To the dismay of some of supporters and to the misplaced enthusiasm of some disillusioned Trump voters, Bernie made some waves again by reiterating his opposition to open borders. It’s no secret around here that support for “open borders” is only a recent phenomenon on the left (especially in socialist and communist circles.) Bernie has made arguments against mass immigration before(interestingly this article no longer appears on the BernieSanders.com website, though that may or may not mean anything and could just be the result of a design change.)
Anyhow, don’t panic everyone, rest assured! Bernie for all practical purposes, supports open borders. At the most recent event, the questioner let him off too easily. Next question should have been, “Okay there are hundreds of thousands of people trying to get into the United States. People are complaining about them being detained. If 100,000 people from Honduras and Ecuador were to arrive at the US border tomorrow, how many would you turn back?” My guess is he would not send very many back at all, because to do so would require levels of brutality his supporters would not be comfortable with. Bernie would not risk the bad publicity that comes with pictures of poor tender tots crying on tv. “Oh no, look at the poor kiddies! We must take them in!”
He says he’s not for “open borders,” he’s for “comprehensive immigration reform.” “Comprehensive immigration reform” is basically just a euphemism for amnesty and allowing mass immigration from the third world, even if technically the border will not be absolutely, 100% “open.” Bernie knows that open borders is an unpopular term, which is why he resists embracing it, even if we all know he’s not going to be rounding up and deporting illegals by the millions, which is what having a genuinely secure non-open border would actually entail, at least until people got the message and stopped coming in droves.
“I’m against open borders, but I wouldn’t detain people or deport families who came here illegally for a better life,” (not an actual quote) is basically Bernie’s position in practice. It amounts to a distinction without a difference.
I wish these politicians would just be honest and say that no one has the balls to restrict immigration in any meaningful way. The demographics have already changed to a degree where significant immigration restriction is no longer possible electorally. The replacement has for the most part, already happened. “America” is nothing but a post-national land mass at this point. We just need to adapt and find creative ways navigate the dystopia until some opportunity for escape or partition presents itself.
One big change is the Made in the USA tag. Its commitment to producing all of its collections in downtown LA factories – Charney refused to outsource from the US – defined its former incarnation. Now, the brand splits manufacturing between its own factories in Central America and Gilden-approved vendors governed by its Genuine Responsibility programme around the world, including Mexico and China.
Is anyone falling for this crap? Basically American Apparel is now just another H&M or Forever 21, perhaps differentiated only by having more annoying and preachy social justice ads (probably motivated more by claiming a profitable niche market than by any genuine sentiment.) They also claim to be “sweatshop free,” but this is to large extent a distinction without difference. Whether or not a factory can technically be called a sweatshop or not distracts from the fact that companies manufacture in other countries in order to undercut American workers, skirt US labor laws and avoid environmentally protective regulations. So yeah, maybe the central American garment sewer isn’t being beaten with a whip all day, but let’s not pretend there’s any real ethical considerations going on here. It’s just the construction of a rather shrewd PR angle.
Outsourcing is an American value
The whole charade serves as a metaphor for contemporary America. There is no physical country, no place. Everywhere is America. American Apparel promotes American values, values which it redefines as anything abstractly inclusive anywhere in the world (in stark contrast with almost all of American history and any known value which might actually work toward America’s benefit.) Anything which enriches CEOs at the expense of interest of the American worker or the interest of the nation itself is now an “American value.” If America includes everyone, then it ultimately includes no one…since there’s nothing to distinguish it from anywhere else. In a tragic sense, American Apparel does represent contemporary American values. For added insult, the company offers customers the opportunity to pay extra for items “designed and sewn in USA,” which like “assembled in USA” is yet a common weaselly worded obfuscation corporations use to denote something not actually made in USA. Perhaps they do make a handful of garments in the USA, but if so it’s such a trivial amount that it can’t be seen as anything but a token PR ploy to provide cover.
Say what one will about the original American Apparel and its attempt to redefine American ideals as the promotion of mass third world immigration (the likes of which have never been supported by any US immigration law prior to 1965) and the sudden promotion of various LGBTQ causes. There was at least genuine commitment to favorable conditions for workers and a focus on product quality. Their clothes were actually made in the USA, which made even someone like me happy to buy them, even if I was not fully on board with Dov Charney’s conceptualization of America. The old American Apparel was also one of the few places I could still buy a velour tracksuit. American Apparel, with its unitards, 70’s pornwear accessories, and shiny, Buck Rogers era disco attire…always seemed to cater to a period in fashion which I’m probably one of the few people who admires. There’s no getting around it. When it comes to clothing, Dov Charney and I have the same tastes. People also made a big deal about the sexual advertising, but I personally thought the ads were terrific. Maybe they pushed the envelope a little too far, but I’m not a huge prude so I never found them offensive. They ended up being a canary in the coal mine though for what has now become completely common: the rising sexual puritanism of the left and the icons of liberalism being consumed by their own pets. If you support the open sexuality of females you’re exploiting them. If you promote sexual modesty, you’re oppressing them. If you are “pro-white” then you’re a nazi white supremacist. If you advocate for colorblindness, you’re also a white supremacist for not challenging the “privilege plus power structure.” If you are a white person that’s anti-white, you’re engaging in socially acceptable white supremacy, since you’re seen as appropriating “poc” issues and denying blacks their own authentic voices.
For those who appreciated the old American Apparel, there is some good news. Dov Charney has also returned with an amusing, generically named spinoff company, Los Angeles Apparel. He purchased much of the original equipment, and one can rediscover the familiar Made in USA clothes that can’t really be found anywhere else.
You Had me Until Number 10
Los Angeles Apparel has a “values” page, featuring a list of what should be common sense, ethical corporate values (yet are sadly lacking and would be considered heretical at most major corporations.) Elsewhere on the site Charney claims to be a proponent of “Contrarian Thinking.” Upon closer inspection though, what Charney euphemizes as “contrarian thinking” could at times be better described as self-contradicting. Others might also recognize that far from being any kind of contrarian, he seems to be conforming to some of the most common Jewish stereotypes (as articulated by Sarah Silverman here.) The stereotypes I’m speaking of, are mainly the following:
A. The promotion of open borders and mass third world immigration as some kind of retroactively discovered Western value, (which never existed before.)
B. Hostility toward any form of explicit nationalism (in Western or European countries,) whether it’s economic nationalism, civic nationalism or ethnonationalism.
C. Advocacy of a sexually promiscuous culture, a wide assortment of sexual orientation and an appreciation for sleaze aesthetic (Hey, I didn’t say all Jewish stereotypes were inherently bad.)
The self-contradiction comes here:
10.We Support Free Trade
We are not nationalists. We support worldwide free trade. We believe we can compete globally and still produce value for our customers while remaining true to our sustainability and efficiency commitment. We want to sell our products to the world and we understand the importance of other countries having access to our market.
This isn’t really contrarian thinking. It’s just self-defeating. Perhaps you can “still compete globally” by filling a niche or novelty market for clothing Made in USA, but what about the little yarn shop you’re sourcing materials from? They don’t have a gimmick and as a result of your promotion of free trade will have to compete with factories in the third world that can produce a similar quality product at a fraction of the price. The ultimate result of this is what Ross Perot described in his “Giant Sucking Sound” answer in the 1992 presidential debates, a lowered standard of living for American workers, util it at some point equalizes with a rising (yet still much lower) standard of living for the third world.
Rather than global free trade, what is needed is to form a trade bloc with other countries that have similar wages, labor and environmental regulations. This would actually encourage third world countries to adopt better working conditions and environmental controls in order for them to have access to our markets. The current “free trade” system incentivizes developing countries to make things as cheaply as possible, since achieving the lowest production costs and consumer prices are the only relevant priorities in gaining a foothold in US markets. What is the point in fighting for a $15 minimum wage if you’re going to have to compete with overseas factories that pay employees 10 cents per hour? You’re not going to make up the difference in money saved via shipping costs. On the same token, what is the point of having a $15 minimum wage, when unlimited amounts of people can come here. You might win at the ballot box and feel good about yourself, but there won’t be enough $15 an hour jobs to go around for all the millions of people you’ve invited.
If you are not “nationalists” what exactly is the point of prioritizing and supporting the local community, if there is nothing to differentiate said community from the global community at large. If there are no borders, and the whole world is your community, why demonstrate any preference for local businesses and workers at all? Charney would do well to just simply embrace economic nationalism, the sort of which up that most democrats championed, even well into the 1990s. “Nationalism” itself isn’t a dirty word, especially when its forces can be constructively channeled away from those with imperialist ambitions. Most countries aim to conduct national and international policies which are in the best interests of their citizens. Denmark, China, Japan, Czech Republic…most countries engage in some form of nationalism, and that is okay.
Having said all that, I would still prefer to buy from Charney’s Los Angeles Apparel over the farcical reanimation of “American” Apparel. Los Angeles Apparel is a more ethical company, and engages in nationalism in practice even if it shies away from embracing it in principle. “American” Apparel is like a shitty movie remake looking to cash in on someone else’s proven idea. It’s very nature is more shamelessly exploitative than even the sleaziest of original American Apparel billboard advertisements. Los Angeles Apparel is a genuine manifestation of someone’s style, dreams and ideals. For that reason, I will enthusiastically purchase some sunglasses from them.
As many of you may well know, President Trump conducted a press conference earlier today in which he specifically made disparaging remarks about the AltLeft. Many of these statements were slanderous and well off the mark. No one that I know who is associated with the AltLeft (which by the way has existed for years) would ever support or engage in violence. As anti-alpha male anti-heroes, we don’t care for brodozers and machismo and people who eat chips loudly. We like our testosterone bound to SHBG, not left unchecked where it is free to bind to receptor sites willy nilly or converted into its more potent forms. I personally don’t even like to attack bugs. In fact, I once had a black widow spider web in my shower and continued to shower next to it for a year, leaving the web completely undisturbed. Occasionally I would glance over at the spider, its red hour glass glistening through the steamy water droplets, and I would say “hey bud. how’s it going?” I have no empirical proof, but to this day I like to think we had an understanding. The idea that we would attend rallies and assault people, could not be further from the truth. I could not harm a fly. Speaking of insects I was as shocked as anyone when in the 1958 version of the film “The Fly,” Vincent Price and the detective just stood there idly watching as Al Hedison was devoured by the spider. They made absolutely no effort to save him despite his desperate cries for help. Militants? Violence? Yeah right. To paraphrase Mike Myers in Wayne’s World “I don’t even own a gun, let alone many guns, which would necessitate a gun rack.”
Trump’s comments are a slap in the face to anyone who believes that the less aggro elements of Antifa and the AltRight should combine forces to get single payer health care passed and a plan for student debt relief. They could focus their dual energies on dismantling the college football industrial complex. Time to get rid of the obsession with national championships, ditch the needless playoffs and restore conference rivalries. Go back to naming bowl games strictly after fruits, plants and other commodities rather than mega-corporations. If the AltRight and Antifa groups are to have skirmishes, they should take the form of squirt gun battles, their classic Super Soaker 50s and translucent squirt guns, filled not with bleach but with Hi-C, Tang and Capri Sun. Yeah that’s right, the red pill is for squares. The AltLeft is all about the orange pill. That’s where instead of spending a bunch of your hard earned mooncoin to attend a rally in Podunk USA and get maced by strange looking subhumans, you simply head on down to the food court at your local dying mall and order up an Orange Julius, quietly(!) slurping it while daydreaming about the cosmos and reminiscing about the Radio Shack you used to buy remote control cars from in the late 80’s, which has now been replaced by some kind of ethnic eyebrow waxing place (thanks to both globalization and greed induced corporate imperial overextension.) Go ahead, call us chic nihilists, fedora nationalists, new suburbanists, retro futurists or snorters of Pixy Stix. We don’t care. Deep down, orange you glad we didn’t take the black pill or the turquoise pill or the periwinkle pill? You know you are. By the way, as I’ve mentioned many times I’ve always disliked the pill analogy. The Matrix is a terrible movie. The camera work practically gave me motion sickness, and the whole cheesy “he’s the one” thing made this cynical GenX’er roll his eyes while mentally barfing at the screen of this melodramatic spectacle. It was a total corn muffin, not a sci-fi movie that I cared for that’s for sure. I hated the digital effects and didn’t even enjoy the overall ambianic aesthetic as much as that of Damnation Alley, which is really saying something.
Trump’s statements are also a violent assault on every intelligent, well meaning, teal haired white feminist beauty who works her ass off in retail and reluctantly complains about how Indian customers are disproportionately cheap, and how they’re constantly demanding discounts and other free shit. Furthermore, Trump’s words betray every Xenu fearing person who has been stuck in line at Starbucks behind someone who couldn’t just simply place a fucking order without asking questions about every item on the menu…the calories, the ingredients, the special requests, the whole shebang.
When Trump condemns the AltLeft, it’s an insult to every person who recognizes that Vegas Vacation is the superior film in the National Lampoon’s Vacation franchise, even though Ethan Embry became kind of an SJW. What is it with former child/teen stars becoming SJWs anyway? I don’t care about Will Wheaton, as I never got into Star Trek. Tristine Skyler (whom I had a brief childhood crush on after seeing her in the film Kidco and who outshined Christian Slater in one of the best ABC Weekend Specials, The Haunted Mansion Mystery) was a little bit more disappointing. She went to Princeton though, so good for her. I really don’t understand how any 70’s or 80’s kid could get more than superficially into social justice. Our childhoods were filled with grossly offensive things, (remember Cabbage Patch Preemies? like ewww wtf I love social justice now) and those same childhoods were radically unmatched in their total awesomeness. Anyhow, suffice to say that Trump’s presser was a personal affront to anybody who found Back to the Future III to be a lackluster finale to the trilogy. I’m not sure how many people that works out to be, but it’s more than a few. You know it’s true. What Trump said is mind boggling for anyone who was inspired by Warren Beatty’s charismatic “Guy Named Porpoise” speech in the 1978 film Heaven Can Wait only to wonder why 40 years later nobody prioritizes these issues.
Trump’s criticism of the behavior of the AltLeft feels like knuckles to the creep to every laid back Beatnik Fascist that doesn’t care much for blabbing the drab gab but rather chatters hep patter on twatter, if you catch my drift. Not everyone wants to take the long trip to Roman Salutesville, but if we decide to rig ourselves a little shindig vessel, what’s the harm in a few kicks? After all, we’re peace loving moonboots, and you’re the tabby cat with the codes to the missiles.
Every left transhumanist who seeks bionic upgrades, mind uploading, immortality and the resurrection of wooly mammoths should be disturbed by Trump’s pontificatory declarations about the fabric of our being. Like Box in Logan’s Run we are “more than machine, more than man, more than a fusion of the two. Don’t you agree? Wait for the winds. Then our birds sing. And the deep grottos whisper our names.” Trump may have “one of the highest IQs,” but he’ll be no match for us after we transcend our earthly bags of bones and fuse our collective consciousnesses to refurbished Tandy 1000s.
People always claim that Trump is playing 4D chess. His moves are so unpredictable and counter-intuitive, and yet you just know the only possible explanation is that it must be because he is 12 moves ahead of you. I know this because I myself have beaten a computer at chess several times on the “very easy” setting. We here on the AltLeft have our own preferred game though. It’s called Hungry Hungry Hippos, and we’re playing for our fair share of all the marbles.
Bitcoin Address 1CDTBhYftHbod16WFhPz65nZmAmbb54Vph
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.
I haven’t been inclined to make a bunch of predictions about the presidential election, because I honestly have no idea what will happen. I don’t feel the need to pontificate about things I’m not confident on. Also, I have a tendency toward pessimism and don’t really feel the need to kill the vibe of those who are hopeful by being a debbie downer. They’ll be plenty of time for that later regardless of who wins. I find normie politics to be incredibly vapid, and the fact that the quality of discourse is a reflection of the broader contemporary electorate doesn’t leave me with much inspiration for the future.
Will there be riots and unrest if Trump wins? Probably but who knows how significant they will be…some street theater and a couple of chimpouts? I’m not a “prepper” or weekend warrior so I’m woefully unprepared for any kind of extended civil unrest. To quote Mike Myers in Wayne’s World, “I don’t even own a gun, let alone many guns, which would necessitate an entire rack.” All I have is a dagger and a 1980’s era BB pistol probably buried under a pile of clothes somewhere, which I have no idea if it even works. It was just something I found in my grandpa’s closet after he died several years ago. It’s not as though I’ve been stockpiling non-perishable food items either. If the shit hits the fan, I have a couple gallons of water on hand and maybe a half empty box of Creamsicles in the freezer leftover from last summer. Then again, I’m not a millennial. I took hunter’s safety courses as a kid and have some basic survival skills, mostly acquired by being broke in Los Angeles in my early 20s, a time when I primarily lived off microwave popcorn shoplifted from 7/11.
Anyway moving on, I’m voting for Trump for the following reasons:
He’s against free trade and outsourcing.
He’s campaigned as a non-interventionist in foreign affairs or at the very least advocates for a foreign policy that serves America’s interests. He wants peace with Russia rather than confrontation and involvement in conflicts that are absolutely none of our business.
He opposes mass immigration from third world countries which are culturally incompatible with ours.
He opposes political correctness and his victory would be a devastating blow to the speech police and social justice busybodies.
He is fairly socially liberal and unlikely to get much into biblical moralizing other than vaguely paying lip service to Christianity.
I’m white, and he’s the the only candidate who isn’t openly hostile toward white people.
Hillary represents the worst of all worlds politically, combining aggressive neoconservative foreign policy, open borders, global corporatism and intersectional feminism. She’s not even worthy of consideration.
The only other candidate that merits any serious attention is Jill Stein. Though I agree with her on many issues, at the end of the day she’s still a a Jewish social justice warrior. She supports black lives matter and frequently spouts anti-white rhetoric. She wants to import millions of people from the third world. This of course would make universal health care, free college education, and increasing the minimum wage totally unworkable mathematically. Like Bernie, she’s too consumed by the social justice worldview and too weak to make the politically difficult choices which would make progressive social policies practically viable and sustainably solvent. A birth for a death, one for one, it’s the natural way.
Stein even chose an anti-white black radical, Ajamu Baraka as her VP. She also seems to support all kinds of pseudoscientific health quackery. So yeah, no thanks. In conclusion, Stein would make a great candidate if you’re a “kangz” black nationalist or non-white immigrant looking to hitch a ride on the trojan horse of archetypal Jewish influence for as far as it will take you into whiteopia.
Actually there is one other interesting candidate, which is Transhumanist Party candidate Zoltan Istvan. As a futurist being highly supportive of life extension research, artificial intelligence and government prioritization of scientific progress I’d gladly vote for Zoltan…. if he had any real chance to win, but he doesn’t.
I’m voting for Trump on Tuesday, but beyond that, all bets are off.
Some friendly fellow named “Lord Keynes,” who seems mostly preoccupied with Post-Keynesian economics, made a post on his blog called “Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program.” In it he makes the claim that my wing “doesn’t even belong in the Alt Left.”
Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.
This is of course bizarre, considering I was here long before him and am one of the pioneers of the AltLeft. In fact I wrote my manifesto about a year ago, so if he read it, and it didn’t suit him he is free to make up a new name for whatever *new* movement he wants to be a part of.
I’ve got news for you, I’m not going anywhere. I own AltLeft.com so to the extent anyone uses and popularizes the term, they will inevitably be driving traffic to my site where it will forever be associated with my views he finds so offensive…muahahahahah!
Second, the nerve of this entryist to basically say that “well I guess Robert Lindsay should still be a part of it.” Hello dude, Robert Lindsay is one of the originals and yeah he has “some pretty controversial opinions.” The AltLeft has always been about race realism and things like gender realism. That’s the whole fucking point. It was for people who had a lot of left wing views but who held opinions considered too taboo or “problematic” for the mainstream. If you use the term “controversial opinions” unironically, you aren’t AltLeft or AltRight or alt anything as far as I’m concerned. You’re right in there with the dominant ethos of the PC left. There’s nothing alternative about you, and you’re just looking to latch onto something with some new energy for your esoteric pet economic project. Robert Lindsay has been involved in left race realism for a long time. Heck, I even remember reading Lindsay’s blog like 8 years ago when it was one of the only blogs that honestly dealt with the subject of race.
It’s true that I use the tag line “the left wing of the alt right.” I do this for a number of simple reasons:
1. Lindsay frequently used it to describe himself, and I thought it was catchy. I needed a new tagline for my site. It used to say “the other red pill,” but I’ll confess something…I have always hated the movie “The Matrix.” I never liked it and thought the film was terrible when it came out. I don’t like much of any Sci-Fi from after the 1970’s. I think it’s basically all garbage (with a few exceptions from the 80’s and early 90’s.) So basically I’ve never been much into the pill analogy and find it cringy but have occasionally used it anyway.
2. It doesn’t matter how many issues one is left wing on, (I’m socially liberal, anti-traditionalist and practically a “space communist,”) but if you engage in any kind of pro-white advocacy, race realism, or gender realism…then when you have any kind of debate people will automatically say “dude you’re not left wing, you’re far right.” So by calling it the “left wing of the alt-right” there’s at least a chance I can debate them without having to hear that obligatory tedious remark. Even people like Amazing Atheist, (who is basically an egalitarian free speech activist) get called racist, neo-nazi, far right and so forth all the time.
3. I can’t really ever be anything but a fringe outside figure in the AltRight, because I’m too socially liberal for them. They have their own orthodoxy which is clear to me whenever I visit the comment sections or forums at many of their sites. I’m not religious, and don’t have any similar cultural or personal interests (I can probably count on one hand the number of right wingers I’ve known that had a positive opinion of mid-century modern architecture, minimalist art, or lo-fi music.) I don’t like any of the things they like. The only thing I have in common with them is that I’m racist and don’t care, but on that *one* issue I’m willing to ally with them all the way. Also, even though I’ve tried to get away from the AltRight, some of the respected figures still claim me as their own and haven’t disavowed me.
The AltLeft, at least on this site will continue to occupy the niche for people who are pro-white but don’t fit in with the prudes, Christian neoconfederates, GOP+, and are too culturally and socially liberal to feel completely at home at places like the DailyStormer and VNN. I don’t really have any hate for those other groups, but definitely some ideological differences. Yet, at this point they are the only ones bothering to fight for the interests of white people. Almost everyone else is useless and just talks about PC double standards and complains about free speech being restricted. At least the people at TheRightStuff recognize we’ll have to actually be confrontational toward people that hate us, and sometimes that means getting nasty and being assholes. Simply asking for mercy and understanding isn’t going to work.
So like I said, I’m not going anywhere. If it bothers you that I’m associated with the alternative left, then you can find a new label to associate yourself with. Look up at the title of this site and the URL. That is the brand you are helping to build. So thank you for that.