Discussing AltLeft Chaos Magic on The Stark Truth

Robert Stark and co-host Sam Kevorkian talk to Brandon Adamson. Brandon blogs at AltLeft.com, is the author of Beatnik Fascism, and has a Youtube channel, Self Checkout.

The entire podcast can be found here.

Topics:

-Brandon’s Official Response to Trump’s Remarks on the AltLeft
-The context of Trump using the term “Alt-Left” to describe the antifa as opposed to the original Alt Left
-The media’s references to Brandon’s Alt Left site and how the only semi accurate one was The Week’s article (since the time when this podcast was recorded there was another accurate article which appeared in Salon)
-Confusing political news junkies with esoteric and outlandish cultural references
-The “Orange Pill”
-How the less aggro elements of the Left and the Alt-Right should combine forces for single payer health care, student debt relief, and the dismantling the College Football Industrial Complex
-How massive online censorship is forcing people to build an alternative tech universe
-Corporations enforcing a uniform culture of consensus among workers
-Companies policing employees behavior outside of work
-Why a 6 hour work day would be more efficient
People Don’t Think Universal Basic Income Be Like It Is but It Do
New Suburbanism

Advertisements

People Don’t Think Universal Basic Income Be Like It Is but It Do

Zoltan Istvan was on The Stark Truth to discuss his plan for a California State Basic Income (to be paid for by developing and monetizing federal land.) While I like Zoltan and think he probably would have been the best choice in the last presidential election (among the candidates running,) it goes without saying that I think this is a terrible idea. Not that I oppose the idea of a basic income. I am sympathetic to UBI generally, but I oppose this particular scheme for the following reasons:

1. It would be a shame to see any more of California’s beautiful land be ruined by commercial development. Many people believe that much of what has been developed already has been a mistake. What are they going to develop anyway? More social media ad agencies, useless phone app startups and overpriced McModern apartments? Zoltan’s argument for why this all would be bad for the environment is a bizarre stipulation that the “land would be leased not sold and would have to be returned to it’s previous condition or better after the lease.” This might sound nice but makes very little practical sense. This isn’t going to be like when the Black Fortress disappears without a trace in Krull. If a company leases the land and later goes bankrupt or fails in some way, they’re not going to have the money to demolish all of their buildings and magically regenerate a fully mature forest overnight. This just isn’t realistic. It will be bad for the environment. The increased developments will require more natural resources to sustain, resources which California struggles to harness a sufficient amount of, even now.

2. California doesn’t even care to enforce borders of any kind currently. Most of the larger metropolitan hubs are basically sanctuary cities. A “basic income” can only be mathematically viable if strict population controls are kept on the number of of people residing in that particular area. It requires draconian measures like breeding restrictions and militarily enforced boundaries. Merely having strict residency requirements in order to qualify isn’t enough, because pretty much anyone who lives there can vote. Massive amounts of people who live in California but wouldn’t qualify, can still elect officials that will assert their electoral power to loosen requirements, cut deals or file legal challenges based on trumped up charges of discrimination, etc. Developing and leasing millions of acres of federal land might provide some limited revenue for a basic income, if we were dealing with a stagnant population, frozen in time at current levels. More than likely though, increased development will lead to more people flocking to the area for tech jobs and housing, more Indian programmers and wealthy foreign investors finagling their way here for jobs and real estate investment opportunities. A bigger pie but minimal to no increase in the size of the average slice. Basically, nothing leftover for a basic income.

3. California has frequently struggled with budget deficits in the past. If the projected revenues to fund the California universal basic income do not materialize through this land leasing scheme, the people who are expecting the money will be pissed. Which do you think is more likely, that politicians up for election will spend the state into massive deficits to attempt to deliver people the basic income they were promised, or that they will tell millions of voters “Oops sorry, looks like we can’t afford to give you each 25k a year after all” and face the wrath of betrayed angry mobs. Both of those gloomy scenarios seem highly plausible if this plan were to ever move forward. Those left to foot the bill for this tab will likely flee the area in droves.

4. There is a little too much Utopian optimism with this idea. It kind of reminds me of when you see stoners arguing that legalizing weed will solve nearly every social, economic and military problem in the world “just think, we could tax it, and it would pay off the national debt!” This strikes me as similar, wishful, pie in the sky thinking. There are just too many variables and wildcards involved here.

So anyway, everyone’s a critic right? After reading all that you might be thinking, “Okay, well what is your plan for universal basic income then?” My plan is extremely simple. You form a secluded micro state with a very tiny population and heavily fortify it. This microstate earns revenue through some kind of shared natural resource or industry (could be anything from genetically engineered crops to rubber band manufacturing to Scientology auditing classes.) People would receive a meager basic income by working in civil or community service. Pretty simple but only has a chance of working with a delicate population balance which must be maintained and understood by all participants. I have no clue whether my plan could be viable in practice (for one thing, people would have to actually be interested in my ideas.) That’s the rub with radical futurism. In our grand visions of the future, we often lose sight of the fact that we’re stuck dealing with people the way they are and the world the way it is.

Anatoly Karlin Discusses Transhumanism on The Stark Truth

Unfortunately I had something scheduled and wasn’t able to be on for this episode, but it’s a good one that covers a lot of ground. I was deeply interested in what would be considered transhumanist ideas for many years before I ever heard the term “transhumanism” or was aware there was a thriving scene. In fact, my hodgepodge poetry book “SideQuests” from about 10 years ago, dealt with some transhumanist and AI related themes (albeit very crudely) from a sort of “angsty teenage faustian” perspective (even though it was written in my mid to late 20s.) Even now, I would rate my interest in these issues above racial/identitarian discussion as I think breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and genetics are not too distant future wildcards, which could potentially transcend racial tribalism and ethnonationalism, or at the very least redefine the participants along different lines. Of course, those of us without money or time won’t be able to take advantage of any radical bionic enhancements, so all we can do is pontificate about it and dream. I did the math, and I’m already too old to live forever.

Here is a list of the topics discussed on this episode of The Stark Truth, which can be found here:

-The philosophical roots of Effective Altruism in rationalism and how it uses reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others
-Anatoly’s article Immigration and Effective Altruism
-Steve Sailer on U.N. population projections for Africa and the Carrying Capacity of the Global Population
-Hank Pellissier and his charity in Africa based on Effective Altruism
Psychometrics and Pellissier’s book Brighter Brains: 225 Ways to Elevate or Injure IQ
-Positive Eugenics, IQ and fertility, and fertility preferences
-The Transhumanist and Futurist movements
-Paper Review: Artificial Wombs
-Radical Life Extension
-CRISPR gene editing and intelligence augmentation
-How Transhumanism could exacerbate inequality
-The Technological Singularity and the age of intelligent machines
-Cybernetics and the Neural Lace
-Anatoly’s essay A Short History of the Third Millennium which predicts a future based on current trends without Transhumanism
-Anatoly’s upcoming book on Neo-Malthusianism

Minding Our Own Business – The “Official” Foreign Policy of the AltLeft

“You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?” -Harry Lime in The Third Man (1949)

So it’s official, Trump screwed the pooch. After campaigning for years as a non-interventionist in contrast with Hillary’s aggressive neoconservative foreign policy, Trump went ahead and intervened in Syria’s civil war, a conflict which is of course none of our business.

At this point, I think it’s important that the anti-war left and anti-war right set aside their differences and combine forces to protest against US military interventionism. I’ll gladly ally with even the shrillest blue haired, transracial tumblrista on this issue, even if it means having to eat some pepper spray or endure a punch from some confused antifa who doesn’t know what to make of it all.

The official foreign policy of the “AltLeft” as far as I’m concerned is one of non-interventionism. Aside from the moral issue of these countries’ having the right to manage their own destiny, we recognize that meddling in these foreign conflicts is simply not in our long term interests (in many cases it is not even in our short term interests.) What happens in another country’s civil war is none of our business, period. We helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected leader in the 1950s, and we’re still paying the price nearly 65 years later. We got involved in the Korean War, which was a disaster. 65 years later we still maintain a substantial military presence there (for which we receive practically nothing in return) and face a potential nuclear threat. We intervened in the Vietnamese civil war, in which we had almost nothing to gain and meanwhile lost 60,000 American lives and over 168 billion dollars (in 1960s-70s dollars!) That is to say nothing of the Gulf War, the Iraq war, the Iran-Iraq war, Nicaragua, the indo-pakistani war of 1971 and scores of other conflicts we have inserted ourselves into either directly or indirectly over the years. In most cases our involvement arguably makes the situation worse. Not only that, but we also ultimately end up being blamed for the entire mess.

It’s mind boggling that our leaders have not learned their lessons that they should just stay out. We already have enough problems in our own country which are being neglected. The 2 million spent on each cruise missile would be better utilized paying down the debt or rebuilding infrastructure in our dilapidated urban areas. Worried about ISIS? No need to bomb random nations. Just don’t invite potentially hostile aliens into your country. Do you ever wonder why Uruguay or Argentina is not worried about the North Korean nuke threat or ISIS? They are not dumb enough to stick their noses in places where they don’t belong. The North Korean nuke threat to the USA is entirely self created. After 60 years South Korea should be ready and able to fly on their own. If they can’t now, they never will.

It might be comforting for some to say the president is being corrupted by the neocons, but this lets him off the hook too easily. The reality is he has no one to blame but himself. If he listens to neocons, agrees with them, and acts upon their recommendations…it’s ultimately a reflection of his own poor judgement. Remember that Trump’s whole persona is “Look at me. I’m mr alpha male. I’m in charge of the room, and I don’t take orders from anybody.” Nobody should be making excuses for Trump or pretend he’s playing some kind of 4D chess. For some reason Americans always do this, and then eventually we find out they were full of shit and never really had any coherent strategy. When a leader says or does the opposite of what we want him to do, we can’t just say “he doesn’t really mean it. He just has to say that to cover his tracks. Deep down he’s really our guy! No, he isn’t. None of these people are “our guys” until they are explicitly saying so and backing it up with synergistic action. We need to take them at face value. From now on, the burden of proof has to be on them to demonstrate they’re going to act in America’s interests. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt. Their credibility is worthless here, and they need to put a deposit up front.

Robert Stark and I discussed the official AltLeft foreign policy and reacted to Trump’s attacks on Syria last night on an episode of The Stark Truth podcast, which can be found here.

Topics:

-The gas “attack” in syria and how it’s being used as propaganda to draw us into war
-Anatoly Karlin’s article This Fishy Smell of Sarin, or Was it Chlorine?
-Regardless of what happened the conflict is none of our business
-How the AltRight is totally united in not wanting to go to war in Syria and disillusioned with Trump
-Richard Spencer: Will Trump Gas His Presidency Over Syria?
-Hillary and the Neocon Never-Trumpers praising Trump’s decision to invade Syria
-The hubris in thinking we should decide who the the leaders should be in other countries and how the US never learns its lessons
-Trump’s use of liberal humanitarian rhetoric to justify intervention
-The Trump admin being taken over by neocons and Trump himself making dumb statements
-Steve Bannon’s removal from the national security council
-How gullible US politicians and media are and how easily manipulated emotionally people are by imagery
-How the North Korea situation is none of our business either and how it is a self created threat
-Other Trump examples of Trump betraying his base including signing measure to let ISPs sell your data without consent, health care, and Free Trade

Strange Bedfellows – Defending Milo

milo2

Robert Stark, Pilleater and I discussed the recent Milo controversy on The Stark Truth. The episode is available, here.

I hate having to write an article like this. I’ve never really been a fan of Milo (and have written so quite clearly in the past.) People who prioritize or spend a lot of time obsessed with political issues relating to what depraved activities they can or can’t do sexually, have always kind of annoyed me. Really, of all the problems in our society that could require attention, that’s what you chose to devote your activism to? Your dick?

Anyway, I’m just going to go ahead and say it…

Milo never defended “pedophilia.” It’s ridiculous to suggest that he did. In the video interview in question, he’s discussing teenagers. Pedophilia applies only to prepubescent children. Whether or not someone is legally a “minor” in a particular has nothing to do with these classifications. Age of consent and what constitutes a minor vary widely among different countries. In any case, debating the subject of attraction and consent relating to post pubescent or sexually developed minors cannot be construed in any way as being the same thing as “advocating pedophilia” (which would involve a conversation about pre-pubescent minors.) That a great many people are too dumb or ignorant to comprehend such distinctions, shouldn’t be Milo’s problem.

Now, to those who would accuse me of  just “splitting hairs” or claim that I’m talking about a distinction without a difference, I can only say that words mean things. Definitions matter. Categorizing ideas accurately is a critical component of civilized discussion. I can already hear people saying “Whatever. It’s all degeneracy! You sound like pedo apologist! Blah Blah Blah.”

Well, think about this…these same individuals are the ones who often complain that people mischaracterize them as Nazis, white supremacists, when they are merely white nationalists, race realists or in some cases even civic nationalists. “Whatever you’re all nazis! Trump supporters are all nazis. Bannon is a white supremacist! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..!”
Of course, we all know a civic nationalist is not the same thing as a white nationalist, and a white nationalist is not necessarily a white supremacist or even a biological race realist for that matter. When you claim that Milo was “defending pedophilia,” it is as ignorant and absurd as when the media labels some basic bitch republican like Paul Ryan a white supremacist. It just isn’t true. I don’t want to hear these people complaining next time they get categorized as Nazi KKK members just for advocating for a moratorium on immigration from the third world. “Like what do you mean, dude? Don’t you see how ridiculous and autistic you seem by insisting that people accurately characterize your views? What’s that? You say you’re not a white supremacist or neo Nazi? You’re just an ‘ethnonationalist?’ Haha, as if that makes your opinions any less disgusting, you Nazi apologist.”

Part of what has always attracted me to dissident politics was the willingness to honestly explore any topic relating to biology, human nature, or psychology, no matter how socially taboo. When some AltRight person says “I don’t know how anyone could defend Milo or his remarks at this point. The things he said were simply indefensible,” I have to wonder where their self awareness is. Do they not realize that the average person thinks their views and statements on race realism are just as indefensible (if not more) than Milo’s expressed opinions on age of consent? Indeed they don’t. Didn’t people say the AltRight could no longer be defended after the NPI “Roman salute” controversy? Look, if someone holds what you deem to be a disturbing opinion that runs contrary to your values, the solution is simple. You can disagree with them and state your case.

I suspect though that there are other things in play here. Milo has made a great deal of enemies and often talks a lot of shit. Therefore, people see it as an opportunity to settle old personal scores, and they salivate at the prospect of finally skewering him and getting revenge. This may be a good short term strategy, but I don’t see it playing out well long term. Anyone that unfairly has their lives ruined by the media for simply stating “weird” opinions, requires defense whether we like them or not. Though I admit Milo is easily unlikable, and I was never much of a fan of his obnoxious shtick or faux edginess, I relate to him slightly more now that he’s become genuinely ostracized and alienated like the rest of us.