Yang Time!

Within the span of a brief couple of weeks, Andrew Yang has gone from being an obscure longshot candidate to a leading contender for the winning the nomination in the 2020 democratic presidential primary. If this momentum can be sustained, it’s only a matter of time before Yang will, against all odds, become the frontrunner and eventual nominee.

There are two things which distinguish Yang from the other candidates. First, with his Universal Basic Income proposal, Yang is the only candidate who represents real, radical change. Bernie no longer is a revolutionary candidate. He increasingly parrots establishment views on foreign policy (usually just to score points on attacking Trump) and has demonstrated recently how easily bullied he is by the media into accepting their narratives about his own campaign being not committed to “social justice” enough. He talks tough but is quick to appease when it actually matters. Tulsi Gabbard is a solid reformer on foreign policy but lacks the sort of grand vision which could inspire voters to engage in the determined activism required to overcome electoral obstacles.

Secondly, and most importantly Yang is the only candidate who can unify all factions of political dissidents. In fact, he’s already done it. It has been amazing to see all the people who have relentlessly attacked each other for years come together for #YangGang: Irony bros, white nationalists, Bernie bros, weird twitter, the AltRight, the AltLite, disillusioned Trump supporters, intersectional feminists, TERFs, gays, accelerationists, transgenders, radical centrists, transhumanists, AmNats, NEETs, FrogTwitter, etc… the list goes on and on. You can see the handfuls of remaining individuals that are either ideologically entrenched in outdated paradigms or simply can’t bring themselves to set aside past differences to have fun and be part of a campaign which has the potential to improve the lives of everyone. Sticking out like sore thumbs, they come off like bitter chumps, absolutely miserable to be around.

The only way this momentum can be sustained and that Yang will have any chance to win is if we are willing to tolerate each other as allies, focused on the prize and uniting for a greater purpose. We cannot allow ourselves to get baited into the “guilt by association” games or divide and conquer ploys which are about to be unleashed. We must also resist the temptation to snipe at old adversaries and fall back into the familiar, longstanding petty “e-feuds” which have bogged us down for so long. The media is already beginning to take notice that Yang is drawing support from the same unsavory legions (and I count myself among them) who helped get Trump elected in 2016.

The first impulse of many puzzled Yang supporters will be to disavow such support or “help” from all nefarious characters and instruct that “hate fueled” individuals have no place in this campaign. To do so would be a huge mistake, playing right into the enemy’s hands and would ultimately amount to a misreading of Yang’s appeal. Indeed, the magic of Yang’s unifying candidacy is that it transcends 20th century ideological paradigms. Support for Yang from politically incorrect or “problematic” circles should not be perceived as hate inspired. Rather it should reflect well on Yang that his solutions oriented approach and innovative policy proposals are so appealing, that people are willing to set aside racial, ideological and personal grievances in the pursuit of actualizing ideas which will benefit all of us. Do not get hung up on the fact that someone or some group whom you find abhorrent is supporting the same candidate as you. Of course, there are some people who are cynically supporting Yang because they view him as some kind of doomsday agent whose policies will collapse the entire system and cause the irredeemable US to receive the implosion it richly deserves. So what though? There were bitter people who supported Trump as a “chaos candidate,” and their votes still counted to get him elected (though Trump actually turned out to be a rather unremarkable, run of the mill republican president.) Just because pthers are supporting Yang for their own misguided reasons doesn’t mean you can’t support him for the right ones. At the end of the day, all that matters is who Andrew Yang is and what his policies are. That Yang has the power to unite you with the people you love to hate is what makes this campaign truly unprecedented in modern times. If you haven’t already, take the Nestea Plunge and join the #YangGang.


Brandon Adamson is the author of Skytrain to Nowhere and several other books of poetry.


Yangster’s Paradise

“That’s cool, but he has no chance,” was my initial reaction when a friend of mine sent me a link to a story about a candidate who was running for president on a platform of “universal basic income.” Admittedly, I had never heard of Andrew Yang until just a couple of weeks ago and had pretty much already made up my mind to support Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 (though with Bernie now entering the race, her chances have been greatly diminished.) I must say that I feel a tad guilty for dismissing Yang out of hand, since even a brief glimpse of his campaign reveals Yang to be the smartest, most impressive and dare I say, the most serious candidate in this race.

While the other candidates spout vague, meaningless buzzword driven platitudes about “hate,” “privilege” “Russia” and engage in unproductive political theatrics, Yang offers up detailed policy proposals which actually address the most pressing issues of our time. Andrew Yang’s optimistic and solutions oriented approach provides a stark contrast with the rest of the candidates, whose political identities have largely been reduced to perpetual outrage at everything Trump says and does (even in the cases where Trump has embraced traditionally democratic positions, such as peace with North Korea, fair trade etc.)

Yang wisely has chosen to bypass the culture wars almost entirely and instead is focused on crafting complex solutions to actual problems. Rather than pandering to various “marginalized” identity groups, he looks at the bigger picture and remains committed to ideas which can improve the lives of everyone. The other candidates pay only superficial lip service to the issues we face, to the extent they have even thought about them at all. Yang has delved into the nitty-gritty of policy. I’m not even just talking about his “Universal Basic Income” proposal. Just take a gander at the treasure trove of policies presented on his website. This guy has thought of everything. He actually has a real plan. If even 1/3 of Yang’s ideas were implemented, the USA would be a vastly improved country. No other candidate has given any serious thought to the everyday issues that matter to Americans. Just the fact that Yang is promising to ban robocalls would be reason enough to vote for him. Yang’s American Mall Act would help to revitalize, repurpose and preserve many of these culturally important structures.

I like Yang because he combines social liberalism with forward-thinking, transhumanist friendly ideas and bold economic policies, all without succumbing to seemingly obligatory, anti-white racial grievance politics. While the rest of the candidates fall over each other to signal their open hostility toward white people (or some similarly maligned bogeyman) Yang emerges as a genuinely positive force, armed with concrete proposals and determined to make life better for everyone.

Conventional wisdom states that relatively unknown candidates run for office with the aim of getting publicity for their ideas, to draw attention to certain issues and get people talking about them. We live in unconventional times though, when obscure candidates can be memed into political juggernauts overnight. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Beto O’Rourke and even David Hogg were complete “nobodies” a year or two ago and now find their influence inflated beyond that of household name politicians who’ve been in office for decades. It may seem like a long shot, but Yang can win. His upbeat, affable persona and substantive campaign have the potential to transcend traditional ideological divides and win over vast swaths of the American public. If even the most disillusioned among us can manage to muster up sufficient enthusiasm for Yang’s candidacy, then imagine what people who actually do things could do for him. Andrew Yang for president, for the win.

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.


-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

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.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism