"Alt-Left" Came Before "Alt-Right"

Here's a good explanation of "alt-right" without our having to go visit the basest of base websites written by the fringe elements putting forth hate, violence, racism, all the truly Deplorables. It's entitled, "Racist creeps reject the pro-life message. Yay!", on the blog, Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, and if you're sensitive to such things, it has some mild profanity, though nothing I've never said if whacking my pinky toe on the door jamb when getting up at 3am to go to the bathroom.

The post's bottom line:

"The universal reaction from pro-lifers sharing this [gross Alt-right] article has been "Great! We don't want you!" We wear the alt Right's rejection as a badge of pride."

Having posted on this blog, our primary blog AfterAbortion, and other sites since 2004, I've long withstood my share of the vitriol coming from the Alt-Left blogosphere.

I find it bizarre that Hillary, the left and even some on the establishment-right lump Breitbart.com in as the premier "Alt-Right" site, though I understand why, given its recent personnel changes. Really, just because you can't stand Milo Yiannopoulos? I'm appalled by much of what he does and says too. BUT I JUST DON'T READ OR WATCH HIM. Honestly, folks, whatever happened to "Just Ignore The Trolls"? His schtick is horrendous many times but it is in direct response to the hate-filled trolling begun some 13 to 23 years ago by Alt-Left SJWs. That first blogger in the above paragraph, "The Raving Atheist" at the time, wrote this in response to my being ripped to shreds in the comments on his blog:

Many people equate tolerance with the attitude that every belief is equally true, and that we should all simply accept this fact and go our separate ways. But I view tolerance as the willingness to come together, to face one another in the same room and hack at each other with claw hammers until the truth finally trickles out from the blood and the tears.

And hack, he did, long before Milo. In those days, TRA was even more merciless to those he disagreed with than anyone you know or follow today. The postscipt? He later found out that real truth was something altogether different than what he had vehemently espoused. He became a Roman Catholic convert. You can look up the story for yourselves as to why.

The point is, if the Alt-Left liberal SJWs, Bill Maher, and a Raving Atheist, started the Alt-Left inflammatory vitriol in 1993, or even 2003, and Milo responds in kind since 2015, why is it ok for the Alt-Left SJWs to spew for 13 to 23 years and not Milo, who doesn't consider himself a white supremacist and doesn't approve of them? He gives the Alt-Left whopping slop-bucketfuls of their own medicine and they whine and go BooHoo. I'd like to see everyone stop spewing and everyone regain civility. But I can just dream on, I know. That horse is out of the barn, and running amok in real-life as more and more people think it is ok to be incivil and hate-filled, on both sides of the aisle, to any stranger's face, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

HINT: it is not ok.

If Breitbart.com has lurched into the lurid with Milo since Breitbart's passing and since Ben Shapiro left, that, imho, is a shame and I don't trust them as a news source. Breitbart.com was a better forum before he passed. You wouldn't see Republicans Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich praising Milo Yiannopoulos after his death, I'd wager.

But who's outing the Alt-Left sites so the Hillaryites can get educated? Not Milo:

Have you ever noticed how some people accuse others of doing what they themselves do? That’s what’s going on here.

Whatever the “Alt Right” might be, it’s politically irrelevant compared with what we’ll call the “Alt Left.”

What is the “Alt Left”? It’s a movement of phony self-righteousness and “compassion” that it uses to gain power. It will do anything and say anything [my note: sound familiar to you Milo-bashers?] to achieve its goal of hammerlock control not only of government, but every significant cultural institution – from schools, universities and the press to churches, foundations, Hollywood and unions.

It has created a self-funding mechanism that includes a club of guilt-ridden billionaires who insulate themselves from attack by donating to the “Alt Left” causes. It also uses shakedown tactics to intimidate cowering corporations into doing its political and cultural bidding.

And here’s the kicker: It’s racist to the core!

The “Alt Left” supports population control, eugenics and repression of minorities. It does this in several ways:

1. Stands silent amid the greatest population control campaign in global history as fascist China limits births to one or two children, enforcing the restrictions with state terror.
2. Supports abortion on demand, taxpayer support for the largest abortion provider in America that maintains nearly all of its abortion facilities in minority communities in the cities controlled by Democrats. That same abortion provider was founded by a leading eugenics advocate, Margaret Sanger, who remains a heroine to Hillary Clinton.
3. The “Alt Left” is 100 percent Democrat – a party birthed in the support of slavery, a party whose military arm was the Ku Klux Klan, a party that fought civil rights and integration through the middle of the 1960s.
4. Since the mid-1960s, the “Alt Left” Democrats have kept their collective foot on the neck of minority communities in different ways. As the architect of the plan, the late President Lyndon B. Johnson explained his “Great Society” program strategy to two Democrat governors aboard Air Force One this way: “I’ll have those n—–rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (This is documented in Ronald Kessler’s 1996 book, “Inside the White House.”)
5. Today, the “Alt Left” Democrats ferociously fight any attempts to woo minorities from their political plantation. Those efforts consistently include smearing their opponents as the racists.

While the “Alt Left” Democrats smear Republicans for what they themselves do, they insulate themselves from guilt by real associations with groups like the Communist Party USA, which has supported them without reservation for election cycle after election cycle. When a lifelong, avowed socialist ran a viable campaign for the presidency in 2016, it barely created a ripple of indignation or concern from the same media that bought – hook, line and sinker – the charges of racism and extremism against the Republican nominee.

And that, in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, is the way the Democrats avoid any accountability for their own record of racism and extremism while hurling epithets against their opponents.
...
It became apparent to me the Big Media were determined to set the stage for Hillary’s latest conspiracy theory about a realignment of the right that incorporated nationalism and racism. The Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis figured prominently into this new, emerging coalition, according to the reporters who called me.

“How many Nazis and Klan members do you know?” I asked. “I don’t know any. I don’t know any racists. If I did, I wouldn’t invite them to my daughter’s wedding. I wouldn’t attend their weddings or accept money from them as Hillary Clinton did. I would have blown the dog whistle on them years ago, decades ago, rather than wait until these people I considered racist were running for president against me. Do you see why this allegation has no credibility coming from Hillary Clinton?”

Silence on the other end of the phone.

Secretary of State Clinton’s decision to play the racism card against Donald Trump strikes us as lacking in credibility — given the source. There is no doubt that the Republican nominee has stirred up the xenophobes with his harsh rhetoric in respect of immigration and is being cheered on by the racist David Duke and his ilk. The New York Sun wants no part of them and neither does the GOP. But the Democratic Party has its own fringe for which to answer before Mrs. Clinton has any standing to make a megillah of the “alt-right.” What about the alt-left?

This goes back to Sister Souljah. She was the activist who, in 1992, was asked by Los Angeles Times about violence against whites by blacks in the riots that year in the City of Angels. Was such violence a “wise reasoned action,” she was asked. “Yeah, it was wise,” she answered. “I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Bill Clinton, then campaigning for president, famously responded by saying that if one “took the words ‘white’ and ‘black,’ and you reversed them,” one might think that David Duke was speaking.

That became known as the “Sister Souljah moment” and helped convince Americans that Mr. Clinton was fit for the presidency. Hillary Clinton isn’t there yet, nor can she get there by blaming Donald Trump for failing to confront the alt-right when she is failing to confront the alt-left...The Democratic Party alt-left agitators protesting against Mr. Trump’s rallies in this campaign have illuminated nothing so much as the fact that the alt-right has no quarter on violence, bigotry, and thuggery.

The Alt-left is a group of people who have nothing to offer. They have no facts to support their opinion and their factual assessments are grossly out of context and disingenuous. This group will blame minority communities’ problems on the rest of the country. They will use shocking statistics pointing to the harsh realities these minorities face. But, when a candidate like Trump begins to share those same numbers and offer different solutions, they attack what was previously their own language as racist and dark.

Clinton is the queen of the kingdom of Alt-Left. Spanning four decades, a single year hasn’t known the absence of a Hillary Clinton scandal. She wants us to forget that.

Hillary Represented the New Left Before Obama and Pelosi

A decade prior to the complete Alt-Left takeover of the party through the rise of the online insurgency spurred by Moveon.org, and the subsequent ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, there was Hillary Clinton. While Americans were teased with a glimpse of the Alt-Left during the campaign of George McGovern in 1972, they long forgot about the dangers of such radicalism during the Reagan years in the ‘80s. Hillary’s ascendancy to national prominence as a left-wing culture warrior and champion of socialism kicked off a new generation of the far Left. It was the public perception of Hillary as Bill’s radical co-president that, to a large degree, led to the backlash that flipped Congress to the Republicans.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s dreams of an Alt-left party were put on ice as Bill triangulated and Republicans actually stood for something worthy for a few years. Then, the failures of the Bush years led to the complete empowerment of the Alt-Left and the completion of their takeover, actualizing the vision pioneered by Hillary in the early ‘90s. The rest is history. Now, so many forget that many prominent Democrats weren’t always fringe lunatics. We now have a woman on the cusp of becoming president who will have a chief of staff that edited a Muslim Brotherhood publication that championed Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of women. Is nobody concerned about the end game of the Alt-Left ideology?

And since I am a peon who has to work a lot of hours at a real job just to survive these days and don't have the time to leave the combox here free and unmoderated, will someone please email us if Milo or his counterparts on the Alt-Left SJW side ever twitter-bomb-trash us? I'd be very surprised and amused to know that we even landed on the radar. Not that it would matter.