Richard Spencer's upcoming conference to celebrate White identity is a provocation

Published by carolyn on Fri, 2015-10-02 15:09

Why did he do it? Why did Richard Spencer invite open homosexual Jack Donovan to be a main speaker, and include him as one of the four names featured on the announcement/advertisment appearing on the Occidental Observer website? Is there a shortage of straight Pro-White personalities who can appeal to potential conference-goers? I don't think so. And what kind of people is Jack Donovan going to appeal to?

Donovan is a former priest in The Church of Satan, from which he resigned in 2009. In the same year he co-authored Blood-Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Alliance, which put forth the suggestion that forming blood brotherhoods could be adapted as a substitute for more "heteronormative" same-sex marriage ceremonies for gays, of which he disapproves.

This is not the first time Donovan has been headlined at a Spencer conference. At the 2013 National Policy Instutute conference, he shared top billing with Sam Dickson, Alain de Benoist and Alex Kurtagic. So I would have to say there is something about Jack Donovan that Richard Spencer particularly likes.

*    *     *

Guillaume Faye is another bad choice of speaker, since he wrote a book defending “the Shoah” and denouncing “deniers.” The book's title is “The New Jewish Question published in 2007. Revisionist Juergen Graf called it  "a dishonest book whose inspirational motivation seems to have been solely a wish to misinform.” According to Graf, Faye writes in a message to his readers:

"As for the ‘revisionists’ or ‘holocaust deniers,’ whichever term one prefers, I consider their struggle an adolescent itch, completely useless, ineffective, and counterproductive, tainted futhermore with serious methodological flaws and ideological biases. Their attitude doesn’t shock me ‘morally’ but they are looking in the rearview mirror."

In the chapter titled "Conclusion and summary of the claims" G. Faye boldly repeats himself:

"[…] what are they disputing? Only that the means employed were gas chambers, or the process of attempted extermination itself? The deportations of Jews to concentration camps? What is it that didn’t exist? On what semantic level was the lie they’re claiming, and where, exactly, is the dividing line between reality and deception? Can one believe there were no anti-Jewish persecutions?" (p. 264)

To Faye, it's not important whether there were gas chambers or not. Elsewhere he wrote:

"I’ve always felt distant and hostile toward the revisionists (or Holocaust-deniers, whichever term one prefers). While Europe is being subjected to a Third-World and Islamic innundation, this issue has always seemed to me to be a typical example of a phony problem, a strategy of avoidance — of taking shelter in the past. Out of a kind of cowardice or fear they deliberately mistake the enemy. Not to mention how revisionists very often look with tender glances at their Moslem and Arab masters. […] Revisionism is the typical example of masturbating with history in order to forget the present and future …" (p. 171)

And those are just a sampling. Since no one else seems willing to criticize these two speakers for this conference, I decided I had better do it. The proper response to this kind of “in your face” promotion of homosexuality and Jew-friendly attacks on Revisionism to the White community is to turn one's back - to stay away.


Your are spot-on with your comments, Carolyn, and they reveal that the battle for Revisionists is also one of absolute values, which if embraced, will prevent us from slipping into Oswald Spengler's predictions as a self-fulfilling prophecy, as also stated by Jaques Barzun in his book, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 years of European civilisation, wherein the US moved from barbarism to decadence without having detoured through the category of cultural endeavour.

I'm glad you approve. Smile Then I know I've done good.

Why would anyone else remain on the program.  Our numbers are growing.  Associating with Church of Satan homos is not a positive move.  Silly.

WN will do well to make proper choices whom to be associated with.
Jack Donovan as a homosexual is not the proper person to teach "how to be a man" and if he was also a priest of the Church of Satan, he should be excluded.
As for Guillaume Faye, he refuses to mention Jews as a problem, let alone as the core problem and he has a disturbing past. I found this information on him in a comment on an article in the Brussels Journal, 2011-02-06 : Guillaume Faye - Back To The Archeo-Future :

"Guillaume Faye is hard to place. He combines elements of brilliant philosophical and psychological insight with sometimes just plain weirdness. He is French after all. He has worked in the porn industry, in front of the camera, and "defends orgies". He has tried many narcotic drugs, "even the very worst" and readily admits this. I'll give him bonus points for honesty at least."

This was my reason for objecting to Jack Donovan as well. How does a homosexual man offer himself as the expert on manhood? How silly.

Good job Carolyn. It's about time someone pointed this out. We should place Donovan in a "virtual concentration camp" of sorts for such strange characters in the movement.

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm always baffled as to why sodomites are now ok in nationalist circles. There are even professed WN Christians who think that associating with Donovan and others is no big deal.
I don't know much about Faye's attitude beyond what you quoted here (nor am I an expert in Holocaust revisionsim), but his ideas seem completely off base. How can he say that the Holocaust is irrelevant to the current situation? Without the false WW2 narrative (false both in the facts, and in the moral implications), there would be no third-world invasion of the West. As I've said before, in the religion of political correctness, Hitler is the devil. People won't abandon their religion as long as they still fear their devil. I believe that revisionism is necessary to break that spell.

As to Faye, I think he's just a jerk ... in the sense that Franklin R. pointed out. It's true he was involved with the Porn industry, and was/is a drug addict.

I think the nonsense he spouted about the "Shoah" and revisionists in his Jewish book is embarrassingly ignorant, and shameful too. He definitely seems to be in tight with the Jews. Maybe they loan him money? I have more respect for Jack Donovan than I do for Guillaume Faye.

 Dear Carolyn,
 Could you create a compact list of all your episodes, with brief information on each episode? I know it is a challenge, but it would be worth it, as your analyses are timeless.
 A note: Someone created translated versions of these classic revisionst videos:
 Thank you for your engagement!
 A reader and listener

Agreed, Carolyn.  Like it or not... we ARE known by the company we keep.  If the "high ground" is to be attained by a new movement, then high standards in moral and ethical behavior is imperative.  Someone who is homosexual and a pseudo-Satanist does not fit this criteria - regardless of what he has to say in a conference.

I say if you want to make sure productive, exemplary, life-toward people stay away from WN then by all means have Jack Donovan speak at your event.  If you want women to fear and loathe, and abhor the idea of a patriarchy even more so.  The man is as subversive to a healthy outlook on traditional gender roles as is the most militant left wing feminist, he is simply the flip side of the same maladjusted coin.

Can't say I'm surprised, this is Dickie Spencer after all.  I guess he got bored of arrogantly parchuting in to lecture the Hungarians on how to be Hungarian and is back to his usual routine of buzzword laden, content-devoid TED Talk nationalism and promoting repellent weirdos.  Spencer, as per his ingrained faileoconservative sentimentality, is a weak, pandering, fence-sitting coward who tries to play all sides of key issues while maintaining plausible deniability when held to any stance or standard.  Kinda like Gay Johnson in that regard, but wider in the scope of his offenses and more stupid.He brings absolutely nothing to the table beyond repackaging the same old conservative/mainstreaming approach that's been argued, tried, and refuted a million times already, pretending he's doing something "new' and "different", while busing in homosexual freaks and jew-appeasers.  He'll go out of his way to exculpate jews from blame and argue for their inclusion, while throwing the occasional, vaguest insinuation in the other direction to retain the loyalty and cashflows of some of his other supporters.  Weak and stupid. The problems with Faye and Donovan should be obvious, and it speaks to White Nationalism's lack of principles and coherent direction that this garbage is going on relatively unopposed, with no organized response.  Spencer should be attacked until he picks a side, his conferences boycotted until he stops bringing in homos and outright enemies as shining examples for us to follow.  As for Faye's claims re revisionism being ineffective, that's demonstrably false, as I have several friends who came in to ethnonationalism via learning the truth about the holohoax and the jewish problem - which remain our primary obstacles.  No way out but through the jew.  

Dickie Spencer has made a career avoiding the JQ - one might even say misdirecting people from it.
Dickie Spencer and the gang at Radix never address the Jewish question with any substance and barely publish anything that exposes the current and past activities of Jews, and never in a way that clearly explains the nature of the Jewish problem. They are hobbyists, essayists and dilletantes and intellectual fart sniffers.
They only mention the Jew in order to keep their anti-Semitic readers on board, throwing it out their as bait to string them along before changing the subject. They then turn around and attack people who actually focus on the Jewish Question as "Monomaniacs" despite their pretending to want a "big tent" with a "diversity of opinions." They use the "diversity of opinions" excuse when called out for publishing insane Jewish liars like Rachel Haywire and useless nihilists like Heidegger, to justify their publishing of movie reviews, but there is no room in their "big tent" for people who choose to focus on the most pressing and urgent issue of our day, the Jewish problem.

I like this writing. It goes to two serious problems swiftly and efficiently. Homosexualists and tradecraft are known quantities. On Guillaume, I want to like his work from a visioning and intuitive perspective into the future, but dismissing revisionist processes in our history is far too drunk.

This is like some kind of sick joke!  I can't beleive our people are falling for this. 

I am one of few in the scene who doesn't dislike all gays/lesbians, but Donovan is poisonous to healthy relations between the sexes.  Worse is this revelation that a main speaker attacks the truth of the 'Holocaust.'
Well done, Carolyn.  

Add new comment