe Donovan when he says he's trying to separate himself these days from those hate groups that spun up during the Tr*mp years who were waving his books around like bibles, illuminated by tiki torch as they made their way to the latest lynching; I can clearly see that this is the work of someone ten years younger than they are now, and who I bet has much more nuanced and sophisticated ways to express his thoughts now about masculinity and homosexuality than he did when he wrote this original half-manifesto half-screed.
So like everyone who writes about radical politics, no matter what the subject, that makes Donovan (and especially early-'10s Donovan from the beginning of his career) a mixed bag; there are interesting concepts being floated about, but you must forgive him a lot of literary transgressions, and see this work as the "unpolished diamond in the rough" his thoughts were back then. You must also do some literal forgiving of him too -- he's quite rough on all women in this book, in a way they don't deserve (I mean, he's making rational points, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't have to be so fucking cruel and insulting about it), which goes even double for gay men guilty of the "crime" of being born with more effeminate genetic personalities. And for sure, this makes me want to throw myself into some Roxane Gay next just to sort of karmically balance myself out some, which I think I might just in fact actually do next, with her now classic Bad Feminist from these same 2010s years (and to be clear, I am not a far-left liberal either, so get ready now for me perhaps having bad things to say about your saintly fucking hero Roxane Gay, who knows, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED).
But, you know, the whole reason I decided to read Donovan in the first place is because a writer I greatly admire, Chuck Palahniuk, claims that Donovan writes more smartly on the subject of what it is to be a man than any other living writer today; and that for sure is something I can confirm with The Way of Men, which has me not only thinking a lot about my own behavior these days as a middle-aged man myself, but also gave me tons of new ideas for the New Sparta post-apocalyptic community I'll be creating for my dark BDSM romance novel. So take that for what it is, but understand that you're getting a bunch of extra baggage with that interesting philosophical stuff when you take on a book like this, that you may be able to discard from your brain and you may not, depending on who you are. Pick it up or not based on how you think you yourself would respond.
October 13, 2024
So, this book summarizes for us what is exactly happening in our world. The four virtues mentioned (strength, honor, mastery, courage ) it seems it is easy for men to kill because these four virtues are in their genes. So, can we depict the book on what is happening in Palestine these day or since the occupation? The Israeli army had learnt these virtues and is using them blindly. Let’s kill them all, let’s rape their women and kill their children, let’s use all our strength and mastery in devising vicious ways to end their existence from the world. And then let’s move to the next state and the next. And this is what they teach in the schools too.
At last he mentioned the crux of the matter where a James Bond type of men are no longer needed (“For what may be the first time in history, the average guy can afford to be careless. Nothing he does really matters, and—what’s worse—there is a shrinking hope of any future where what he does will matter.”)
Thus, when men and women either lost their jobs that are scribed for them and technology came in, the characteristics of each species had changed, no one relied on the other.
So… what now?
The author suggests that men mustn’t depend on the government and must think of starting a gang; the gang will help in the days of need, as the government will only want our money and will not take care of us.
Something is wrong for sure in the book, where is the humanity? Where is the love for family? Where is “we created men and woman and made you tribes so you know each other” ( as the Quran says
Where is mercy? Where is look after everyone in this world?
“Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor ” men need these factors ( virtues)vir means man in Latin and I guess virtues as the description of how a man should be. I wonder what a woman is called then.
Excerpts:
“When someone tells a man to be a man, they are telling him to be more like other men, more like the majority of men, and ideally more like the men whom other men hold in high regard.”
“The word “virtue” comes from the Latin “virtus.” To the early Romans, virtus meant manliness” ( beware of using this word, it means man!)
“Aristotle framed courage as a moral virtue, as a will to noble action.”
“Courage is a crucial tactical value. One can choose to be courageous, and even in its basest form, courage is a triumph over fear. It’s associated with heart and spirit and passion, but it is also a drive to fight and win.”
M
“ mastery- The desire and ability to use reason and to develop skills and technologies that allow one to gain mastery over one’s circumstances—over oneself, over nature, over other men, over women— is a human virtue, although it is also man’s Achilles heel.”
“For Hobbes, honor was a form of deference, an acknowledgement of power and influence over other men.”
“ “No one attacks me with impunity.” To protect one’s honor is as defensive as it is offensive—even if attack is pre-emptive, as it often is”
“The thought of a system where females had an equal say has been unthinkable to all but a few before our time. Men have always ruled, and men have always determined what behaviors were honored and what behaviors were considered dishonorable”
“Reducing masculinity to a handful of tactical virtues may seem crude, thuggish and uncivilized. What about moral virtue? What about justice, humility, charity, faith, righteousness, honesty, and temperance?
Aren’t these manly virtues, too?”
“In Shakespeare’s The Life of Henry the Fifth, the King promised his enemies that unless they surrendered, his men would rape their shrieking daughters, dash the heads of their old men, and impale their naked babies on pikes. Today, if a military leader made a promise so indelicate, he would be fired and publicly denounced as an evil, broken psychopath. I can’t call Henry an unmanly character with a straight face.”( what the F)
“Tom Matlack started a “four-pronged effort to foster a discussion about manhood,” called The Good Men Project. The Good Men Project currently exists as a foundation, an online magazine, a documentary film, and a book.” ( maybe we read it next year)
“The Art of Manliness. Ed. Brett McKay. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2011. http://artofmanliness.com/about-2”
“Muslim men pray five times a day because they, too, want to be good men in their own way.”
“As prosperity and security increase, and the need for men to hunt, struggle and fight decreases, the male desire to engage in gang activity can be controlled and channeled though simulation, vicariousness, and intellectualization.”
“The repudiation of violent masculinity is the murder of male identity.”
“Bonobo females are in charge”
“Once, I watched in awe as a personal trainer authoritatively led a pair of forty-something adults on a walk around their own neighborhood. He was a seventy-five dollar an hour human dog-walker.”
“Women, as a group, can probably be blamed for abominations like reality television, and for a lot of bad music and art, and for making mainstream magazines almost unreadably gossipy and stupid”
“Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous: there begins the song of necessity, the unique and inimitable tune.”
—Friedrich Nietzche, Thus Spake Zarathustra”
At last he mentioned the crux of the matter where a James Bond type of men are no longer needed (“For what may be the first time in history, the average guy can afford to be careless. Nothing he does really matters, and—what’s worse—there is a shrinking hope of any future where what he does will matter.”)
Thus, when men and women either lost their jobs that are scribed for them and technology came in, the characteristics of each species had changed, no one relied on the other.
So… what now?
The author suggests that men mustn’t depend on the government and must think of starting a gang; the gang will help in the days of need, as the government will only want our money and will not take care of us.
Something is wrong for sure in the book, where is the humanity? Where is the love for family? Where is “we created men and woman and made you tribes so you know each other” ( as the Quran says
Where is mercy? Where is look after everyone in this world?
“Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor ” men need these factors ( virtues)vir means man in Latin and I guess virtues as the description of how a man should be. I wonder what a woman is called then.
Excerpts:
“When someone tells a man to be a man, they are telling him to be more like other men, more like the majority of men, and ideally more like the men whom other men hold in high regard.”
“The word “virtue” comes from the Latin “virtus.” To the early Romans, virtus meant manliness” ( beware of using this word, it means man!)
“Aristotle framed courage as a moral virtue, as a will to noble action.”
“Courage is a crucial tactical value. One can choose to be courageous, and even in its basest form, courage is a triumph over fear. It’s associated with heart and spirit and passion, but it is also a drive to fight and win.”
M
“ mastery- The desire and ability to use reason and to develop skills and technologies that allow one to gain mastery over one’s circumstances—over oneself, over nature, over other men, over women— is a human virtue, although it is also man’s Achilles heel.”
“For Hobbes, honor was a form of deference, an acknowledgement of power and influence over other men.”
“ “No one attacks me with impunity.” To protect one’s honor is as defensive as it is offensive—even if attack is pre-emptive, as it often is”
“The thought of a system where females had an equal say has been unthinkable to all but a few before our time. Men have always ruled, and men have always determined what behaviors were honored and what behaviors were considered dishonorable”
“Reducing masculinity to a handful of tactical virtues may seem crude, thuggish and uncivilized. What about moral virtue? What about justice, humility, charity, faith, righteousness, honesty, and temperance?
Aren’t these manly virtues, too?”
“In Shakespeare’s The Life of Henry the Fifth, the King promised his enemies that unless they surrendered, his men would rape their shrieking daughters, dash the heads of their old men, and impale their naked babies on pikes. Today, if a military leader made a promise so indelicate, he would be fired and publicly denounced as an evil, broken psychopath. I can’t call Henry an unmanly character with a straight face.”( what the F)
“Tom Matlack started a “four-pronged effort to foster a discussion about manhood,” called The Good Men Project. The Good Men Project currently exists as a foundation, an online magazine, a documentary film, and a book.” ( maybe we read it next year)
“The Art of Manliness. Ed. Brett McKay. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2011. http://artofmanliness.com/about-2”
“Muslim men pray five times a day because they, too, want to be good men in their own way.”
“As prosperity and security increase, and the need for men to hunt, struggle and fight decreases, the male desire to engage in gang activity can be controlled and channeled though simulation, vicariousness, and intellectualization.”
“The repudiation of violent masculinity is the murder of male identity.”
“Bonobo females are in charge”
“Once, I watched in awe as a personal trainer authoritatively led a pair of forty-something adults on a walk around their own neighborhood. He was a seventy-five dollar an hour human dog-walker.”
“Women, as a group, can probably be blamed for abominations like reality television, and for a lot of bad music and art, and for making mainstream magazines almost unreadably gossipy and stupid”
“Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous: there begins the song of necessity, the unique and inimitable tune.”
—Friedrich Nietzche, Thus Spake Zarathustra”
October 27, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwdaE...
Greetings everyone!
This is my second review in English and my second book that I read on my Kindle.
In that sense do forgive me for potential grammatical or other mistakes and do let me know of them in the comments so that I can improve.
This is a short but a dangerous book. Why dangerous? Because it talks about manosphere topics, it talks about masculinity. The time we live in, contemporary zeitgeist, is purely gynocentric and feministic from the school system (even here on the Balkans) to the court system and law system. Women this, women that. What about men? Well, thanks to books like this men are waking up. Knowledge is power. That is the reason why not just this book as a whole is dangerous but also the title is very dangerous and charged.
Donovan has a great core concept of two sides of the masculinity concept; one side is to be a good man and the other side is to be good in being a man. Ancient Rome is the most cited source for the history and ontology of manhood.
The concept of a gang as a core social unit of masculinity is the main subversive metapolitical concept. Donovan accurately connects the state with femininity while the concept of the gang is connected to masculinity. The all-providing state is a nurturing entity that also keeps everything under control and in that way it is a totalitaristic potential that can evolve into being; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBkTU.... With all the feministic and transgender newspeak that phantom is creeping even more as we enter deeper into the 21. century.
Also, Donovan throw a nice parallel between chimpanzees and humans. If you do not know there are two species of chimpanzees, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo chimpanzee. The common chimpanzee lives where gorillas do not live so they eat mostly meat because the gorillas do not let them to eat plants that they eat. So common chimpanzees eat more meat, hunt more, therefore common chimpanzees are more aggressive. Common chimpanzees are patriarchal and heterosexual. Bonobo chimpanzees eat mostly plants, they are matriarchal and bisexuality is very common among females. Donovan says that the West is becoming a "bonobo masturbation society". I do see that threat to be real. So many women are bisexual today and that wave is getting stronger and stronger. Family values and values of hard work are fading for a lame and empty hedonistic lifestyle. Next thoughts are mine and are a bonus to Donovans thoughts. The sexual revolution was one of the most wicked orwellian things that happened ever. Sex, drugs and rock n roll were a great bred for the masses. They led the way for the trangender movement of today, for the dictatorship of human rights we live in. What do I mean by this? If somebody is not sure is he a man or a woman then how can he be sure of anything? Transgender people are people without any identity. If you change your sex then you are not sure who you are. You are creating yourself. Babylon wants unsure people. Libtards say that gender is a social construct. Social construct means that something was not always in that way (the concept of family truly changes through out history just as gender) and also that something is viewed in a different way by different cultures in the same time. So bravo libtards. But, wait a minute. Just like the concept of gender is viewed different in India than in Norway and just as the concept of gender is viewed different in the 17. century than today so is the way of viewing gender as a social construct. To say that something is a social construct is also in itself a social construct. So liberal logics eats itself.
I recommend this book to every man.
This feministic society is getting more and more orwellian as I said before. Transgender ideology is in the school system and in that way the rainbow flag replaced the cross. This next song is relevant as ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5Ap.... I can imagine the teacher saying:"Repeat after me- gender is a social construct !".
Dont believe the hype!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj9Se...
Greetings everyone!
This is my second review in English and my second book that I read on my Kindle.
In that sense do forgive me for potential grammatical or other mistakes and do let me know of them in the comments so that I can improve.
This is a short but a dangerous book. Why dangerous? Because it talks about manosphere topics, it talks about masculinity. The time we live in, contemporary zeitgeist, is purely gynocentric and feministic from the school system (even here on the Balkans) to the court system and law system. Women this, women that. What about men? Well, thanks to books like this men are waking up. Knowledge is power. That is the reason why not just this book as a whole is dangerous but also the title is very dangerous and charged.
Donovan has a great core concept of two sides of the masculinity concept; one side is to be a good man and the other side is to be good in being a man. Ancient Rome is the most cited source for the history and ontology of manhood.
The concept of a gang as a core social unit of masculinity is the main subversive metapolitical concept. Donovan accurately connects the state with femininity while the concept of the gang is connected to masculinity. The all-providing state is a nurturing entity that also keeps everything under control and in that way it is a totalitaristic potential that can evolve into being; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBkTU.... With all the feministic and transgender newspeak that phantom is creeping even more as we enter deeper into the 21. century.
Also, Donovan throw a nice parallel between chimpanzees and humans. If you do not know there are two species of chimpanzees, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo chimpanzee. The common chimpanzee lives where gorillas do not live so they eat mostly meat because the gorillas do not let them to eat plants that they eat. So common chimpanzees eat more meat, hunt more, therefore common chimpanzees are more aggressive. Common chimpanzees are patriarchal and heterosexual. Bonobo chimpanzees eat mostly plants, they are matriarchal and bisexuality is very common among females. Donovan says that the West is becoming a "bonobo masturbation society". I do see that threat to be real. So many women are bisexual today and that wave is getting stronger and stronger. Family values and values of hard work are fading for a lame and empty hedonistic lifestyle. Next thoughts are mine and are a bonus to Donovans thoughts. The sexual revolution was one of the most wicked orwellian things that happened ever. Sex, drugs and rock n roll were a great bred for the masses. They led the way for the trangender movement of today, for the dictatorship of human rights we live in. What do I mean by this? If somebody is not sure is he a man or a woman then how can he be sure of anything? Transgender people are people without any identity. If you change your sex then you are not sure who you are. You are creating yourself. Babylon wants unsure people. Libtards say that gender is a social construct. Social construct means that something was not always in that way (the concept of family truly changes through out history just as gender) and also that something is viewed in a different way by different cultures in the same time. So bravo libtards. But, wait a minute. Just like the concept of gender is viewed different in India than in Norway and just as the concept of gender is viewed different in the 17. century than today so is the way of viewing gender as a social construct. To say that something is a social construct is also in itself a social construct. So liberal logics eats itself.
I recommend this book to every man.
This feministic society is getting more and more orwellian as I said before. Transgender ideology is in the school system and in that way the rainbow flag replaced the cross. This next song is relevant as ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5Ap.... I can imagine the teacher saying:"Repeat after me- gender is a social construct !".
Dont believe the hype!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj9Se...
September 13, 2019
A seminal book for our times. The message is just as potent in 2019 as it was when this book was first released all the way back in 2012 and in many respects it is unrivalled. The Way of Men is, to this very day, THE ultimate manosphere text. I would dare anyone to say there is another book that matches it in succinctness and brilliance.
The way Donovan book frames the crisis of masculinity as the push-pull between the wildness of the gang and the domesticity of the civilization is perfect. But what really sets this book apart from other "manosphere books" is by bringing up the distinction between "being a good man" (i.e. being moral) with "being good at being a man". Masculinity like all things that emerged in Nature is essentially amoral, and few are brave enough to say this or even intelligent enough to notice.
I also particularly enjoyed the chapter on Romulus and the founding of Rome, so much so that it spurred me to watch a 4-hour documentary series on Rome. What that chapter showed is that the splendor of Rome, which is with us to this day, is ultimatelty rooted in virile masculine competition, in violence, and in rape.
The book anticipates many of the scathing critiques of more recent right-wing commentators by pointing out the essential connections between feminism and capitalism. You can see Donovan's ideas laying the seeds for all kinds of dissident right ideas in this wonderful and surprisingly short book.
There are two aspects of the book I disagreed with. First, the list of what Donovan calls the virtues of the Gang - Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honour - is lacking a critical fifth characteristic: POWER. Seeking power, being expected to wield it, and understanding its nature have been critical aspects of being a man all throughout history. Anyone you consider to be a "Great Man" is most likely separated from the common men by whether or not they had power. This is a problem of his work because the consistent failure of contemporary people to understand THE NATURE OF POWER is a significant reason why dissident right-wing movements never gain any serious traction outside the internet. The other virtues that Donovan mentions as being critical to the maintenance of "securing the paremeter" to use his lingo, all culminate in the establishment of power. But as an apple can be considered separate from an apple tree though it grows out of it, power is a separate thing from strength, courage, mastery and honour though it grows out of them. Because power is something any man would want if they could have it, and because it is something not everyone call really have, it necessitates the establishment of hierarchies, rules, and obedience - something every gang has.
My second problem with this book, and this is an insight I got from BRONZE AGE MINDSET ( a book released last year you should read if you enjoy Donovan ), is that there is a type of civilization that tries to actively prevent the domesticating and effeminizng effect of Civilization. Donovan argues that this effemenizing leading to broken and listless men is an inherent quality of civilization as such but I disagree. Part of this argument is that policemen and military-types are only engaged in "simulated masculinity" which I severely disagree with. I think their experiences are a sincere masculinity. Civilizations of higher type, that try to reconcile barbarity and culture, are known to us as Rome, Greece, the Scandinavia of the Vikings, the Japan of the Samurai, and many others... but how it is that such a reconciliation can be achieved would make most people very uncomfortable indeed.
But my few qualms with this book are nothing compared to my great enjoyment of it. I will definitely be rereading this book for years to come. Highly, highly recommended.
The way Donovan book frames the crisis of masculinity as the push-pull between the wildness of the gang and the domesticity of the civilization is perfect. But what really sets this book apart from other "manosphere books" is by bringing up the distinction between "being a good man" (i.e. being moral) with "being good at being a man". Masculinity like all things that emerged in Nature is essentially amoral, and few are brave enough to say this or even intelligent enough to notice.
I also particularly enjoyed the chapter on Romulus and the founding of Rome, so much so that it spurred me to watch a 4-hour documentary series on Rome. What that chapter showed is that the splendor of Rome, which is with us to this day, is ultimatelty rooted in virile masculine competition, in violence, and in rape.
The book anticipates many of the scathing critiques of more recent right-wing commentators by pointing out the essential connections between feminism and capitalism. You can see Donovan's ideas laying the seeds for all kinds of dissident right ideas in this wonderful and surprisingly short book.
There are two aspects of the book I disagreed with. First, the list of what Donovan calls the virtues of the Gang - Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honour - is lacking a critical fifth characteristic: POWER. Seeking power, being expected to wield it, and understanding its nature have been critical aspects of being a man all throughout history. Anyone you consider to be a "Great Man" is most likely separated from the common men by whether or not they had power. This is a problem of his work because the consistent failure of contemporary people to understand THE NATURE OF POWER is a significant reason why dissident right-wing movements never gain any serious traction outside the internet. The other virtues that Donovan mentions as being critical to the maintenance of "securing the paremeter" to use his lingo, all culminate in the establishment of power. But as an apple can be considered separate from an apple tree though it grows out of it, power is a separate thing from strength, courage, mastery and honour though it grows out of them. Because power is something any man would want if they could have it, and because it is something not everyone call really have, it necessitates the establishment of hierarchies, rules, and obedience - something every gang has.
My second problem with this book, and this is an insight I got from BRONZE AGE MINDSET ( a book released last year you should read if you enjoy Donovan ), is that there is a type of civilization that tries to actively prevent the domesticating and effeminizng effect of Civilization. Donovan argues that this effemenizing leading to broken and listless men is an inherent quality of civilization as such but I disagree. Part of this argument is that policemen and military-types are only engaged in "simulated masculinity" which I severely disagree with. I think their experiences are a sincere masculinity. Civilizations of higher type, that try to reconcile barbarity and culture, are known to us as Rome, Greece, the Scandinavia of the Vikings, the Japan of the Samurai, and many others... but how it is that such a reconciliation can be achieved would make most people very uncomfortable indeed.
But my few qualms with this book are nothing compared to my great enjoyment of it. I will definitely be rereading this book for years to come. Highly, highly recommended.
November 3, 2021
This is an important book for any man concerned with preserving and developing manhood. It deals with the essential question of "how to be good at being a man" as opposed to the less controversial "how to be a good man". It analyses and lists the essential qualities that manhood can be broken into ('Strength', "Courage", "Mastery", "Honor"), virtues among many virtues which a man can have but which in contrast to many others define manhood.
The book argues that the original Way of Men was and continues to be the Way of the Gang. It discusses how this is a threat to the globalist agenda which needs men's warrior aspects, men's inclination to competition, specifically for the respect of other men, is in direct conflict with the emergence of feminism which again is a construct designed to assist in the implementation of global governance.
A parenthesis merely in the book, still it gave me a major Eureka moment, was the identification of 'courage' with 'will', making me realize that one can train one's will-power indirectly by training one's courage, which is quite feasible as opposed to bluntly training will-power.
A few pages (147-9) was also of particular value to me making clear how the Men's Rights movement really isn't much concerned with The Way of Men, but limits itself to a last-ditch defense to preserve equal rights for men in the onslaught of misandrist feminism.
The book lacked what I knew it was going to lack, viz. the transcending dimension of a New Way for Men which takes into account the metaphysics of Evola's Ride the Tiger (even as it eclipses Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra) and goes beyond that to the sharpening of the masculine archetype and redefining male sexuality that I have been working on for the past decade and a half. This (my work) brings God squarely to the center of existence and positions every Man in his (to be discovered) designated role in carrying forth Creation to its next pivotal stage: the Brahmanic in-breath.
The book argues that the original Way of Men was and continues to be the Way of the Gang. It discusses how this is a threat to the globalist agenda which needs men's warrior aspects, men's inclination to competition, specifically for the respect of other men, is in direct conflict with the emergence of feminism which again is a construct designed to assist in the implementation of global governance.
A parenthesis merely in the book, still it gave me a major Eureka moment, was the identification of 'courage' with 'will', making me realize that one can train one's will-power indirectly by training one's courage, which is quite feasible as opposed to bluntly training will-power.
A few pages (147-9) was also of particular value to me making clear how the Men's Rights movement really isn't much concerned with The Way of Men, but limits itself to a last-ditch defense to preserve equal rights for men in the onslaught of misandrist feminism.
The book lacked what I knew it was going to lack, viz. the transcending dimension of a New Way for Men which takes into account the metaphysics of Evola's Ride the Tiger (even as it eclipses Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra) and goes beyond that to the sharpening of the masculine archetype and redefining male sexuality that I have been working on for the past decade and a half. This (my work) brings God squarely to the center of existence and positions every Man in his (to be discovered) designated role in carrying forth Creation to its next pivotal stage: the Brahmanic in-breath.
July 12, 2017
Laughably self absorbed in a tub of artificial testosterone
When I initially started reading this book, I was semi-agreeing with some of the concepts, but by the end I was laughing out loud at how ridiculous most of its statements are. While you my find some truths in this book, they will generally apply only to the lowest common denominator of men. The overwhelming majority of its thesis is demonstrably false. There is little to no recognition of what actual builds a modern society or how western culture was able to overcome the self destructive nature of warrior tribalism. We do not live in the dog eat dog world of Mogadishu, nor do any of us want our society to descend to that level. The author is clearly incapable of coping with the fact that Americans live a good life because of our ability to cooperate and build upon the strength of those whom he would view as weak and undesirable. This book tries to sell you a concept of the killer ape who beats all other apes into submission and therefore deserves to be King of the apes. The author displays all of the intellectual and moral intelligence of a high school jock who thinks he'll prove his worth to society by beating the crap out of Stephen Hawking. What happened to the concept of brave men protecting the weak, fighting for equality, and uplifting those around them rather than divulging themselves into a world wide dog fighting arena. If this were the analogy of wolves and sheepdogs, he is clearly a wolf who is hallucinating that society has caged him because of its inability to handle his superior manliness. Unless you are the kind of person who can't make it through the week without binge watching Fight Club or an unedited version of The 300 while wearing a leather thong and Spartan helmet replica, I doubt you will find anything insightful in this book.
When I initially started reading this book, I was semi-agreeing with some of the concepts, but by the end I was laughing out loud at how ridiculous most of its statements are. While you my find some truths in this book, they will generally apply only to the lowest common denominator of men. The overwhelming majority of its thesis is demonstrably false. There is little to no recognition of what actual builds a modern society or how western culture was able to overcome the self destructive nature of warrior tribalism. We do not live in the dog eat dog world of Mogadishu, nor do any of us want our society to descend to that level. The author is clearly incapable of coping with the fact that Americans live a good life because of our ability to cooperate and build upon the strength of those whom he would view as weak and undesirable. This book tries to sell you a concept of the killer ape who beats all other apes into submission and therefore deserves to be King of the apes. The author displays all of the intellectual and moral intelligence of a high school jock who thinks he'll prove his worth to society by beating the crap out of Stephen Hawking. What happened to the concept of brave men protecting the weak, fighting for equality, and uplifting those around them rather than divulging themselves into a world wide dog fighting arena. If this were the analogy of wolves and sheepdogs, he is clearly a wolf who is hallucinating that society has caged him because of its inability to handle his superior manliness. Unless you are the kind of person who can't make it through the week without binge watching Fight Club or an unedited version of The 300 while wearing a leather thong and Spartan helmet replica, I doubt you will find anything insightful in this book.
January 12, 2018
This book is an attempt to explain why the ISIS is a good idea, written by a man with no intention of leaving the comforts of the United States.
One unanswered questions: if he got the post apocalyptic hell-scape that he craves, who would make the testosterone for him to inject?
I guess he's also a Nazi. So there's that too.
One unanswered questions: if he got the post apocalyptic hell-scape that he craves, who would make the testosterone for him to inject?
I guess he's also a Nazi. So there's that too.
July 22, 2019
This book was foul. Glad I didn't pay to read it. I picked this up with an open mind, honestly prepared to listen (not knowing what the book was about). This is a men's rights book. It's the definition of insecure masculinity, encouraging men to lash out and take control because women (and the government ) are trying to emasculate men by promoting equal treatment of women.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 625 reviews