Politics and Society: Far Left and Far Right
Listing to a news report this morning a journalist asserted something about the "Far Right" that struck me as odd. The assertion was that the racists groups we know as Neo-Nazi's and the KKK were part of the political right, specifically those on the far right end of the political spectrum, the extreme conservatives. After thinking about it for a moment I began to wonder how 'left' or 'right' such fringe groups actually are. Is Antifa actually left or liberal? Is the Alt-Right actually conservative?
There is also the statement or idea that can be paraphrased as; the far-right is not racist but most racists are far right. Is that accurate? I think that we can say with some degree of confidence that people that tend to hold some measure of ethnic bigotry associate with conservative principles when it comes to things like marriage equality and illegal immigration, as do the extreme people (KKK, etc.) that want to do something about it, but the political right is not racist. Basic conservative principles focus more on fiscal ideas that differ from the left. Conservatives embrace capitalist ideals and regulatory minimums. Conservative religious ideas tend to make most conservatives pro-life and anti-marriage equality, but such principles have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. So it makes sense to say that conservatives are not racists, but most racists are conservative. Some of the most conservative people I've listened to are black. Being right or even far right does not make one racist. Being racists does not necessarily make one conservative either. Hitler was a liberal socialist. So let's look a little closer at the alt-right and neo-Nazi's.
So who are the Neo-Nazi's? According to Wikipedia Neo-Nazism consists of post-WWII militant, social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism. The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements. Pretty straight forward, but we cannot know this group unless we truly know who the Nazi's were. "National Socialism, more commonly known as Nazism is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism..." Thanks Wikipedia! So we have National Socialism and Fascism... and wiki also says other far right groups. I thought the right was capitalist? The more far to the right you go on the right-left spectrum the more capitalist one is right? Maybe? Let's see what Wikipedia says about the far right...
"Far right politics is right-wing politics that is further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right". Its still on the spectrum then. What else does it say? Ahh, "opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism." To paraphrase the rest the Right-Wing populism combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism... often described as far right. Man this is confusing, are they capitalists or socialists? Make up your mind Wiki I'm trying to learn something here! If far-right and neo-Nazi are interchangeable terms then they have to either be socialist or capitalist... not both Wikipedia! They are consistent about the nationalism aspect. Regarding the socialist vs capitalist I'm going to make the leap that since here in America those that are politically right are pro-capitalism and anti-socialism that the far-right here in America are very pro-capitalist... I mean, many of the people that I hear ideas from that the media calls far-right are very capitalist, but are not racist (then again the media is clearly not objective... the same might be said for Wikipedia). Neo-Nazi's are racists, they are also socialists, which to me does not seem very "Right-leaning". I think the confusion stems from the liberal media trying to associate the political right with racism, they have long called Republicans racists even though the republican part was founded as an anti-slavery party, Lincoln was a republican, the KKK was founded by democrats and opposed historically by republican legislators. Republicans get labelled racists because they are against giving people free shit (i.e. they are pro-capitalist and anti-socialist and therefore also anti-Nazi) this earns them a bigot label by leftists, Democrats are hailed as the party for minorities because they are pro-free shit. Why is that? Because it gets them votes, not because it is a better or superior ideology, but because minorities are incentivized to vote democrat, their votes are being bought. The democratic party isn't supporting illegal immigration because it is morally correct, they are doing it for the votes. The democrats pushed for the same social welfare program that has institutionalized dependency on the state and have blatantly targeted the black population in America in the guise of compassion and friendship.. or at least this was the original intent. How do we know? Because it was the same democrats that resisted abolishing Jim Crow laws that supported this legislation and Prez Johnson was documented as stating the purpose of buying the black vote. Sinister! So, which party is racist? Instead of giving people free shit, those on the political right would prefer to stop this form of enslavement and instead of incentivizing dependency on the state give people incentive to better themselves economically. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day (and make him dependent in your charity) if you teach him to fish you feed him for a lifetime (and prosper together). That is the ideology of the right, does that sound racists to you? The Dems on the left are basically telling minorities that they need the help of the Democratic party, which implies that minorities are lesser-than non-minorities in some way so they defend this by asserting that the reason behind it is the oppression of conservative white people... which is a lie. Associating Nazism with the right feeds the narrative that the right is racist. It is either that or the democrats are correct and all of us white people are secretly conspiring to keep minorities impoverished (except Asians, for some reason us racists crackers have no problem with Asians), yep, don't forget about the meeting this weekend my fellow whiteys! I grew up in a are that is about 80% white and 20% Hispanic, I did not see racism growing up. I do know of a couple of grown men in their 50's and 60's that fit the description of racial bigot, but their too stupid to be capable of organizing a birthday party let alone any form of systemic oppression of minorities.
The Far-Right is also know to be associated with Nationalism. Is it true? What is Nationalism? Why is Nationalism bad? I'm not sure I should go back to wiki-crapia but since they are obviously unlikely to be kind to the concept let's see what they say about Nationalism: "Nationalism is a range of political, social, and economic systems characterized by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland." Sounds patriotic to me... what else?: "Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry." Hmm, here we get into it, especially the race, and religion parts. Well fascists typically do not want religious continuity simply because they are pro-state and anti-religion... sounds more like the left to me. Race and language continuity might be something substantial, here I have two thoughts; First that current nationalism is reactive due to the leftist policy of "browning America" rooted in the assertion that white people are inherently evil and that the systemic racism inherent (and even unwitting) to whites that keep other ethnicities down. In other words its a reaction to white-shaming. That is not to say so much that this is a backlash, rather that the political right are calling this for what it is; gerrymandering and vote-buying tactics of the left. If whites are systemically marginalizing other minorities please explain the success of the average Asian-American that exceeds the white-American? My other thought is that the Nationalism we see from some of the right includes the ethnic and cultural diversity of American History, that is to say the majority-Christian White, Black, and Hispanic peoples of the America's (including Asian-Americans that have been part of America since the gold rush and earlier), but does not include the importing of refugees and migrants from regions of the world where it is a majority view that America should collectively burn (i.e. Islamic-majority Nations, even the alleged allies). There of course is the third option that conservatives are racist even the black, Asian, and Hispanic ones, the narrative here being that they are sell-outs to the whites. I think that this third option is B.S., and only exists in the narrative propaganda of the political left.
What are some of the other unsavory concepts of Nationalism? The 'our nation first' idea? Well that does leave a bad taste in one's mouth if your view of America is that both its government and people are not worth a damn, the same kind of mentality associated with the self-loathing liberals that feel guilty for being born in the nation with the most opportunity and liberty for every individual (despite race) than in any other nation on the planet. Maybe this has something to do with why the left seem to want to limit liberty and opportunity for Americans. It is this guilt that drives them now to regress our society, these are not the same progressive liberal ideals that brought about an end to sexism, racism, and homophobia (from the legal standpoint at least), and the fight against injustice. Instead these are the guilt-liberal ideals are are regressive, divisive, and oppressive. So what of the far-right? If to be conservative is to resist change and the right is conservative then the far-right would be very strongly against any change, yes? But that does not seem to be the case with what we call far-right groups, at least those being labelled as such that are also chanting to end immigration (which would be a significant change). While I agree that fully open boarders is simply unsustainable, I would argue that regulated, legal immigration strengthens America by bringing to our shores the greatest minds from the globe. When it comes to Nationalism I would agree that putting America first is proper prioritization but that doing so at the cost of everyone else is not only unsustainable it is deplorable as well. Admitting the greatest minds from abroad (India, China, Germany, and so on...) only serves to strengthen our country, however, unregulated masses flooding over our borders weakens it by taking the unskilled jobs from natural citizens, increasing poverty here, and dependency on the state (The Democrats M.O.). The H1B Visa program that many corporations are exploiting might needs some tweaking as it has had a well documented negative impact on American workers... this is another place I don't get the left. Liberals are supposed to be for the common guy right? The workers and not the rich corporate leaders. If this is true then why do they defend these reckless immigration policies (legal and illegal)? Because it changes the color of America. That is racist.
I think another source of confusion is that anyone that promotes even the slightest hint of conservatism gets labelled far-right and/or racist. From what I've seen a person that is pro-marriage equality, environmentally-minded, pro-life can be labelled far-right simply for stating that travel restrictions from nations that breed Islamic terrorists that want to kill us all makes sense especially since protecting a nations people from foreign threat is a primary function of government. Should we not want our government to err on the side of caution instead of on the side of ideology? That is not far right, it is barely right if at all... its just reasonable, and consistently anti-ideological. I've even heard of such people being called alt-right and racists... which shows the apparent stupidity of their opponents, that is to say that being critical of an ideology that is shared by people of literally every ethnicity on Earth cannot make that person racist. Would you call some one a racist if they said that Christian ideology is primitive? No! Christians are white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, there are even Jewish-Christians (the first Christians were of course Jews). So being critical of some aspects of Islam cannot make one racist, nor does it make them conservative. Being critical of ideologies that bring violence or other bad elements into a society has no political exclusivity.
We haven't got to the Alt-right specifically yet. This is pretty straight-forward. Richard Spencer is the man leading the Alt-Right, a group that rejects mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. So lets be clear, Nationalism is not bad if you remove the 'race' component Wikipedia uses... which is probably closer to patriotism, but white-nationalism is pro-white. Any group that is pro a particular skin tone is inherently divisive. He is chairman of a white-supremacist think tank, he is an atheist, conservatives reject him and find him "repugnant". So he is a white-supremacist, a socialist, an atheist, and wants to change America in favor of these principles... there is nothing conservative or politically "right" about that. We can debate whether being far right is conservative but Alt-right is definitely not.
Is the Alt-right conservative? No
Is the far-right conservative? Mostly yes
Is the far-right racist? Collectively no, but there may be individuals that harbor prejudice.
Is the right conservative? Yes. Racist? Absolutely not.
The alt-right is neither conservative or even 'right' they belong in a refuse bucket somewhere below the left-right spectrum with the other racist or fascist groups in America.
...moving on.
What is liberalism?
Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation"
Liberty, equality, free speech. I think these principles are going to be the biggest factors in determining if the Alt-Left and Antifa are in fact 'liberal'.
Hmm, so there is no Alt-Left? Apparently this term is used by conservatives that are critical of what you would call extremist liberals, but there is in fact not group of people that identify as 'alt-left'. To be fair to those that use this term in context of the alt-right as being a group that does not embrace traditional or mainstream 'right' principles, the use of the term 'alt-left' seems appropriate when liberal people go as far as limiting free speech, restricting liberties, and the anti-equality behavior of putting one group above another... all clearly un-liberal ideals. These would be the people that support Antifa but are not necessarily members of that group. These people overtly flirt with fascism, that their view is the only acceptable view, and any dissenting view needs to be silenced. "By Any Means Necessary" is apparently a group that will use, as their name says, any means to silence opposition. Antifa, or black bloc, are a violent branch of this collective alternative left bucket of refuse that fully embrace the hypocrisy of their movement but let's be clear, these are not classic liberals, they are terrorists. The use of violence or intimidation against civilians to promote political or ideological aims is the definition of terrorism. That is exactly what Antifa does. They uses pepper spray, sticks, rocks, bottles filled with concrete or urine (biological weapon) to silence dissent.
I find a lot of hypocrisy in the left these days, I think calling them alt-left is appropriate but again the alt-left is not an organization like the alt-right is. I think what has happened to the liberal left is that what was deemed liberal in the 1980's has become the norm. People are far less racist, homophobic, and the majority of America does not feel very strongly one way or the other on abortion. The idea of universal background checks for firearm purchases are broadly accepted, though some form of a registry is not. We are a much more liberal society than we were in the 1980's let alone the 1960's. With such social reforms being achieved the center of the left-right spectrum is currently rather liberal comparatively speaking. Those that are still left of this point are rapidly abandoning reason and logic in favor of 'feeling'. They have gone to a regressive point on the spectrum asserting things that are just not true in order to maintain their ideological high ground. They have been convincing. But what I think we are starting to see is an awakening of the left, many are seeing this, many are seeing that the goals of the liberals two or three decades ago has been achieved and to keep going is bad. They are seeing that any future change should come more slowly and thus their views are better described as 'contemporary conservative'. If the Alt-Left and Antifa have to lie and invent untruths about their political opponents, then try and silence them with violence, then their ideology is founded on such things and not on moral truth. The Alt-Right loves Antifa because it has given them more voice than they ever would have had otherwise. Remember, the racists want racial conflict, that is how they achieve their goals and justify their existence. They too are pervertors of truth. Antifa and the Alt-right are two sides of the same bigoted, violent, and dishonest coin and America is better off without them.
For a healthy and balanced society we need a healthy left and a healthy right to bring balance. We need avenues of dialog where the presentation of perspective and sharing of ideas can be achieved without anger, hate, and intimidation. Where peaceful conversations happen without expectation of outcome and perspectives of absolutes are checked at the door.
"I can only show you the door, the rest is up to you" -Morpheous
There is also the statement or idea that can be paraphrased as; the far-right is not racist but most racists are far right. Is that accurate? I think that we can say with some degree of confidence that people that tend to hold some measure of ethnic bigotry associate with conservative principles when it comes to things like marriage equality and illegal immigration, as do the extreme people (KKK, etc.) that want to do something about it, but the political right is not racist. Basic conservative principles focus more on fiscal ideas that differ from the left. Conservatives embrace capitalist ideals and regulatory minimums. Conservative religious ideas tend to make most conservatives pro-life and anti-marriage equality, but such principles have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. So it makes sense to say that conservatives are not racists, but most racists are conservative. Some of the most conservative people I've listened to are black. Being right or even far right does not make one racist. Being racists does not necessarily make one conservative either. Hitler was a liberal socialist. So let's look a little closer at the alt-right and neo-Nazi's.
So who are the Neo-Nazi's? According to Wikipedia Neo-Nazism consists of post-WWII militant, social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism. The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements. Pretty straight forward, but we cannot know this group unless we truly know who the Nazi's were. "National Socialism, more commonly known as Nazism is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism..." Thanks Wikipedia! So we have National Socialism and Fascism... and wiki also says other far right groups. I thought the right was capitalist? The more far to the right you go on the right-left spectrum the more capitalist one is right? Maybe? Let's see what Wikipedia says about the far right...
"Far right politics is right-wing politics that is further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right". Its still on the spectrum then. What else does it say? Ahh, "opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism." To paraphrase the rest the Right-Wing populism combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism... often described as far right. Man this is confusing, are they capitalists or socialists? Make up your mind Wiki I'm trying to learn something here! If far-right and neo-Nazi are interchangeable terms then they have to either be socialist or capitalist... not both Wikipedia! They are consistent about the nationalism aspect. Regarding the socialist vs capitalist I'm going to make the leap that since here in America those that are politically right are pro-capitalism and anti-socialism that the far-right here in America are very pro-capitalist... I mean, many of the people that I hear ideas from that the media calls far-right are very capitalist, but are not racist (then again the media is clearly not objective... the same might be said for Wikipedia). Neo-Nazi's are racists, they are also socialists, which to me does not seem very "Right-leaning". I think the confusion stems from the liberal media trying to associate the political right with racism, they have long called Republicans racists even though the republican part was founded as an anti-slavery party, Lincoln was a republican, the KKK was founded by democrats and opposed historically by republican legislators. Republicans get labelled racists because they are against giving people free shit (i.e. they are pro-capitalist and anti-socialist and therefore also anti-Nazi) this earns them a bigot label by leftists, Democrats are hailed as the party for minorities because they are pro-free shit. Why is that? Because it gets them votes, not because it is a better or superior ideology, but because minorities are incentivized to vote democrat, their votes are being bought. The democratic party isn't supporting illegal immigration because it is morally correct, they are doing it for the votes. The democrats pushed for the same social welfare program that has institutionalized dependency on the state and have blatantly targeted the black population in America in the guise of compassion and friendship.. or at least this was the original intent. How do we know? Because it was the same democrats that resisted abolishing Jim Crow laws that supported this legislation and Prez Johnson was documented as stating the purpose of buying the black vote. Sinister! So, which party is racist? Instead of giving people free shit, those on the political right would prefer to stop this form of enslavement and instead of incentivizing dependency on the state give people incentive to better themselves economically. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day (and make him dependent in your charity) if you teach him to fish you feed him for a lifetime (and prosper together). That is the ideology of the right, does that sound racists to you? The Dems on the left are basically telling minorities that they need the help of the Democratic party, which implies that minorities are lesser-than non-minorities in some way so they defend this by asserting that the reason behind it is the oppression of conservative white people... which is a lie. Associating Nazism with the right feeds the narrative that the right is racist. It is either that or the democrats are correct and all of us white people are secretly conspiring to keep minorities impoverished (except Asians, for some reason us racists crackers have no problem with Asians), yep, don't forget about the meeting this weekend my fellow whiteys! I grew up in a are that is about 80% white and 20% Hispanic, I did not see racism growing up. I do know of a couple of grown men in their 50's and 60's that fit the description of racial bigot, but their too stupid to be capable of organizing a birthday party let alone any form of systemic oppression of minorities.
The Far-Right is also know to be associated with Nationalism. Is it true? What is Nationalism? Why is Nationalism bad? I'm not sure I should go back to wiki-crapia but since they are obviously unlikely to be kind to the concept let's see what they say about Nationalism: "Nationalism is a range of political, social, and economic systems characterized by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland." Sounds patriotic to me... what else?: "Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry." Hmm, here we get into it, especially the race, and religion parts. Well fascists typically do not want religious continuity simply because they are pro-state and anti-religion... sounds more like the left to me. Race and language continuity might be something substantial, here I have two thoughts; First that current nationalism is reactive due to the leftist policy of "browning America" rooted in the assertion that white people are inherently evil and that the systemic racism inherent (and even unwitting) to whites that keep other ethnicities down. In other words its a reaction to white-shaming. That is not to say so much that this is a backlash, rather that the political right are calling this for what it is; gerrymandering and vote-buying tactics of the left. If whites are systemically marginalizing other minorities please explain the success of the average Asian-American that exceeds the white-American? My other thought is that the Nationalism we see from some of the right includes the ethnic and cultural diversity of American History, that is to say the majority-Christian White, Black, and Hispanic peoples of the America's (including Asian-Americans that have been part of America since the gold rush and earlier), but does not include the importing of refugees and migrants from regions of the world where it is a majority view that America should collectively burn (i.e. Islamic-majority Nations, even the alleged allies). There of course is the third option that conservatives are racist even the black, Asian, and Hispanic ones, the narrative here being that they are sell-outs to the whites. I think that this third option is B.S., and only exists in the narrative propaganda of the political left.
What are some of the other unsavory concepts of Nationalism? The 'our nation first' idea? Well that does leave a bad taste in one's mouth if your view of America is that both its government and people are not worth a damn, the same kind of mentality associated with the self-loathing liberals that feel guilty for being born in the nation with the most opportunity and liberty for every individual (despite race) than in any other nation on the planet. Maybe this has something to do with why the left seem to want to limit liberty and opportunity for Americans. It is this guilt that drives them now to regress our society, these are not the same progressive liberal ideals that brought about an end to sexism, racism, and homophobia (from the legal standpoint at least), and the fight against injustice. Instead these are the guilt-liberal ideals are are regressive, divisive, and oppressive. So what of the far-right? If to be conservative is to resist change and the right is conservative then the far-right would be very strongly against any change, yes? But that does not seem to be the case with what we call far-right groups, at least those being labelled as such that are also chanting to end immigration (which would be a significant change). While I agree that fully open boarders is simply unsustainable, I would argue that regulated, legal immigration strengthens America by bringing to our shores the greatest minds from the globe. When it comes to Nationalism I would agree that putting America first is proper prioritization but that doing so at the cost of everyone else is not only unsustainable it is deplorable as well. Admitting the greatest minds from abroad (India, China, Germany, and so on...) only serves to strengthen our country, however, unregulated masses flooding over our borders weakens it by taking the unskilled jobs from natural citizens, increasing poverty here, and dependency on the state (The Democrats M.O.). The H1B Visa program that many corporations are exploiting might needs some tweaking as it has had a well documented negative impact on American workers... this is another place I don't get the left. Liberals are supposed to be for the common guy right? The workers and not the rich corporate leaders. If this is true then why do they defend these reckless immigration policies (legal and illegal)? Because it changes the color of America. That is racist.
I think another source of confusion is that anyone that promotes even the slightest hint of conservatism gets labelled far-right and/or racist. From what I've seen a person that is pro-marriage equality, environmentally-minded, pro-life can be labelled far-right simply for stating that travel restrictions from nations that breed Islamic terrorists that want to kill us all makes sense especially since protecting a nations people from foreign threat is a primary function of government. Should we not want our government to err on the side of caution instead of on the side of ideology? That is not far right, it is barely right if at all... its just reasonable, and consistently anti-ideological. I've even heard of such people being called alt-right and racists... which shows the apparent stupidity of their opponents, that is to say that being critical of an ideology that is shared by people of literally every ethnicity on Earth cannot make that person racist. Would you call some one a racist if they said that Christian ideology is primitive? No! Christians are white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, there are even Jewish-Christians (the first Christians were of course Jews). So being critical of some aspects of Islam cannot make one racist, nor does it make them conservative. Being critical of ideologies that bring violence or other bad elements into a society has no political exclusivity.
We haven't got to the Alt-right specifically yet. This is pretty straight-forward. Richard Spencer is the man leading the Alt-Right, a group that rejects mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. So lets be clear, Nationalism is not bad if you remove the 'race' component Wikipedia uses... which is probably closer to patriotism, but white-nationalism is pro-white. Any group that is pro a particular skin tone is inherently divisive. He is chairman of a white-supremacist think tank, he is an atheist, conservatives reject him and find him "repugnant". So he is a white-supremacist, a socialist, an atheist, and wants to change America in favor of these principles... there is nothing conservative or politically "right" about that. We can debate whether being far right is conservative but Alt-right is definitely not.
To recap:
Is the Alt-right racist? YepIs the Alt-right conservative? No
Is the far-right conservative? Mostly yes
Is the far-right racist? Collectively no, but there may be individuals that harbor prejudice.
Is the right conservative? Yes. Racist? Absolutely not.
The alt-right is neither conservative or even 'right' they belong in a refuse bucket somewhere below the left-right spectrum with the other racist or fascist groups in America.
...moving on.
Liberalism
What about the Alt-Left or Antifa (Anti-Fascists)? Are they liberal or left?What is liberalism?
Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation"
Liberty, equality, free speech. I think these principles are going to be the biggest factors in determining if the Alt-Left and Antifa are in fact 'liberal'.
The Alt-Left:
"Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016, suggesting the existence of an ideological fringe movement on the political left, as a direct opposite of the alt-right. The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to describe groups, outlets, or individuals who were perceived as being critical of then President-elect Donald Trump"Hmm, so there is no Alt-Left? Apparently this term is used by conservatives that are critical of what you would call extremist liberals, but there is in fact not group of people that identify as 'alt-left'. To be fair to those that use this term in context of the alt-right as being a group that does not embrace traditional or mainstream 'right' principles, the use of the term 'alt-left' seems appropriate when liberal people go as far as limiting free speech, restricting liberties, and the anti-equality behavior of putting one group above another... all clearly un-liberal ideals. These would be the people that support Antifa but are not necessarily members of that group. These people overtly flirt with fascism, that their view is the only acceptable view, and any dissenting view needs to be silenced. "By Any Means Necessary" is apparently a group that will use, as their name says, any means to silence opposition. Antifa, or black bloc, are a violent branch of this collective alternative left bucket of refuse that fully embrace the hypocrisy of their movement but let's be clear, these are not classic liberals, they are terrorists. The use of violence or intimidation against civilians to promote political or ideological aims is the definition of terrorism. That is exactly what Antifa does. They uses pepper spray, sticks, rocks, bottles filled with concrete or urine (biological weapon) to silence dissent.
I find a lot of hypocrisy in the left these days, I think calling them alt-left is appropriate but again the alt-left is not an organization like the alt-right is. I think what has happened to the liberal left is that what was deemed liberal in the 1980's has become the norm. People are far less racist, homophobic, and the majority of America does not feel very strongly one way or the other on abortion. The idea of universal background checks for firearm purchases are broadly accepted, though some form of a registry is not. We are a much more liberal society than we were in the 1980's let alone the 1960's. With such social reforms being achieved the center of the left-right spectrum is currently rather liberal comparatively speaking. Those that are still left of this point are rapidly abandoning reason and logic in favor of 'feeling'. They have gone to a regressive point on the spectrum asserting things that are just not true in order to maintain their ideological high ground. They have been convincing. But what I think we are starting to see is an awakening of the left, many are seeing this, many are seeing that the goals of the liberals two or three decades ago has been achieved and to keep going is bad. They are seeing that any future change should come more slowly and thus their views are better described as 'contemporary conservative'. If the Alt-Left and Antifa have to lie and invent untruths about their political opponents, then try and silence them with violence, then their ideology is founded on such things and not on moral truth. The Alt-Right loves Antifa because it has given them more voice than they ever would have had otherwise. Remember, the racists want racial conflict, that is how they achieve their goals and justify their existence. They too are pervertors of truth. Antifa and the Alt-right are two sides of the same bigoted, violent, and dishonest coin and America is better off without them.
For a healthy and balanced society we need a healthy left and a healthy right to bring balance. We need avenues of dialog where the presentation of perspective and sharing of ideas can be achieved without anger, hate, and intimidation. Where peaceful conversations happen without expectation of outcome and perspectives of absolutes are checked at the door.
"I can only show you the door, the rest is up to you" -Morpheous
Comments
Post a Comment
Please comment in good taste with respect to others (as well as yourself). Thanks for commenting...
-J