Jack Donovan on Manly Idealism

This is a pretty good speech. I watched it last night, while doing other things. Here are some quick thoughts.

Brother Jack describes buying the liber novus, a book authored by his intellectual hero (Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung). In it, Jung indulges in a bit of autoanalysis of a dream he had, in which he killed the traditional Germanic hero Siegfried. This disturbed Donovan, because Donovan thinks heroes are essential, and the killing of them is a feminist tactic to decenter the masculine. Jack makes some pretty good points, but then implicitly kills his own ideal of Jung, perhaps without even realizing what he’s done. Freud (Jung’s teacher) called this parapraxis.

I’m going to refrain from giving away absolutely everything I learned, in the hopes some of you fellas will watch and comment. There are a couple of very minor inconsistencies and mistakes in the references, but it’s generally a fantastic lecture that most men can get a lot out of.

Note: Disagreeing with the speaker is encouraged, but fallacious personal attacks won’t be published.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

2 thoughts on “Jack Donovan on Manly Idealism”

  1. I finally got through it. I think the attempt to reconstruct PIE religion is interesting.

    Dyeus=dios is a good catch. I don’t know that Dyeus Phater is a sun god. I believe it’s a sky god. The analogy is obvious. The sky lies atop the earth goddess, and things grow in the void between. I also found Donovan’s other inspiration, Jordan Peterson. Peterson endlessly rails against postmodernism, and yet, Jack seems to be questioning the grand metanarratives.

    These are all trivial problems, but still.

  2. Dyeus=dios is a good catch.

    It’s a false cognate.

    PIE -> Latin -> Spanish (English)
    deios -> devs -> dios (god)
    dyeus -> dies -> dia (day)

    Peterson endlessly rails against postmodernism, and yet, Jack seems to be questioning the grand metanarratives.

    I should get a critical Jordan Peterson article up, but I know no one will read or comment on it. Anyway, Donovan is channeling Lyotard correctly, by my reading. His “you’re 100% masculine” is wrong, but it is what a postmodernist would call a local narrative, that embodies a sort of valid, immediate hermeneutic that isn’t accessible by a grand metanarrative.

    Another high point of Donovan’s speech was what he said (and didn’t say) about trannies. Namely: you can’t make yourself a woman. You can only defile your manhood. Simple truths that used to be universally accessible, and are now taboo.

    Thus sayeth the primordial
    phater -> pater -> padre (father)

Comments are closed.