I was a guest on Millennial Woes’ hangout to discuss the AltLeft with Greg Johnson and Tom Rogers. Clear distinctions were drawn between alternative left thought and the AltRight. More and more it becomes clear that left transhumanism, futurism and liberal attitudes toward sexual experimentation are incompatible with the emerging AltRight(and NatSoc) consensus. The implications of this are presently unknown.
One of the more absurd developments in what’s shaping up to be a legit shitshow of an election, was Anil Dash’s recent insinuation that Bernie Sanders supporters are “MRAs, PUAs and neoreactionaries.”
One can imagine the exasperated look on Nick Land’s face after years of trying to purge so called ethnonationalists and pop fascists from the neoreactionary label for being “too left wing” and populist, only to see the brand associated with a bona fide, real life democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders, complete with all the progressive bells and whistles. Neoreaction is largely a hyper capitalist, techno commercialist thought enclave, not exactly the kind of treefort clubhouse in Never Never land you’d see Bernie Bros conducting their weekly “No Ma’am” meeting in. In Anil’s case, he most likely just fell for some meta-trolling by a few shitlords that decided to commandeer the #BernieBros hashtag for a hot minute.
However, legendary feminist icon and one-time HB8 Gloria Steinem was particularly insulting when she accused young women of supporting Bernie Sanders simply as a way to meet guys.
“When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said.
(source: NY Times)
Most passionate Bernie supporters I know are young women and are quite sincere about it. They’re the pure of heart. Many of these women are intelligent and beautiful, and I would not be surprised if they were actually attracting men to the movement rather than the other way around(I admit I myself have felt the temptation.) Absent any real evidence or data though, let’s just assume everyone is genuine.
The BernieBro slur calling Bernie supporters “misogynists” and MRAs simply for not supporting Hillary is both ludicrous and misinformed. Everyone knows that the people who support Sanders are the most committed feminists and the furthest left on every issue. It’s a stretch for people to say that voting for Bernie is somehow anti-feminist or misogynist. His ideology doesn’t even begin to approach anything in the realm of Roosh V or Mayor of MGTOWN territory. If anything he has even more credibility on these issues. While Hillary It’s like they’re trying to distract from the obvious, that people have plenty of good reasons to not support Hillary:
1. She has consistently supported interventionist foreign policy, from the war in Bosnia to the war in Iraq to more recent incursions in Libya and elsewhere while she was Secretary of State.
2. Hillary served on the board of Walmart from 1986-1992 and has always been active in promoting the interests of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs. She has no credibility on issues related to populism. Anti-globalists and environmentally conscious whites think Walmart is a greedy corporation where fat fucks go to buy cheap junk made by proto-slaves in third world sweatshops. Walmart is a place we rarely go to and feel gross and ashamed about at those times when we do end up there. Hillary likes Walmart.
3. The best Hillary can claim on women’s issues is that she’s pro choice, but so what? So is almost everyone. She remained for all these years an apologist for her husband’s infidelities and misogyny. Worse than that she attacked all of his female accusers and stayed with him even when Bill admitted to some of the transgressions. Perhaps standing by your man isn’t a bad thing, and as a guy I can confirm most of us are pretty sleazy…including me. Yet from the perspective of young feminists today, who are typically inclined to believe any accusation made by a female that involves sexual wrongdoing, Hillary comes off as indifferent at best and hypocritical at worst.
4. When it comes down to it, Hillary is no different than a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. They all have the same donors, from the same system and can only be distinguished by subtle variations in tone and rhetoric. In terms of what an actual presidency would look like, there is very little to differentiate any of them and they are all pretty much interchangeable.
Bernie supporters(both bros and hoes) have chosen him, because his views are more representative of theirs than Hillary’s. Sanders draws support precisely because he authentically holds these views and has a record of fighting for the progressive ideas that Hillary merely pays lip service to. It’s just as simple as that.
I was a guest on the Stark Truth podcast again. The interview can be found here. It wasn’t really a political discussion but just more of a leisurely chat. One question he put forward that caught me kind of off guard was when he asked what US city was my favorite in terms of architecture. I had never really given it much thought to be honest. I can’t remember what I told him, but after giving it some thought, I’d have to say that Seattle is pretty much my ideal city aesthetically. Not just for the Space Needle either. The whole place just gives off an Epcot Center / Future World /Tomorrowland kind of vibe. It even has a monorail.
My girlfriend and I have talked about moving moving there but no definite plans. For some reason though, whenever I think about Seattle all I can think of is the movie Wargames, as that’s where Matthew Broderick’s character was living and one of the first cities he decides to nuke when playing the computer game “Global Thermonuclear War.”