Robert Stark was kind enough to invite me on to co-host with him to discuss economic populism with his guest, Bay Area Guy. The audio can be found here:
Bay Area Guy is well known for writing an article called “The Radical Center,” which was about the growing group of people holding politically centrist views that are radicalizing due to the squeeze from both sides.
More recently he wrote a piece on how the AltRight ignores the economic forces behind white disunity. His views seem to be very similar to my own.
I had a couple of articles I had about 3/4 finished, but haven’t posted them yet due to events in the news and just generally being busy with other things. I was a guest and co-host on The Stark Truth podcast with Robert Stark for 3 upcoming episodes and will post links to the shows here once they air. They will most likely be up sometime over the next few weeks.
Meanwhile, here are some thoughts on Sanders’ recent statements as well as some overall related observations:
Sanders’ continuous stream of anti-white comments such as those he made at the debate make him unsupportable to any self respecting white person. He appears to have gone all in with the “black lives matter” and the social justice crowd and completely abandoned the white working class demographic. His young ethnomasochist supporters are too naive to realize pandering doesn’t work and that the people their sacrificing their interests for are simply exploiting their altruism to advance their own tribal interests(whether conscious of it or not.)
I support many of Bernie’s economic policies, but any potential benefits are of course cancelled out by his social justice/anti-white commitment. For example, I agree with the $15 minimum wage increase he proposes as a means of countering manipulative corporations and cheap assholes, but you can’t have a $15 minimum wage *and* invite millions of people here from the 3rd world. It’s financially unsustainable. This is the same with free college education. It’s a great idea and works in other countries, but you can’t have government sponsored college *and* take in massive amounts of refugees and other third world migrants. Such noble collective endeavors require a delicate balance to ensure they remain fiscally feasible and everyone is on the same page in terms of their investment in the society. Such programs require high trust, low time preference populations to remain successful. People like Sanders are well intentioned but lack the will to make the difficult choices. They are too afraid of being called racist, heartless, nationalist etc to take the necessary steps to confront politically incorrect obstacles to the success of their own programs.
Of course, I’m not strictly talking about race/immigration. Bernie would no doubt institute environmental reforms in the US, but would he forbid the US from importing goods from countries which have(comparatively) little to no pollution or hazard controls, such as China, India or Mexico? What good is it to tell our companies they can’t pollute, so we can feel good about ourselves here, while at the same time we gladly take in products from countries that don’t care about the environment? It’s hypocritical. Bernie’s positions on trade with China are good, and he seems to understand this. He is also though one of those people that believes the US should be subservient to the “international community,” the will of the United Nations etc. This leads me to believe that as a leader he would be weak in asserting our national interests when faced with opposition from so-called “oppressed” third world nations. If he can’t say no to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens or to the untold number of people around the world who want to flood the US,(even though they will render his domestic programs insolvent and unsustainable) it’s hard to see him putting his foot down on the world stage. Sure, he’s voted against dubious trade deals while in congress and as a senator, but that’s not the same thing as having to face actual foreign leaders and being willing to accept the wrath of cutting them off. Being the bearer of bad news just doesn’t fit with Bernie’s temperament, but I may be wrong on this issue.
The bottom line for me though is that as a white person, Sanders’ “net anti-white” vision for America would permanently transform it in ways I find undesirable.
From Sanders’ campaign website:
Bernie firmly rejects the idea that America’s standard of living must drop in order to see a raise in the standard of living in China.
This illustrates exactly how I feel about concepts like “white privilege.” I’m not willing to allow the country/state/city/neighborhood I live in to be downgraded so that someone else can upgrade from whatever third world shithole they came from. I reject the idea that I have to forfeit or handicap my own prospects to improve someone else’s and that we must give away what our ancestors sacrificed for and bequeathed to us for people who openly express hatred for us. Many of these advantages are likely a result of genetics anyway. I have no guilt and owe these people nothing. As a biological organism, self preservation instincts(for those of us who still embrace them) trump your feels. I imagine this is how corporations feel about minimum wage laws and wealth redistribution, but it seems to me that community and national interest may conflict with personal economic interests from time to time, and the state must intervene occasionally if nation states themselves are to survive as distinct entities. Everyone hates heavy handed HOAs too, but “anything goes” neighborhoods tend to look like shit. I do believe that collectively humans can build a superior functioning society than a strictly individualist / libertarian one, which lacks any cohesive vision or aesthetic consciousness. Yet when someone starts talking about “checking your privilege” or turning the country over to low IQ people with poor future time orientation, I intuitively get the feeling I’m being scammed. Looking at Oakland, Camden, Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. it’s unclear why I should support policies that inevitably lead to more majority nonwhite cities.
We know how that story ends, not with universal humanism but with reduced social capital and increased violence toward whatever whites are too poor, naive or stoic to escape the consequences of some shielded politician’s virtue signaling.
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.
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.
I was a guest on the Stark Truth podcast again. The interview can be found here. It wasn’t really a political discussion but just more of a leisurely chat. One question he put forward that caught me kind of off guard was when he asked what US city was my favorite in terms of architecture. I had never really given it much thought to be honest. I can’t remember what I told him, but after giving it some thought, I’d have to say that Seattle is pretty much my ideal city aesthetically. Not just for the Space Needle either. The whole place just gives off an Epcot Center / Future World /Tomorrowland kind of vibe. It even has a monorail.
My girlfriend and I have talked about moving moving there but no definite plans. For some reason though, whenever I think about Seattle all I can think of is the movie Wargames, as that’s where Matthew Broderick’s character was living and one of the first cities he decides to nuke when playing the computer game “Global Thermonuclear War.”
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.
