User:GRuban/A Sky Without Eagles

We are trying to verify this paragraph in Jack Donovan (writer):

In 2014, Donovan published a book of essays and speeches titled A Sky Without Eagles. In the book, Donovan put forward his support for "pan-secessionism", an idea in which men would form racially segregated, small, decentralized "homelands". In these all-white "autonomous zones", said Donovan, men would control political life, with women "not permitted to rule or take part".

The specific paragraph from Slate's Minkowitz backing that sentence is:

And what is all this violence for? Creating small, decentralized “homelands” in this country separated by—surprise!—race. He enthusiastically embraces an idea the alt-right calls “pan-secessionism,” under which, as Donovan says in his book A Sky Without Eagles, “gangs” of white men would form “autonomous zones” for themselves and white women, where women “would not be permitted to rule or take part in … political life.” The gangs would enforce racial boundary lines, because, as Donovan puts it, whites have “radically different values [and] cultures” than other people, and “loyalty requires preference. It requires discrimination.”

Jack Donovan, the article subject, objected to it on the article talk page, saying

I never said "all-white" or "racially segregated." In fact, in that same essay, I expressed support for a Native American anarchist who was building his own tribe. Minkowitz lied in that statement, and I can prove it. I can link to photos of the entire essay with a copy of a current newspaper if necessary. There is no reason to repeat her imaginative fabrication. That book contains a wide variety of essays covering a wide range of topics, some of which are cited elsewhere in this article. If the words/phrases "racially" and "all-white," are removed, the statement is accurate.

Let's break the statement down and look for each part in the book. First the direct quotes, because they are the easiest to look for and verify without interpretation.

Direct quotes

• "pan-secessionism" - this word, or anything involving "secession" is not found anywhere in the book. (Actually, Minkowitz doesn't even say it does, she merely says it's an alt-right concept, but in our rephrasing of her words by starting with "In this book", and putting quote marks around it, we are clearly implying it's a quote from the book.)
• "homelands" - nowhere in the book. The closest is the word "homeland", only one instance, on page 121, chapter "BECOMING THE NEW BARBARIANS" but as part of the sentence "How does a man go from being a man of the polis to an outsider — a barbarian — in his own homeland?", nothing like "Creating small, decentralized 'homelands'"
• "autonomous zones" - nowhere in the book. The closest is two instances of "autonomy", both on page 66, from: "Men used to run the state, so they enjoyed a favored position in many respects. It asked the most from them, but also flattered their egos and gave them a certain amount of autonomy at home. ... Men tend to want more independence and autonomy." Not the same meaning at all.
• women "not permitted to rule or take part". Finally a quote that is found in the book, page 139, chapter "THE BROTHERHOOD".

Three of four of the statements we have marked as quotes simply do not come from A Sky Without Eagles. Now Donovan doesn't object to them as such, and even says they are the sorts of things he is likely to say... but that's not a good enough excuse for us to state they come from this book. Quite possibly they come from other Donovan works, but we can't guess about that, that would be Wikipedia: Original research; the Minkowitz source that we have that says they come from this one, is simply wrong. We can't leave that statement in our article as is.

"All-white" and "racially segregated"

But this isn't Donovan's main objection, which is about the small groups or gangs of men that he is endorsing being "all-white" and "racially segregated." Can we dump the three bad quotes of the four, and continue to say that Donovan's book endorses an all white world based on the Minkowitz reference? This, unfortunately, requires some interpretation, since she isn't claiming he used those exact words. Let's look for those.

A Sky Without Eagles has the following contents (with page numbers, and oversimplified summary):

• Preface 11 - explaining this is a collection of essays
• Dates of Publication 19 - from 2009 through 2014
• Violence is Golden 23 - explains that violence is required to maintain all human societies
• A Sky Without Eagles 30 - speech to a gathering of White Nationalists, supporting hierarchical, patriarchal tribes of men
• Anarcho-Fascism 43 - about fascism as the strength and authority of a unified male collective or gang of men
• Mighty White 50 - about his support for white nationalism, because he is white, but not supremacism
• Vote With Your Ass 57 - arguing for withdrawing from voting in the United States
• The Grievance Table 63 - why he is not a Men's Rights Activist: because asking for rights from the state is not masculine
• There Is No Honor In Competition With Women 71 - honor only comes from defeating men
• “Mother May I” Masculinity 75 - that feminism only offers men servitude
• Everyone A Harlot 81 - that modern men, like bonobos, are overly interested in being attractive to women
• Train for Honor 91 - that he works out not for health or to be attractive, but to be worthy of his male ancestors
• The Physical Challenge 103 - how he carries grain bags to intentionally work harder physically
• Principles of Convenience 107 - that moral principles are meaningless unless they are difficult
• The Manly Barbarian 111 - barbarian men in Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class take by violence, and consider this honorable
• Becoming The New Barbarians 117 - American conservatives should be the new barbarians, to prepare for the collapse of US society
• CROM! 129 - why to follow Crom, fictional deity of Conan the Barbarian, who doesn't help his worshippers and only values valor
• The Brotherhood 135 - dream society of warrior men

So, does the book say "all-white"? Well, it kind of does. "A Sky Without Eagles" addresses white nationalists favorably, and "Mighty White" explicitly endorses them. Does the book say "racially segregated"? Sort of. Besides the former two essays, "Becoming the New Barbarians" explicitly mentions how Chinatown Benevolent Associations are to support Chinese people, as a model to follow, and "The Brotherhood" mentions how a Native American activist works to apply Donovan's beliefs to his tribe, favorably.

However, "Mighty White" explicitly denounces white supremacism. It says the main reason Donovan supports white nationalists is because he is himself white. At no point in the book does it say white people are better than non-whites. At no point does the book support treating non whites in any way differently. He's all for small groups of non-white men, or any men, really, as long as they are valorous, honorable, sexist, and all that new barbarian stuff. And he believes that those small groups will tend to be racially segregated naturally, because men will usually get along with others of the same race better; but it's not a requirement.

So even though each of the parts, small groups of men, and racial segregation, is clearly seen as a good or inevitable thing, the combination isn't explicitly called for. But what about Minkowitz's statements

The gangs would enforce racial boundary lines, because, as Donovan puts it, whites have “radically different values [and] cultures” than other people, and “loyalty requires preference. It requires discrimination.”

? Well, the quote-marked words are again, simply not in the book. I searched. Also, neither is anything about the gangs explicitly enforcing racial boundary lines. I don't know where she got these words but not from this book.

Also, since Donovan lives with a Mexican guy, it's hard to believe that he endorses racial segregation for all. I think she got him confused with someone else. But in any case we can't say he wrote that in this book.