Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Robert Lindsay’s Vision of the Alt Left

Robert Lindsay appears to have been an early advocate for an Alternative Left, and some months ago wrote a very interesting post about what an Alt Left should and should not be:
Robert Lindsay, “Dealbreakers: What the Alternative Left is Not,” Beyond Highbrow, 19 February, 2016.
It has some quite controversial points, even for people deeply disillusioned with the modern mainstream left, but deserves a fair hearing:
1. Gay rights, yes! Gay politics, no! Support and tolerance for biological homosexuals to live their lives as they choose in freedom and happiness. No discrimination against gays. On the other hand, homosexuality should not be cheered or championed, and certainly experimental or opportunistic homosexuality should not be promoted as some sort of cool thing or hipster fad.

2. Women’s rights, yes! Women’s politics, no! An Alt Left should support Equity Feminism but not Gender, Radical, Man-hating or Anti-male Feminism.

3. Bare minimal rights for trannies. Nondiscrimination against trannies in many but not all jobs. Tranny rights yes, tranny politics no. Transsexualism should not be promoted as a cool thing or a fad as it is nowadays. Many though not all trannies are probably mentally ill. A transwoman is not a woman; it is a man who thinks he is a woman. A transman is not a man; it is a woman who thinks she is a man.

4. There are indeed only two genders, male and female. Nevertheless an Alt Left should be compassionate towards certain rare persons who are biological oddities from a very early age through no fault of their own, and we should have sympathy for their profound struggles with gender identity.

5. All of these are perfectly acceptable private lifestyles and sexual choices, but they should be private, not openly promoted, sexual styles. Straight men should not be hectored to engage in experimental homosexual sex, bisexuality should not be promoted as a fad, and the masses should not be openly encouraged to have orgies, engage in group sex, threesomes or public sex. Would you want people encouraging your mother, sister, brother, daughter or son to do such things?

6. In areas that are already diverse, non-discrimination and non-racism as general principles are good things. People ought to get along, and an Alt Left should not be a racist movement. Immigrants should be allowed to keep their own cultures (multiculturalism) in the first generation, but after that, assimilation should be encouraged. Certainly the notion that lack of diversity is in and of itself a problem should be opposed by an Alternative Left. Peoples’ desires to be culturally conservative, monocultural, traditional, or to have a national, ethnic or religious identity should be seen as rights that an Alt Left would not interfere with. No wars on tradition, nationalism, religion or ethnic identity.

7. An Alt Left can hardly support fascism, but some leeway ought to be allowed for Third Positionism or especially National Bolsheviks, Dugin’s Fourth Positionism, etc.

8. See that “Left” in Alt Left? We can’t very well be for Nazis, now can we?

9. The Alt Left will probably be mostly skeptical about Zionism and the state of Israel at the very least. Anti-Zionists are of course welcome. However, moderate Zionists should be allowed but not encouraged.”
Robert Lindsay, “Dealbreakers: What the Alternative Left is Not,” Beyond Highbrow, 19 February, 2016.
There is also his list of what the Alt Left should not be:
  • The belief that White people are evil. Black Lives Matter is that-a-way.
  • Belief that anyone who is non-White is automatically a saint. An update on Rousseauan noble savage theory with about as much as evidence as its predecessor.
  • Carrying on about “White privilege.” The university is over there.
  • Obsession with “structural racism.” The Sociology Department is that-a-way.
  • Race denial or hostility to race realism. One of the pillars of the Alt Left is race realism.
  • Support for anything goes pansexuality. Come now. Can’t we have some limits on degeneracy and depravity? Just some?
  • Excessive support for Gay Politics or Political Homosexuality, yet another Identity Politics (IdPol) dead end. *1*
  • Feminazism, Gender Feminism, Radical Feminism or Male-hating or Male-hostile Feminism. *2*
  • Transgender Idpol or Tranny Politics. *3*
  • Support for gender insanity, 147 different genders (or even three), or getting rid of gender. *4*
  • Promotion of mass sexual perversion to the masses: group sex, threeways, bisexuality, opportunistic or experimental homosexual sex, orgies, sex in public. *5*
  • Promotion of diversity and multiculturalism as ends unto themselves *6*
  • Favoring multiculturalism over assimilation. You must have gotten lost.
  • Belief that the West is evil, and the non-West is wonderful. The Cultural Left is that-a-way.
  • Support for radical Islam, ultra-Orthodox Judaism, Trad Catholicism, Fundamentalist Protestantism, or hardline Hinduism. A Left is anti-obscurantist or it is nothing.
  • Support for fascism as a general principle. *7*
  • Support for Nazism or racist fascism in any way, shape or form. *8*
  • Obsessive anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic cranks. This sort of dangerous nonsense is not just not a Left value.
  • Support for segregation, apartheid, discrimination or expulsion of any group on the basis of race or religion. I fail to see anything leftwing about any of these things.
  • Contempt for poor, low income, or working class people. The Republican Convention is being held over there.
  • Blame the victim mindset. The Libertarian Party is that-a-way.
  • “I made it, why can’t you?” “Anyone can make it if you try.” “Anyone can get rich.” “Everyone can get rich.” Ayn Randists not welcome.
  • The idea that the person who has more money is superior to the human being who has less money. What are you doing on the Left? Bye.
  • Opposition to social spending or social programs. Major dealbreaker.
  • Advocating excessive materialism or conspicuous consumption. Champagne socialists and limousine liberals welcome but please keep a low profile. Ostentatious display of wealth has never been a true Left value.
  • Extreme patriotardism. The Republican Party is that-a-way.
  • Support for US/UK/EU imperialism in any way, shape or form. Can someone please tell me what is so leftwing about US/Western imperialism, Cold War liberals like Bernie Sanders notwithstanding?
  • Strong support for US foreign policy. The Democratic Party is that-a-way.
  • Support for Revisionist Zionism *9*
  • Obsessive Zionism. See no fascism above, and add no colonialism and certainly no settler colonialism to that.
  • Antisemitism or antiracism witch hunting. So go join the Cultural Left.
  • Obsession with name-calling epithets like racist, sexist, homophobe, antisemite, bigot, Nazi, White supremacist, transphobe, Islamophobe, etc. The Cultural Left is calling your name.
  • Use of the term “scientific racism.” And out the door with you.
Robert Lindsay, “Dealbreakers: What the Alternative Left is Not,” Beyond Highbrow, 19 February, 2016.
I think what is missing in Robert Lindsay’s vision of the Alt Left is lack of a proper economic program, and economic justifications for why mass immigration and open borders are not desirable.

Robert Lindsay’s Alt Left platform can be compared with Agent Commie’s theses for a progressive reformation here, or my own proposal for an Alt Left program here.


  1. I'm a little confused here. You say in one paragraph that bisexuality is an acceptable life choice yet in another you describe it as degenerate. Why any more so than homosexuality? Also, what counts as "anything goes pansexuality" and "experimental homosexual lifestyles" ?

    1. (1) "You say in one paragraph... "

      Are you really so stupid you failed to notice I'm quoting Robert Lindsay, and *I* didn't say it?

      (2) "You say in one paragraph that bisexuality is an acceptable life choice yet in another you describe it as degenerate."

      Lindsay didn't say bisexuality is "degenerate". He said that Alt Left should reject:

      "Support for anything goes pansexuality. Come now. Can’t we have some limits on degeneracy and depravity? Just some?"

      *Anything goes*, no limits pansexuality does seem to imply sex with anyone at all. Don't you think this sounds a tad

    2. Well I thought you largely agreed with him, at least generally. "Promotion of mass sexual perversion to the masses: group sex, three ways, bisexuality"... In regards to pansexuality, when you say anyone at all, what does this mean exactly? Adults and children? Polygamy? Bestiality? All of those are obviously degenerate, but doesn't that go without saying? Plus, I don't think that's what most mean by pansexual. They distinguish it from bisexuality by saying "it's attraction to any gender, not just 2 or more genders." So I guess it would include transexuals as well. It's a pigeon hole term I guess but if we're going to debate sexually depraved things like pedophilia then that's a different question, we should seperate them. Obviously though we'd both agree that pedophilia is wrong.

    3. The difference with conservatism, "liberalism" / sensible leftism, and Cultural Leftism / Radical post-structuralism is:

      Conservatives want to eliminate aberrations to the norm. Liberals want to tolerate and accept the exceptions to the norm. Radical Leftists want to make the exceptions the norm, and eliminate the norm.

    4. Ok, well I'm not in favour of "eliminating the norm", I'm merely aiming to define terms and understand viewpoints in the debate. I'd fall in to the liberal camp on this issue going by your definition. I think it's worth defining what constitutes "promoting" and "eliminating" in regards to actions of both conservatives and cultural leftists, however.

    5. Kain, you have conservative and liberal backwards, at least in terms of the teams in the USA and Canada. Live and let live is the essence of Canadian and Middle American conservativism.which is NOT Bible thumper fundamentalism.

  2. No Outdoor sex? I'm out...(as it were)

  3. This is the type of alt left that I'd sign up to. But it looks basically like paleoconservatism to me, as represented by writers like Michael Brendan Dougherty.

    1. Unless Michael Brendan Dougherty (of whom I admit I know nothing) is highly left-wing on economics and a Keynesian, economics would be the crucial difference.

    2. We are sort of Paleocons in a way. A better description would be conservative Leftists. Actually that is perfect. Another description of the early Alt Left was "the place where Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan meet.

    3. Yes, LK, MBD is basically a Keynesian. He calls himself an 'economic nationalist' which, in practice, is some sort of Keynesian.

      Many Paleocons are very concerned about the corrosive effects of the welfare state. Actually, so are most Post-Keynesians who advocate full employment and Jobs Guarantees. The welfare state was built as a supplement to a full employment economy. Jack up unemployment rates and all you get is social decay.

      Check out MBD's stuff. It's worth a read:

  4. LK, two questions if you care to humor me:

    1) Do you agree that the alt left should be skeptical of Zionism, defined as the establishment of a Jewish homeland/state in the Levant? While I may be remembering wrong, you had said to Dan some weeks back that you believed Israel has the right to maintain its Jewish character through ethnic quotas and the like. Assuming I remember your position correctly, had you changed your stance on Zionism, or are the two positions not mutually exclusive from your perspective?

    2) I'm probably gonna show my ignorance of biology and other STEM fields, but fuck it, I already contribute the least significant comments to your blog, so what's one more dumbass SHN comment...I've done some reading on Lindsay's view of race, and couldn't help but notice that his educational background is in linguistics (which has overlap, to my knowledge) and journalism (which has none). Is he actually qualified to make these pronouncements on race realism?

    1. (1) within its pre-1967 borders if and as modified by a fair peace treaty with the Palestinians in a 2 state solution, the Jewish Israelis have a right to keep Israel a majority Jewish state by immigration policy, yes.

      One does not need to support the Israeli occupation of the West bank and settlement of it, or Israel's other human rights abuses, to believe the former.

      (2) I didn't say I support every one of Lindsay's ideas at all, and some of the race realist stuff goes way too far for me. It seems to me that intergenerational Flynn effects raising average IQs are real, and so cast doubt on the extreme hereditarian position.

      As for his qualifications, maybe ask him? But do we really think, say, somebody has to be an PhD in economics to say something sensible about economics?

    2. LK,

      If any human biodiversity blogger can convince you of "extreme" hereditarianism, I'd suggest either JayMan or Greg Cochran (although Cochran can be temperamental). I believe Robert Lindsay has commented over at JayMan's in the past.


    3. >It seems to me that intergenerational Flynn effects raising average IQs are real, and so cast doubt on the extreme hereditarian position.

      The significantly lower IQs of Blacks and Muslim Caucasoids point otherwise. This goes even for America.

      For more on this:

    4. If the Flynn effect is real then the average IQ is two standard deviations above what it was in 1916. Two, whole, entire standard deviations. The average IQ in 1916 would be 70. You really believe that? Even Flynn doesn't believe that.

    5. Hi I am actually a "soft HBD'er" and I do not even take a stance on race and IQ, ok? All I say is right now, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks per IQ tests, which measure intelligence very well. I am agnostic about what causes this.

      That's all I say! Can you believe it? I mean that is just flat out scientific fact. But you can't even point out the obvious now, that Whites are smarter than Blacks, yep. Will they catch up? Who knows? What's causing it? You tell me.

      That's all I say. And I also that heredity definitely plays a role in things like intelligence, personality, talents, and even crime and violence. I mean that is the consensus now. But you cannot say it!

      My opponents are generally Blank Slatist morons. Apologies if that describes any of you. Yeah I am very much against Blank Slatism because it's a lie and it's retarded.

      I do think that Blacks are genetically predisposed to a higher rate of crime and violence than say Whites. I am certain of that.

      Generally they will commit more crime and violence, but if you create a Superenvironment for them, I know you can get them to calm down. But this happens only rarely. The Superenvironment would be enough to overwhelm the genetic tendency because after all, phenotype is genes + environment and genes can wash out environment and vice versa or at least they can accentuate or tone each other down. I get a lot of crap for that.

      I also recommend many medication for Blacks, say testosterone lowering drugs if that is causing the violence.

      It should be voluntary of course, but I would be curious to see what the outcome would be. There would be no side effects as Black levels are too high anyway and we would just knock them down to White levels. People go insane when I talk about that and they yell Mengele and Tuskogee and call me Nazi and all sorts of stuff.

      So you see I am not even a radical HBD'er. I am simply willing to entertain the thesis! And I am no race denier. Race is real, the races differ in important ways and we need to be aware of that. I get called Nazi constantly for that too.

      As you can see, I am not even very radical at all. I think I am just saying these open secrets that most people believe but everyone is lying about to avoid confrontation.

    6. Of course I have no formal background in HBD and race stuff. I am just a layperson who has been up to his ears studying this stuff for decades now.

  5. You seem very overly concerned with trendiness of sex fads. For someone who has expressed concern of these for littering the debate you sure as hell want to insert a position in on them, not let them settle.

    My general rule with same sex is it should be like straight relationships. Adoptions, marriage, pictures over romantic partner on desk, pecks on cheeks when saying good bye. Basically if straight people do not have to keep it private neither should I.

    1. Hi I am not concerned about sex fads. People can do what they want. And if you knew how I lived my life, you would roll on the floor if someone said I am against perverted or debauched sex. I just don't think I should run around screaming that everyone should live the same perverted and debauched life that I did.

      I don't think I should scream at my Mom and my sister to live like I do. This is what the Cultural Left wants. They want me to go up to my Mom and sister and harangue for not getting gangbanged and going to orgies.

      I do not think the mainstream media should be promoting sex fads. It's sickening.

      The Cultural Left has the media now and I could read some ordinary publication and there's an article about how I need to get women to peg my ass with a dildo. About how I need to be a cuck and let my woman get cuckolded by Black bulls while I stand back and watch like a pathetic wimp. About how I need to explore my bisexual side and I guess go out and suck a penis tomorrow I guess just to see what it tastes like.

      The Cultural Left urges me to go to orgies. They tell me to go try sex with men. They tell me I should live as a woman for at least a week to see how it feels. They tell me all of these things are perfectly normal. No they are not.

      Look back in the day we had Playboy and Penthouse and whatnot and they promoted various sex fads. That stuff should be in the adult porn media or sex mag media. I do not with to open up the Los Angeles Times and read an article about how some guy's had an orgy for her birthday and this is the coolest thing to do and all us straight couples need to go do this right now.

      It's sick. The Cultural Left is sick. Keep that stuff in sexual media where it belongs and quit haranguing us in the MSM about engaging in the latest perversions and fetishes.

      You follow me? That's what I mean when I say keep it private. Keep it to the sex mags and whatnot and leave it out of the main public media and quit using the public media to scream at people to live debauched sex lives.

      And as far as biological gay men being public about all of the things the OP listed above, I have no problems with any of that. I'm not cheering it on, but I definitely would tolerate it.

  6. I far, FAR prefer Agent Commie's list. This just seems to be some hard-right cultural baggage (which I don't see as much better than hard-left) combined with some social liberalism and maybe some left-economics. Also in his blog he has a weird and pointless obsession with "trannies", even though the existence of transexuals debunks the claims of postmodernist feminists that gender is purely a social construction. I'm pretty anti-PC but that just seems needlessly rude for the sake of it, and anti-PC should be making arguments against PC on socially liberal grounds instead of falling into their trap that all anti-PC are just bigots.

    I suspect a movement founded on these values would just end up becoming the left-wing of the Alt-Right, rather than being its own thing.

    1. We are Conservative Leftists, as odd as that may sound. The original Alt Left was a sort of an Alt Right split and some of the earliest Alt Leftists had spent considerable time on Alt Right sites but they always felt uncomfortable and out of place since they held so many progressive values on so many things other than race, gender, sexual orientation. The Alternative Left was actually created as a name by some commenters on one of the largest Alt Right sites, not that I went there often. There was an incoming link from them and I went over to check it out. And you are correct. The early Alt Left was indeed "the left wing of the Alt Right." In fact, a major Alt Left faction calls itself exactly that. Another description of the early Alt Left that I liked was, "It's just the Alt Right, except the like Mao a lot more than they like Hitler." Exactly.

    2. "...even though the existence of transexuals debunks the claims of postmodernist feminists that gender is purely a social construction."

      Eh, only if you can show very robust biological evidence that transexuals are different from the rest of the people of their biology (which you can't, as all the relevant tests have been done and this has been firmly shown to be psychological). Otherwise all you've done is shown that the cultural left are completely and utterly illogical and incoherent. But we all know that anyway.

    3. "(which you can't, as all the relevant tests have been done and this has been firmly shown to be psychological)."

      I'd be fascinated to see where you got that data from. Most research on the subject seems to suggest otherwise.

  7. Exactly. While I agree with Robert's points in general, they seem incomplete without some reference to economic policies. His points would differentiate the alt-left from the alt-right and the regressive left (which was maybe his point) but in my view it'd be worth stating the obvious - that we are unapologetically left on economic issues.

  8. I know Bob Lindsay quite well. He's an avowed economic populist. It would be a stretch to call him a Marxist, but he definitely has those tendencies.

  9. Well, I've literally never heard of that happening. But, admittedly, I'm a lesbian, so maybe I'm the wrong kind of gay to ask about that sort of thing.

    (What I do know is that at least in the lesbian community, one of the most oft-repeated bits of advice is "Never fall in love with a straight girl", since it inevitably ends in heartbreak).

  10. What Robert Lindsay calls Alt Left is the left-wing of the Alt Right, not an alternative WITHIN the Left. Rather, it's an alternative within the Alt RIGHT. He says that himself:

    "The Race Realist Alt Left and the Left Wing of the Alt Right (sort of the same thing)"

    And he makes it obvious in the quoted manifesto already:

    "One of the pillars of the Alt Left is race realism."

    And again:

    "People ought to get along, and an Alt Left should not be a racist movement. Immigrants should be allowed to keep their own cultures (multiculturalism) in the first generation, but after that, assimilation should be encouraged."

    The Right is defined by moral collectivism and economic individualism (Bryson & McDill, 1968; Meltzer & Christie, 1970; Nolan, 1971). Any public police regulating race, ethnicity or culture is BY DEFINITION right-wing.

    The Alt Left is a recovery of liberal socialism from the SJW neomarxism that captured it in the 60s (with the help of the CIA!).