Why the 'Alt-Left' Is a Problem

[Bastet]

Two people dressed in black beat a man suspected of being a right-wing Trump supporter at MLK Jr. Park on August 27, 2017 in Berkeley, California. Elijah Nouvelage—Getty Images


By GIL TROY August 28, 2017
IDEAS
Troy is a professor of history at McGill University and the author of The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s.
Donald Trump’s challenge on August 15 — “what about the alt-left” — has stirred silly arguments. Claiming there is no “alt-left” because no one calls themselves “alt-left,” ignores the long, colorful history of political nicknaming. And claiming there is no “alt-left” because all leftists hate Neo-Nazis mistakenly defines the “alt-” modifier as being about racism not fanaticism. With 100 goons from the Left having attacked peaceful demonstrators from the Right as recently as this Sunday afternoon in Berkeley, we must stop viewing the growing epidemic of political brutality through myopic, partisan lenses. The real question remains: Is “alt-left” a useful term?

You can repudiate racism unequivocally, yet still recognize an “alt-left” in America today. The term emphasizes a new breed of extremist — virtual, vitriolic and violent — without getting tangled in the rights or wrongs of being anti-Trump, against police violence or bigoted. Similarly, in the 1930s and 1940s, when Americans condemned Communism and Nazism for being totalitarian, they weren’t accusing Communists of murdering Jews like the Nazis did.

Moreover, believing that in order to exist, the “alt-left” must call itself “alt-left” neuters the power of political nicknaming. In the 1950s, the liberal Washington Post cartoonist, Herblock — Herbert Block — coined the term “McCarthyism” to demean right-wing anti-Communists. More recently, “Politically Correct,” “RINO” (Republican in Name Only), “Snowflake,” “Libtard,” and Cuckservative, were imposed by opponents.

You can repudiate racism unequivocally, yet still recognize an “alt-left” in America today. The term emphasizes a new breed of extremist — virtual, vitriolic and violent — without getting tangled in the rights or wrongs of being anti-Trump, against police violence or bigoted. Similarly, in the 1930s and 1940s, when Americans condemned Communism and Nazism for being totalitarian, they weren’t accusing Communists of murdering Jews like the Nazis did.

Moreover, believing that in order to exist, the “alt-left” must call itself “alt-left” neuters the power of political nicknaming. In the 1950s, the liberal Washington Post cartoonist, Herblock — Herbert Block — coined the term “McCarthyism” to demean right-wing anti-Communists. More recently, “Politically Correct,” “RINO” (Republican in Name Only), “Snowflake,” “Libtard,” and Cuckservative, were imposed by opponents.


Two centuries ago, the British essayist Isaac D’Israeli called political nicknaming “one of the arts practiced by all political parties.” D’Israeli noticed that sometimes, politicos hijacked a “contemptuous name,” making it their own: The “first revolutionists of Holland” — known as Les Gueux or the Beggars — “accepted the name as much in defiance as with indignation, and acted up to it.”

Although the label “alt-right” originated with “alt-rightists,” Hillary Clinton mainstreamed use of the term. In a sweeping attack a year ago, Clinton condemned Trump as representing the “paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment.” Introducing an unfamiliar term, she explained: “Alt-right is short for alternative right.” She failed to connect the growing familiarity with the word “alt” to the computer keyboard. She quoted the Wall Street Journal’s description of this “loosely organized movement, mostly online, that rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”

Neither Left nor Right has a monopoly on virtue or violence. The “alt-left” continues the violence of the Weatherman and the Black Panthers in the 1970s, and the hooliganism of the “Battle of Seattle” WTO Protestors in 1999. And like the alt-right, leftwing radicals are finding ideological allies worldwide, particular among Jeremy Corbyn’s Labourites; these British leftists also prefer dictating the outcomes they seek instead of trusting democratic processes to work.

Yes, calling radicals the “alt-left” is mischievous, tarring those fanatics with their ideological rivals’ brush. But as Communists and Fascists showed, the political world is round. If you go too far left or right, you meet in the anti-democratic land of intolerance and violence.




http://time.com/4919011/donald-trump-alt-left-antifa/

[Yuri Bezmenov]

It's called a jpeg resizer FFS!!! 

[Al Swearegen]

Two people dressed in black beat a man suspected of being a right-wing Trump supporter at MLK Jr. Park on August 27, 2017 in Berkeley, California. Elijah Nouvelage—Getty Images


By GIL TROY August 28, 2017
IDEAS
Troy is a professor of history at McGill University and the author of The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s.
Donald Trump’s challenge on August 15 — “what about the alt-left” — has stirred silly arguments. Claiming there is no “alt-left” because no one calls themselves “alt-left,” ignores the long, colorful history of political nicknaming. And claiming there is no “alt-left” because all leftists hate Neo-Nazis mistakenly defines the “alt-” modifier as being about racism not fanaticism. With 100 goons from the Left having attacked peaceful demonstrators from the Right as recently as this Sunday afternoon in Berkeley, we must stop viewing the growing epidemic of political brutality through myopic, partisan lenses. The real question remains: Is “alt-left” a useful term?

You can repudiate racism unequivocally, yet still recognize an “alt-left” in America today. The term emphasizes a new breed of extremist — virtual, vitriolic and violent — without getting tangled in the rights or wrongs of being anti-Trump, against police violence or bigoted. Similarly, in the 1930s and 1940s, when Americans condemned Communism and Nazism for being totalitarian, they weren’t accusing Communists of murdering Jews like the Nazis did.

Moreover, believing that in order to exist, the “alt-left” must call itself “alt-left” neuters the power of political nicknaming. In the 1950s, the liberal Washington Post cartoonist, Herblock — Herbert Block — coined the term “McCarthyism” to demean right-wing anti-Communists. More recently, “Politically Correct,” “RINO” (Republican in Name Only), “Snowflake,” “Libtard,” and Cuckservative, were imposed by opponents.

You can repudiate racism unequivocally, yet still recognize an “alt-left” in America today. The term emphasizes a new breed of extremist — virtual, vitriolic and violent — without getting tangled in the rights or wrongs of being anti-Trump, against police violence or bigoted. Similarly, in the 1930s and 1940s, when Americans condemned Communism and Nazism for being totalitarian, they weren’t accusing Communists of murdering Jews like the Nazis did.

Moreover, believing that in order to exist, the “alt-left” must call itself “alt-left” neuters the power of political nicknaming. In the 1950s, the liberal Washington Post cartoonist, Herblock — Herbert Block — coined the term “McCarthyism” to demean right-wing anti-Communists. More recently, “Politically Correct,” “RINO” (Republican in Name Only), “Snowflake,” “Libtard,” and Cuckservative, were imposed by opponents.


Two centuries ago, the British essayist Isaac D’Israeli called political nicknaming “one of the arts practiced by all political parties.” D’Israeli noticed that sometimes, politicos hijacked a “contemptuous name,” making it their own: The “first revolutionists of Holland” — known as Les Gueux or the Beggars — “accepted the name as much in defiance as with indignation, and acted up to it.”

Although the label “alt-right” originated with “alt-rightists,” Hillary Clinton mainstreamed use of the term. In a sweeping attack a year ago, Clinton condemned Trump as representing the “paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment.” Introducing an unfamiliar term, she explained: “Alt-right is short for alternative right.” She failed to connect the growing familiarity with the word “alt” to the computer keyboard. She quoted the Wall Street Journal’s description of this “loosely organized movement, mostly online, that rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”

Neither Left nor Right has a monopoly on virtue or violence. The “alt-left” continues the violence of the Weatherman and the Black Panthers in the 1970s, and the hooliganism of the “Battle of Seattle” WTO Protestors in 1999. And like the alt-right, leftwing radicals are finding ideological allies worldwide, particular among Jeremy Corbyn’s Labourites; these British leftists also prefer dictating the outcomes they seek instead of trusting democratic processes to work.

Yes, calling radicals the “alt-left” is mischievous, tarring those fanatics with their ideological rivals’ brush. But as Communists and Fascists showed, the political world is round. If you go too far left or right, you meet in the anti-democratic land of intolerance and violence.




http://time.com/4919011/donald-trump-alt-left-antifa/

Here is the problem as summed up well by Jordan Peterson. We can point to when the Right goes "too far" and is stepping over the line and when their own side will push them aside. This is when they start getting into White Supremacist bullshit. There is a line. There is obviously a stage where both sides overstep and it is recognised commonly on the Right. Where is that stage with the Left? When do the people on the Left draw that distinct line and refuse to allow such people a voice?

There is none.

[Grey Area]

It's called a jpeg resizer FFS!!! 

Everyone in that picture is fat.

[Jack]

And short.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

At least you can see the picture now.   

[Gopher Gary]

I see smashed people. 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I see roadkill.   

[Gopher Gary]

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

There's bugger all real lefties any more.

Real lefties like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky don't encourage their supporters or their fans to carry on like this.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

There's bugger all real lefties any more.

You'd have to define what you mean by "lefties".

Real lefties like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky don't encourage their supporters or their fans to carry on like this.

I wouldn't place these two in the same category.

With Noam Chomsky, I'd agree, he's clearly a left libertarian and has stated as much. He has pretty consistently denounced violence and coercion. Bernie is more of a big government socialist; even though he doesn't preach violence, his ideas are fundamentally authoritarian and so are many of his followers.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The terms left wing and right wing are based on the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly, which directly preceded the French Revolution. The basic beliefs of each side are still equivalent to those of the parties seated there.

Left wing generally refers to more "liberal" or "progressive" views (as in wanting to change things in ways that have not been tried before), based on the belief that people are basically good and the government has a responsibility to care for all of its citizens to some degree. Taken to its logical conclusion, left wing politics becomes some form of socialism.

Right wing usually refers to more "conservative" or "regressive" views (as in wanting things to stay the same or return to how they used to be). It is characterized by a belief in the natural selfish nature of humans and the view that achievement is equivalent to worth. The government should stay out of people's affairs and not force the more productive citizens to subsidize the less productive citizens. Taken to its logical conclusion, right wing politics becomes either anarcho-capitalism (libertarian wing) or some form of Fascism (authoritarian wing, although many Neo-Fascists would describe themselves of taking a Third Position, between capitalism and socialism)

http://wiki.c2.com/?WhatIsLeftOrRightWing

Real lefties does not include the Clintons, the Obamas, the Australian Labor Party (traditionally left wing, but lurched to the right 30+ years ago), yada yada yada.

Bernie Sanders is certainly a real lefty in my opinion. When you say "authoritarian" do you mean that he will be collecting more taxes in order to fund things like universal health care, social welfare? And trying to rein in the sort of extremes of the capitalist system that has led to things like the Global Financial Crisis?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Real lefties does not include the Clintons,

Bill ruled as a centrist, Hillary is much more of a leftie.

the Obamas,

Are clearly on the left but had to adopt a more moderate platform in order to get anything passed in congress.

Bernie Sanders is certainly a real lefty in my opinion.

He defines himself as a socialist. are the only "true" lefties socialists in your view??

When you say "authoritarian" do you mean that he will be collecting more taxes in order to fund things like universal health care, social welfare?

Yes, all taxation is technically theft, therefore the only things worthy of government funding are those that justify the coercive hand of the state taking people's shit.

And trying to rein in the sort of extremes of the capitalist system that has led to things like the Global Financial Crisis?

Corporations own most governments, especially in the US; so this is in practical terms, impossible.

[Calandale]

Yes, all taxation is technically theft, therefore the only things worthy of government funding are those that justify the coercive hand of the state taking people's shit.

Theft is a legal term. Taxes do not qualify, any more than hidden user fees, charging people for life's necessities,
or a whole host of things someone won't want to pay for.

Some philosophical decision as to whether coercion implies theft is just as arbitrary (and invalid) as deciding that
charging for water does.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Yes, all taxation is technically theft, therefore the only things worthy of government funding are those that justify the coercive hand of the state taking people's shit.

Theft is a legal term.

It's also a moral term and that's the sense that I meant it in.

 

Taxes do not qualify, any more than hidden user fees, charging people for life's necessities,
or a whole host of things someone won't want to pay for.

You mean like mafia protection??  A lot of what the government does is almost identical. Pay up to the mafia Don or suffer the consequences.    

Some philosophical decision as to whether coercion implies theft is just as arbitrary (and invalid) as deciding that
charging for water does.

That's a bullshit argument. When a government entity charges you for water, they're actually charging you for the infrastructure necessary to deliver the water to your property, the water is technically free.

As I develop my property, I intend to put a cistern on it for water supply, then build a well. I don't get charged by the county for water because the infrastructure is mine.