Hillary Clinton’s Speech and the AltLeft

oldmall

I was a guest on The Stark Truth to discuss Hillary’s speech about the AltRight(as well as Trump’s response and the spike in traffic to this site.) Another subject we touched on was the problem of entryism in these various movements. I had actually considered abandoning this site recently, until Hillary sent it a massive amount of publicity and suddenly it seems foolish to throw it all away. My girlfriend claims I have a “fear of success” since I’m always starting up projects and creating things, and as soon as they start to gain traction I decide to bail and work on some new thing. I remember an episode of Quantum Leap with Bob (((Saget))) I once saw that featured a similar theme. Also, I have a tendency to not promote something I’m involved in heavily, in ways that would attract a lot of attention. A big part of this is that I see the kind of attention *others* get, and let’s just say recognition seems overrated in many regards.

The term AltLeft itself may have been ruined by media people who do absolutely zero research on terms they decide to write articles about, as well as by random idiots who lack enough intellectual curiosity to do a “google search.”  Greg Johnson has touched upon this regarding the AltRight in a recent article.

I’ve always maintained it would be difficult for entryists to disassociate my ideas from the AltLeft because:

A. I own the domain altleft.com, so people searching for the term will always end up here. If you own the .com domain name for anything, whether it’s a bizarre ideological offshoot or a product, it gives you a “built in” market share. For example, if someone owns “turtlenecks.com” it would be difficult for competitors to say, “oh that turtlenecks.com site really has nothing to do with authentic turtlenecks, my site ‘Tyrone’s Shirt Mart’ is really the authority on turtlenecks.” If someone owns gold.com and decides to make a website that sells gold, you could never marginalize them from the gold market completely, even if you are able to confuse people. In other words, traffic will still arrive at this site, and what I can do with it is anybody’s guess.

B. This site was one of the earliest AltLeft blogs, maybe the 2nd one that was ever created and it even came with manifestos and outlines unlike whatever random tumblr stuff that may have been floating about. Robert Lindsay’s blog is the only one I know that came before this site, and he’s been at it for several years even before coining the term. There were a couple of national bolshevik groups on the chan sites and reddit that were using it as well.

As I’ve stated before, the problem with identities like “right” and “left” is that they’re not specific and mean many things to many different people. There are people who look at this blog and see all the anti-capitalist, anti-traditionalist, (mild)pro-degeneracy, modernist,  environmentalist, animal rights activist, anti-imperialist views and will say “I don’t see anything left wing there” simply because of my pro-white racial views. It’s the same when you hear conservatives say stuff like “we’re not the AltRight, we’re the real right or new right.”  Well okay, but whose definition of “right” are you going by? That probably means 50 different things depending on whom you talk to. Perhaps there is a correct definition, but the point is that  large swaths of people you attract have the potential to be easily confused by the ambiguity and breadth of historical contexts.

I think Robert Lindsay is accurate when he says that in a way, we are basically the left wing of the AltRight. Perhaps I’ll be reabsorbed back into it at some point or go off and do something else.

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.”

anil

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.

steinem2

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.