The Safety Pin Dance

Russian stamp bearing Kazimir Malevich’s “Black Square,” a painting which x-rays discovered an inscription that said “negroes battling in a cave.”

There’s a retarded new social media virtue signaling fad where people change their profile pictures to just a black space to protest Trump being elected president. Some people are also wearing safety pins to show their solidarity with designated victim groups which are supposedly threatened by Trump’s recent electoral victory. What these gestures signify in actuality is that those participating have learned absolutely nothing from this election cycle (and developments in the years building up to it.) Anyone partaking in these pathetically self righteous protests is demonstrating a lack of self reflection. They’re merely advertising to everyone that they have an impaired ability to process any societal reverberations outside their own echo chamber.

Here’s the thing, in case you weren’t aware, this kind of “change my profile picture in support of the latest cause du jour” virtue signaling and #BringBackOurGirls styled hashtag activism has become an eyeroll inducing joke. This hysterically contrived outrage and the accompanying transparently token gestures are in fact part of the reason Trump won.  A lot of people are sick of this kind of cornball bullshit. “LGBT people” have little to nothing to even fear in a Trump administration. He isn’t a social conservative. He has openly said gay marriage is the law of the land. Trump even said he didn’t care what bathroom trannies used. Peter Thiel, who is gayer than a 3 dollar bill, is on Trump’s white house transition team and was a key speaker at the convention. It’s true that Mike Pence is anti-gay (the whole electro-shock thing is pretty retro,) but Trump probably must have felt he had to pick him to throw a bone to religious conservatives. He got some bad advice on that one if you ask me (I hoped he would have chosen Jim Webb,) but then again he won so what do I know…It’s not like anyone was going to give Trump credit for being liberal on these issues anyway ( I can almost guarantee that many people rocking these safety pins are totally ignorant of Trump’s stances on these issues.)Trump’s positions on social issues as well as his anti-war views, his opposition to free trade and outsourcing were all reasons he was accused by his conservative opponents as being a democrat in disguise during the republican primaries. In many ways he was, and that is precisely what made him appealing!


Some of the people out there calling for resistance and revolution have clearly not given much brain power to the idea. I’m not sure that agitating for civil war would be a wise decision for them. Whom do these people think the police are going to side with? People like Deray and Triggly Puff?  Do they really believe the military is going to align themselves with blue haired, safety pin wearing Tumblr freaks and feral black rioters? That kind of vanguard might be sufficient if all you’re doing is burning down your own cities that no one else cares if you destroy, but it’s not going to catapult your revolution very far outside your hugbox. The misinformed and violent BlackLivesMatter protests as well as the endless stream of social justice street theater have contributed to a backlash which partially manifested in the form of Donald Trump being elected president. And yet, the same cast of characters are doubling down on anti-white sentiment and intersectionality! They haven’t thought through to what the next backlash they’re inviting may escalate to.

Instead maybe try some self reflection. Attempt to piece together what led us here. It’s like, what did you think would happen when you encouraged all these different ethnic groups to identify tribally and assert their ethnic group interests? What did you think would happen when you constantly promoted “white guilt” and insisted every white person “examine their whiteness” and check his/her white privilege. Trump won white millennials, white women and white men. In awakening white people to a conscious racial awareness, you’ve unconsciously awakened them to a realization that they too have group interests and may need to assert them in order to maintain an environment that isn’t hostile to them. Safety pins won’t offer much protection for anti-white activists from the future they’re unleashing, but they might generate a few laughs along the way.

Milo Inc. – Not One of Ours Either


I’ve noticed people trying to disassociate Milo Yiannopoulos and some of these other libertarians from the alternative right, by branding them as part of the alternative left. 


Not so fast. While we may be a tad more degenerate than the radical traditionalist factions of AltRight, we sure are not libertarian capitalists (barf.) Milo and Co are not part of our little AltLeft netherworld either. Here are some simple and straightforward reasons why he’s not one of us:

  1. He is a libertarian capitalist. Milo loves capitalism and the free market and always talks about it. He’s the kind of republican who will make claims like “Democrats ruined Detroit.”  He’s the type who will brag about Silicon Valley companies as if they are still part of the US in any real sense…rather than just international entities that act in their own interests, which may or may not correlate with the interests of the country at a given time. The Alternative Left (to the extent it’s even a real thing) leans toward Scandinavian socialism, communism,  state capitalism, public works, social credit, etc….all things Milo would disapprove of.
  2. He’s not a race realist. Milo rejects identity politics altogether, in the tradition of republicans who like to parrot Martin Luther King cliches about “color of skin” and “content of character.” The alternative left believes race is real (for practical purposes at least,) and race matters. There is some disagreement about how to deal with that reality, which I have discussed elsewhere. Some of us just openly promote a white-left futurism and others prefer to focus strictly on class struggle issues with the belief that this will minimize ethnic conflict over time. Others are national bolshevik types. Milo doesn’t fall into any of these camps. He’s just a flamboyant republican who thinks “dems are the real racists.”
  3. He supports importing foreign tech workers as well as many of the other items on the globocorp agenda to sell us out. He loves immigration and at the most maybe just wants to cut it down a bit.
  4. From what I can tell, he supports neoconservative foreign policy or some milder version of it, along with American exceptionalism and all that jazz. He’s Jewish and makes clear where his tribal loyalties are. I’m pretty sure we can leave it at that.

The only areas where there is any overlap is that he’s “anti-pc” and socially liberal as far as sexual depravity. Well, big deal. Almost everyone opposes the type of low hanging fruit loop, blue haired, fat acceptance, Tumblr feminists and diaper wearing furry activists that he targets. Milo simply is what he is, a libertarian-republican free speech advocate of the Breitbart variety, with an aggressively marketed, highly successful personal brand. Milo has put himself out there and has done some good things in pushing back against speech police on college campuses, but he’s not “AltLeft” or AltRight. Glad we cleared that up.

AltLeft Hangout with Millennial Woes


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.

Is Bernie Running For Mayor of MGTOWN?

steinem (1)

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.

Would You Pay a Penny to Save a Woman Who Thinks Differently?



So, my recent piece, “The Most Dangerous Intersections” turned out to be rather prescient, with the Cologne attacks occurring just a few days later…which ignited a firestorm of discussion about feminism, western women and refugees. Manosphere types are fine with refugees attacking women because they presume those European women must have supported multiculturalist policies.


It’s good to know that these men would not protect their own sisters, female friends or mothers from rapefugees if these women did not hold conservative or libertarian views. People like Clarey seem oblivious to the role greedy conservative businessmen and libertarians have played in promoting multiculturalism and open borders policies. Almost every big business in the United States promotes mass immigration from impoverished 3rd world countries as a means of acquiring dirt cheap labor. Funny though that people like Clarey doesn’t consider capitalists traitors even though they’d be the first to sell anyone down the river for a buck. Yet naive women and children who’ve been indoctrinated since birth to believe all cultures and people are equally civilized somehow deserve to be raped and assaulted.

I’ve got an idea. Instead of trying to score cheap points against feminists, let’s separate the ones who care about their countries from the ones who don’t. Meanwhile we can focus on the bigger problem, which is the transnational capitalists, media companies and academic institutions that institutionally fuel the promotion of mass immigration at all levels.

These manosphere bros always accuse people of “white knighting” and assume sexual motivation for positive action towards a female…because they themselves are of the capitalist mindset that is basically “what can I get out of this transaction?” Sometimes you just stick up for people because they are part of your tribe, or even if they aren’t…because it’s just empathy for a fellow human. You’re not even expecting or wanting anything in return.

In the 1978 film, Heaven Can Wait, Warren Beatty plays a star football player who ends up dying before his time, and so he gets put into the body of a CEO named Leo Farnsworth. He gives a memorable speech  at the company board meeting that horrifies all the executives:

What if we had a good-guy tuna company that was on the porpoise team? A lot of these guys would buy that, so their kids wouldn’t get mad at them, right? We don’t care how much it costs, just how much it makes. If it costs too much, we charge a penny more. We make it part of the game plan. “Would you pay a penny to save a fish who thinks?”

Now nevermind the fact that a porpoise is not actually a fish(this was intentional to show he was just winging it as an outsider in the meeting) and Farnsworth’s lack of business acumen. The point of the speech was to show that he held values beyond money and put communities above profits. Empathy is a primary component of western civilization and group survival. It’s a shame when it’s naively misdirected toward outgroups who don’t(can’t?) reciprocate and merely exploit it, but indifference to rapefugee culture isn’t the answer.

The Most Dangerous Intersections


It’s easy to understand why many right wing reactionaries express tepid support for Arab and African immigration to Europe and the United States, or at the very least wish to adopt some European equivalent of Islamic values into society. Many traditional conservatives get a semi-boner for Islam, because they think that what western civilization has become is itself so alien to them that it’s no longer worth saving. Better to usher in the barbarian hordes or channel their mentality to stamp out feminism, homosexuality and weak men. In my experience, asking a few probing questions to some of these individuals reveals that many of these chauvinistic manospherian reactionaries are themselves crypto –kebabs trying to weasel their Islamic values into European identitarian movements. Many others are genuine though.

Conversely, from an AltLeft, pro-White perspective, the feminists’ share of “intersectional feminism” shouldn’t be seen as the enemy in own right. Rather the target should specifically be the “intersectional” component, which needs to be strongly willed away like the opportunistic disembodied inhabitants of Planet of the Vampires. Far from enhancing feminism and the noble cause of women’s rights, intersectionality necessarily detracts from it.  What other conclusion could one possibly come to?

According to Wikipedia:

Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society, such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, biphobia, homophobia, transphobia and belief-based bigotry, do not act independently of one another. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination.

The problem with intersectionality is that the various forms of “oppression”outlined above, don’t interrelate in the ways that are claimed. Some of these things are not like the others! To be sincerely invested in advocating for feminism and women’s rights actually requires one to become more racist. Intersectionality has in fact harmed the cause of women’s rights by refusing to acknowledge the disproportionate rate at which non-whites and third world immigrants rape and commit violent or disrespectful acts toward western women. When intersectional feminists do point out this behavior, almost always the racial component is ignored, and it is attributed to just “men,” “youths,” “teens” etc.  A good example of this was the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal in Britain, in which 1,400 underage girls had been abused by gangs of Pakistani men. You would think feminists would have been vocal in speaking out about this horrific abuse, but due to “intersectionality” and anti-racism, it was brushed under the rug. People like Nick Griffin, who did try to draw attention to these types of problems back in 2004(nearly 10 years before anyone bothered to do anything) were charged with suspicion to incitement of racial hatred(ie. crimethink.) When a far right shitlord is the only one defending teenage western women from hordes of barbarous rapists, then it might be time to recognize that intersectional feminism is a bust. Many secular women who have escaped from Arab or Islamic countries know this, which is why even if they are far left, they stick with the tried and true variety of feminism(ie advocating for women… without any alchemic PC admixture.)

There are countless other relatable phenomenon and broadly observable patterns. In Scandinavian countries,  non-whites commit rape and other violent felonies at vastly higher rates than native European caucasians. Feminists should be clamoring to restrict 3rd world immigration to minimize the hostile elements in their societies, but they don’t. They advocate for less restrictions on immigration! Why? because intersectionality and its maze of grievances apparently prioritizes anti-racism, political correctness and anti-whitism. Advocacy for actual women’s safety is relegated to the back of the bus, to be wasted on trivial frivolities like “transmisogyny” and “Bechdel Tests.” 

It doesn’t make sense for those who claim to primarily be concerned with empowering women to import large numbers(or any numbers) of people from Middle Eastern or African countries. Statistically speaking, when you bring non-whites into your society, you’re inviting a rape culture exponentially more threatening than whatever “Douche Ness” monsters are lurking at the average whitey fratbro house(and yeah I hate those guys, too.) Remember when that cat calling video went viral?  The one of a Jewish girl walking in New York City for 10 hours and being hollered at and bothered by random men on the street. It backfired of course, because people observed that most of the obnoxious men doing the cat calling were non-white. This was something you weren’t supposed to notice, because you’re never supposed to notice race unless it is a white male committing oppression in his natural habitat. Yet deep down everyone knows that non-whites(with the exception of East Asians) are typically much more obnoxiously aggressive in hitting on women, and they are more abusive once in relationships as well.

When push comes to shove, intersectionalists are more invested in promoting white guilt than advocating for women’s rights. If man is the most dangerous game, then intersectional feminists’ insistence on demonstrating solidarity with the most violently  misogynist demographics, can only result in talented and capable western women being reduced to navigating the most dangerous intersectionsjust when they’ve finally gotten themselves on the road to success. I don’t write this as some kind of “concern troll.” Unlike traditionalists and manosphere chauvinists, I genuinely like and admire intelligent, confident, creative, sexually liberated, independent and sassy western women. I would love to see that sass weaponized in the battle against western civilization’s mutual enemies, not directed as friendly fire toward allies you didn’t even realize you had.