Many have published a wide array of musings on the “Alt(ernative)-Right.” Some see it as comparable to the Neo-Nazi movement—abnormal or extreme conservatism accessorized with pop culture all veiled over white nationalism in order to draw youthful Republicans into their collective.
However, while former-Breitbart Executive Chair Steve Bannon called the news outfit a “platform for the Alt-Right,” President Trump has no interest in promoting them—in fact, his anti-Alt-Right statements have been on social media. Ultimately, no circumstantially affiliated person gives legitimate credence to these extreme conservatives—it’s not an epidemic (nor does it dictate the Republican Party or President Trump’s administration). Actually, let it be known Team Trump is a proponent of Israel (strongly).
Trump on alt-right supporters: “It’s not a group I want to energize. And if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.”
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016
[Source: Twitter/Maggie Haberman]
Back in the 2016 presidential primaries, conservative scholars viewed Trump as a nationalist disguised as one of them. And many traditional conservatives have been throwing flack since before day one of his presidency—e.g., he’s not attacking The Affordable Care Act hard enough. (He’s still standing tall.)
Table that discussion for now. Pay attention to the “Alternative Left,” which isn’t just a radical subsidiary within the Democratic Party—nor is it traditional liberalism. This growing movement serves as a figurative GPS for the Democratic Party.
Rather than pointing fingers and making accusatory statements, it’s important to examine this rising force on the left. They clearly take issue with global warming and other human-waste environmental byproducts. There’s also the common practice for them to internationally infiltrate socio-political climates in order to indoctrinate and ultimately expand their global control. Don’t forget about their viewing “you didn’t build that” capitalism as a plague rather than beneficial to US democracy.
Their ideological umbrella was seemingly manufactured from selective facets of campus postmodernism. Because of this, the “truth” is more an assortment of “stories” and “narratives.” They accrue legitimacy via partnering with pundits and political giants who grant them certain “privilege,” which ultimately amplifies their mission. Just like “the truth,” “my story” works just as well—a concrete reality to them.
The Alt-Left adheres to no solid rules and/or regulations of society and all it encompasses. It uses political rallying to promote influential messages altering society as its members see fit. E.G., both Obama and Clinton were opponents of gay marriage back in 2008. However, Obama went “through an evolution”—the left threw little to no condemnation at him. But that same opposition was repackaged as conservative prejudice in 2012—they were ready to put the heat on anyone who didn’t fall in line… (It could’ve been any philosophy.)
“Sanctuary cities” are nothing more than neo-Confederate areas blocking federal law. Meanwhile, they’re providing safe harbor to illegal-immigrant lawbreakers while claiming support for “migrants” hiding from vague, prejudice immigration statutes. (Let it be known “La Raza” isn’t Spanish for “The Race.” It’s actually synonymous with “people,” in terms of despotic rule.)
Due to Obama’s 2008 presidential win, the Democratic Party saw their own, little renaissance with his two-term reign. This put “truth” in Obama’s bias methods of rallying people with skin-color hardships and specific ethnicities—in opposition of a prejudice and thought-to-be dying government. (A principle long overdue for postmodern revisionism upon Team Trump’s win and the crumbling of many governorships, state legislatures, Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.)
Alt-Left members don’t really honor the traditional liberalism correlating with 1960s Civil Rights. Yesteryear’s liberals looked beyond race to achieve an integrated United States bolstered in long-trusted American traditions while celebrating unification. This culturally conglomerated dream was the liberal mission. However, liberals no longer seek open-mindedness and unification rather nepotism, diversity and separate-but-equal spaces are their new goals to repair and ultimately divide.
For the Alt-Left, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation & gender identity and religion are crucial (not happenstantial) when defining a person—re: Sally Boynton Brown’s riveting speech on race, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s fabricated identities to advance her career, Ward Churchill and former white/black activists Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King are shining examples.
This movement makes almost-desperate attempts to connect people via racial jingoism—La Raza (“The Race”) or “Black Lives Matter (a campaign ultimately downplaying universal proclamations that “All Lives Matter”).” These are not only used as enabling, political tools but also as institutional doctrines—to the severity of Obama’s Justice Department repurposing financial-institution fines to monetarily aid Alt-Left activist outfits.
There’s also the eternal, leftist concept that the admirable goals of “fairness”—equality of result and government-controlled redistribution—condones and/or rationalizes their actions to reach them. During Obama’s 2008 and 2016 campaign events, conservatives didn’t crash the parties, no mace was sprayed. However, Team Trump events see many disguised, guerilla activists attempting to provoke a violent response—because madness and chaos are inherent in conservatism (especially Trump’s brand). But there were no instances of vulgar anti-Obama efforts on Inauguration Day January 20, 2009. Had Republicans done anything of the like at an Obama event, liberals would’ve seemingly slapped the “racist” label on them in a New York minute.
When examining collegiate ecosystems, sexual assault not only includes well-known parameters, it has made addendums entailing post-intercourse regret upon originally consenting to physical intimacy. This is then used as a justification to deny the accused due process, which all have a right to as written in the US Constitution. The Alt-Left seemingly fear said college case would traditionally fall into the hands of a respective district attorney legally adhering to the Bill of Rights—they aren’t granted the ability to prejudge a defendant. That’s why this movement favors the practices of colleges’ ideological Star Chamber courts and their correlating administrative decrees.
Contrary to popular belief, the Alt-Left is not a proponent of free speech—at least, not the type the 1960s’ New Left practiced. Those predecessors pushed for “free speech” zones on university grounds, scripted academic texts detailing why free expression is crucial (e.g., Yale University’s Woodward Report). Additionally, there was the Hippies’ style of free speech, which supported vulgarity and pornographic content—i.e., Mark Twain’s work is offensive and needs a “forbidden” label, while shouting “F**k you” at a professor is free speech and should be practiced regularly.
Their “safe spaces” and offensive-language warnings are ultimately blocking free association and expression via the rationale of quasi-victims merit hyper-constitutional safeguarding. Similar to Maoists and the French Revolution, when would-be pundits are viewed as opponents of academia-majority philosophies or potential brainwashers posing a threat to students’ impressionable minds, they are denied their place at the lectern or are filibustered out—even through violent methods if necessary.
Both academic and non-academic protestors collectively ruined Berkeley’s Milo Yiannopoulos event and Middlebury’s Charles Murray event—the latter with an attempt at a remote location. Said activists freely brought madness to would-be-otherwise-mature speaking engagements. Their intentions were based on “free speech,” which loopholed them out of facing charges—let alone the judicial system convicting them of any wrongdoing. It appears many, academic authorities sympathize with the Alt-Left’s methods. Speculatively, the movement intimidated the schools to the extent of university officials fearing for their jobs—i.e., department heads waved their right to press charges.
[Video: courtesy of FOX News]
But this quasi-regime’s nullified-law philosophies don’t stop at academia. More than 300 sanctuary cities and jurisdictions have implemented provisions under the Tenth Amendment—i.e., “states’ rights,” which saw controversy in the 1850s (also enveloped in the 1940s’ and 1950s’ Dixiecrat movements, which reached a terminal point when George Wallace dismissed federal authority’s anti-segregation law via blocking the entrance to Foster Auditorium). States are legally allowed to maintain their sovereignty, which enables sanctuary cities to protect illegal immigrants who’ve committed federal crimes.
Out west, California’s majority leans toward secession from the US—state officials and legislators have been known to push this position. Similar to 19th Century Confederates, the Alt-Left very much wants federal nullification in state and local governments.
However, there’s no doubt San Franciscans would utilize federal-judiciary resources to penalize Utah or Wyoming if cities in either state called for nullification of EPA endangered-species laws or suspended or superseded federal-gun-registration statutes. Inherent in Alt-Left nullification is liberalism’s ethical pomposity. They use this to dismiss any law deemed conflictive or unavailing to its cause (immigration law, ACA business mandate, Defense of Marriage Act, contractual order of Chrysler’s creditors or NSA-surveillance laws)—on the basis that any counter-cause entities aren’t privy to the Alt-Left’s brand of doctrines.
The Alt-Left uses their post-modern relativism to alter probity in an effort to suit their perception of ethics. Cases in point: filibustering was frowned upon during Obama’s administration but encouraged to negate Team Trump. The “Biden Rule” was against lame-duck presidents choosing Supreme Court justices—save said justices deemed ethically superior candidates. When it comes to the nuclear option, it’s a useful tool for combatting thoughtless rejectionism—but rejectionism’s completely legitimate if it’s spun as ethical and a fundamental truth. Written and phoned-in executive orders are constitutional solutions for deadlock—but not if these methods are considered an unconstitutional overstepping of boundaries to thwart a would-be political stalemate. Highly regarded minorities and women are to be inspirations—conservative versions are to be condemned as race traitors and female misogynists.
And possibly the biggest Alt-Left doctrine is their comfortability with Big Money—rather than leftist’s 1960s celebration of simplicity, being the proverbial “little guy” and wealth being synonymous with deviance and capitalistic pomposity. Coupled with the Alt-Left’s post-modern relativism, affluence is now their ally—i.e., obnoxiously rich individuals from financial markets to software moguls in California to tinsel town are no longer money-grubbing pirates rather social-justice sages. (Simply put, when it comes to the hardships of the fiscally weak masses, the elite’s apathetic complicity is waved.) It is now the norm for an Alf-Left member to bask in in their winnings, ensconce themselves in aesthetically pleasing home interiors or deciding on the most luxurious car; the ideologies of yesteryear’s left are no longer the trends.
Authoritarian and manipulative entities (military, deep-pocketed institutions, an imperial presidency) are embraced as conduits for the Alt-Left’s goals—if said elements can easily dodge legislators and quickly, monetarily enable campaigns including trans-gendered bathrooms, women at the battle fore, LGBTQ marriage and/or the environment.
Indeed, the Alt-Left has taken the proverbial driver seat from traditional Democrats. The Clintons no longer associate themselves with their former, 1990s, political doctrines—e.g., condemning LGBTQ marriages, employing the financially handicapped, taking actions to solidify immigration laws, empowering the judicial branch and winning the drug war.
With all the aforementioned considered, there isn’t necessarily an “Alt-Left.” The Alternative Left is actually Blue Dog Congressional leftovers—i.e., the lingering fringe of a weakened James Webb or Joe Manchin.
Comparatively, yesteryear’s Alt-Left’s simply the Democratic Party—no changes or mutations. The current representation isn’t reminiscent of only Harry Truman, JFK or Bill Clinton, but any/all Barack Obamas and 2008’s Hillary Clinton should be included.