Mediaboss Marketing

The horror show that was the 2016 election will be examined and reexamined for years, and depending on how bad things get, quite likely decadesto come. There were, of course, a lot of factors: Cultural change, economic change, racism, liberal complacency after Barack Obama, the FBI manipulating the election, the Russian government manipulating the election, hatred of feminism and so on.

But it's also important to noticethat Donald Trump's election is the culmination of decades of right-wing media teaching its audience that liberals are subhuman scum, and that hating liberals whatever their stereotype of a "liberal" looks like is far more important that minor concerns like preventing war or economic destruction.

Friday morning, the phrase "preparing for Trump" started trending on Twitter. It appears to have started withliberals tweeting out an article by Peter Dreier laying out a 10-step process to resist Trump's attempts to turn our government into a kleptocracy at best, and a fascist state at worst. But of course the meme was soon taken over by right-wingers eager to exclaim how excited they were about the Trump presidency.

But what's fascinating is how few of them, had anything positive to say about Trump and his coming presidency, despite their apparent love of the Great Orange Grimace. On the contrary, the contributions of Trump supporters on the thread were almost exclusively negative: They are gleefully certain that he will rain destruction on the heads of the hated liberals.

Trump's fans on Twitter don't seem to think that he'll improve the economy or foreign relations or anything at all, really.In fact, they seem wholly opposed to the concept of improvement. Their worship of the man lies with their belief that he's an agent of destruction, who will hurt people they have been trained by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to believe are evil.

Original post:
Conservatism turned toxic: Donald Trumps fanbase has no ...

A statue of Confederate commanding general Robert E. Lee is seen in the crypt of the US Capitol in Washington, DC on August 24, 2017.

AFP/Getty Images

A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.

The monuments debate dominated conservative discourse on Thursday. At National Review, Victor Davis Hanson argued that liberals are unwilling to take down monuments to their racist historical figures:

Liberal icon and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren pushed for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II while he was Californias attorney general. President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the Armed Forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil-service agencies.

Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes? ...

At the Daily Caller, Rob Shimshock reported that a Canadian teachers union would like to remove the name of Canadas first prime minister from Ontario schools:

The Blazes Jon Street noted that former U.N. ambassador Andrew Youngs opposition to removing Confederate monuments, which he articulated in interviews with CNNs Anderson Cooper and NBCs Chuck Todd, telling the latter that Klan supporters of Confederate monuments are almost the poorest of the poor. Youngs argument for why Confederate monuments should stay in place echo the argument that President Donald Trump made throughout the 2016 campaign, which was that the forgotten man and forgotten woman in the West Virginia coal mines or the Michigan factory would be forgotten no more, Street wrote.

Multiple outlets ran posts on a New York Times article reporting that Hispanic and black students are more underrepresented at elite colleges now than they were 35 years ago. The NYT found that black students only made up 9 percent of freshman students, while Hispanic students represented 15 percent of students at Ivy League Schools, the Daily Callers Amber Randall wrote. White students enrollment also went down, while the percent of Asian-American students on the Ivy League campuses increased slightly. National Reviews David French:

Read the rest here:
Today in Conservative Media: Are the Liberals Ever Going to Admit They Have a Racist Past Too? - Slate Magazine (blog)

In that guide, the S.P.L.C. claims that I am a propagandist far outside the political mainstream and warns journalists to avoid my damaging misinformation. These groundless smears are deeply offensive, as I have dedicated much of my adult life to calling out the true extremists: organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Yet you will look in vain for the S.P.L.C.s Field Guide to Muslim Extremists. No such list exists.

Thats a shame, because Islamic extremism a movement that aims to impose a caliphate and Sharia law by violent means is as toxic as white supremacy. In the past two decades, it has certainly been responsible for many more deaths.

Like neo-Nazis, Islamic extremists despise liberalism. They deny the equality of the sexes, justify wife-beating and, in some cases, even the enslavement of female unbelievers. The Islamic State and groups like it regularly murder gay people in the most heinous ways. Islamic extremists are also virulently anti-Semitic, like the Nazis before them. And like todays American Nazis, they brandish swastikas, chant slurs and peddle conspiracy theories.

The terrible consequences of Islamic extremism are on display on a weekly basis around the world. In the days after Charlottesville, five men in Barcelona used a van and knives to kill 14 and injure scores of innocent people. Another Islamic extremist went on a stabbing rampage in Finland. In wealthy societies like the United States, most plots to kill in the name of Islamist supremacy are foiled. But poorer societies in the developing world lack the means to do that, which is why the majority of victims of the extremists are in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.

It is not surprising that, when I point out such facts, I am viciously attacked and threatened by those who are dedicated to Islamic extremism. But it has always struck me as odd that so many supposed liberals in the West take their side rather than mine, as happened three years ago, when Brandeis University rescinded their offer to me of an honorary degree. I would have expected a civil-rights organization supposedly committed to justice to speak out against those who would oppress women, gays and people of other faiths. But the S.P.L.C. has nothing to say about Islamic extremists; only about their opponents.

Another voice the S.P.L.C. has tried to silence is that of Maajid Nawaz, who was included in the same field guide as me. (He is suing the organization for defamation.) Mr. Nawaz has written extensively about his past as an Islamic extremist in England and Egypt, just as Ive written about my time in the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager. For the past decade, he has run Quilliam, an organization dedicated to countering Islamic extremism in Britain and elsewhere, notably in Pakistan.

I met Mr. Nawaz in 2010 at a debate in New York City, where the subject was the nature of Islam. Our passionate disagreement was on full display: Mr. Nawaz is a secular Muslim, whereas I am not a believer any longer. Yet we both agreed the path to a successful reformation of Islam lies in more debate, more scrutiny and more critical thinking. It is exactly these activities that our opponents, now including the S.P.L.C., describe as extremism.

Cui bono? That question is nearly always the right one to ask of organizations like the S.P.L.C. Who really benefits from their activities? Repeatedly, and for more than a decade, journalists at publications ranging from Harpers to Politico to The Nation to The Weekly Standard have pointed out that the centers founders seem more interested in profiting off the anxieties and white guilt of Northern liberals than in upholding the civil rights of poor Southerners, or anyone else. Theres a less cynical explanation, though, which is that liberals are deeply and increasingly uncomfortable with calling out Islamic extremism for fear of being smeared as Islamophobic, or worse.

Regardless, the S.P.L.C.s decision to target those who speak up for the civil rights of Muslims is a travesty.

Muslims today cannot freely debate the role of their religion in most Muslim-majority countries, where the charges of heresy or apostasy can mean a death sentence or a lynch mob. Here in the West, too, free discussion of Islam is getting harder not least because Islamic organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations pounce on any criticism of Islam, branding it hate speech, the modern word for heresy. Unwittingly or not, the S.P.L.C. is abetting Islamic extremists by branding critical thinkers like Mr. Nawaz and me extremists.

Taking a stand against the neo-Nazi display we saw in Charlottesville is an impulse that should be cheered and Apple, JP Morgan and the Hollywood A-list can and should do more to counter political violence and intolerance in all its forms. But they need to find more trustworthy and deserving partners to work with than the S.P.L.C.

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of an organization. It is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, not the Council of American Islamic Relations.

Continue reading here:
Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? - The ... - New York Times

A mural in the West Bank city of Bethlehem depicts President Donald Trump kissing an Israeli army watchtower along Israel's separation wall, August 4, 2017. (AP Photo / Nasser Nasser)

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Sign up for Take Action Now and well send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

As with pretty much everything else he touches, Donald Trump has created chaos among the Jewish right. Quite a few neoconservatives took hard-line anti-Trump positions, though in most cases this did not extend so far as endorsing Hillary Clinton. Weekly Standard founder William Kristol was especially energetic in his pursuit of a chimerical third-party conservative candidate, who never materialized and wouldnt have mattered anyway. But a few of the neocons stuck strongly with Trump. Commentarys Norman Podhoretzand FrontPages David Horowitz were 100 percent in. So was the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Kleins extreme right-wing group.

Others hedged their bets. Actual war criminal, convicted liar to Congress, and disbarred lawyer Elliott AbramsPodhoretzs stepson-in-lawkept a low profile during the election and then tried desperately to get hired as Rex Tillersons number two at the State Department. Owing to just how crazy this administration is, Abrams was treated as a sensible foreign-policy mandarin by the mainstream media, though he still came up short. A few of his comrades appeared ready to jump on board when Trump bombed Syria, in the mistaken hope that he could or would sustain any policy at all, much less one that upset Vladimir Putinbut of course, this didnt last. Still sounding like he was auditioning for a role he would never get, Abrams took to the pages of the formerly Never Trump Weekly Standard to proclaim that Trump had now acted also as Commander in Chief. And more: He finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World. Kristol called it a must read. Still, no job offer.

Yes, one would think that a willingness to distance oneself from modern-day Nazis and Holocaust deniers would be the lowest imaginable bar for any sentient human being, much less the president of the country that helped defeat Hitler in World War II. And one might expect Jews to have precious little sympathy for any politician who has frequently trafficked in nakedly anti-Semitic symbols and memes. In a recent post-Charlottesville op-ed in The New York Times, neocon Bret Stephens lorded over those Jewish conservatives (neo- and otherwise) who had held their collective noses and thrown in their lot with Trump. Stephens allowed that while Trumps bigotries aligned, in some sense, with our political views, his lack of character undermined the likelihood that he would follow through on the policies these bigotries implied.

Trumps fondness for Third Reich fantasy re-enactors aside, Stephenss case for the anti-Trump side rests almost exclusively on whats best for Israel. He laments that the Iranian nuclear deal remains in place, that the US embassy in Israel hasnt been moved to Jerusalem, that Syrias Bashar al-Assad is still in power, and that the Israeli government is outraged by the deals the administration has cut with Russia at Israels strategic expense. Speaking to a gathering organized by the Tikvah Fund, a right-wing Jewish charity, Stephens argued that it was a scandalif we fail to live up to the promise of our American citizenship to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

One would think a willingness to distance oneself from Nazis would be the lowest imaginable bar for any sentient human being.

Stephens fails to understand that what matters to the far-right Jews for Trump is less the issueseven when it comes to what they understand to be the survival of the Jewish statethan the hatreds they share with the presidents supporters. As Irving Kristol, the late godfather of neoconservatism and father to William, explained back in 1993, while he had professed to be motivated by traditional Cold War concerns in the days of the US-Soviet rivalry, those alleged life-and-death questions were always secondaryat bestto his true ambition: the defeat and destruction of American liberalism. There is no after the Cold War for me, Kristol wrote. [M]y cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. Now that the other Cold War is over, the real cold war has begun.

This hatred of liberalswhich animated so many white working-class voters to ignore their own self-interest and vote their animosities in 2016is no less powerful among the pointy-heads. Its why Podhoretz still hasnt said a word against Trump. Neither has billionaire Sheldon Adelson or Klein (whose organization Adelson generously funds). New Yorks Lee Zeldin, the only Jewish GOP congressman, also endorsed Trumps remarks that there is evidence that the violence came from multiple groups and multiple sides. Its why Horowitzs FrontPage is excommunicating the hapless Ron Radosh, insisting that by criticizing exTrump adviser Steve Bannon, he has returned to his Communistroots.

This personalized, political cold war is no doubt also why it took three days for Benjamin Netanyahua pretender to the crown of leader of the Jews if ever there was oneto say anything about Charlottesville. And even then, it wasnt much: a single tweet that never once mentioned Trump. Netanyahu didnt even bother to use up all 140 characters. Nor did he respond to the enormous wave of criticism that he received in Israel from all sides when the even more right-wing Naftali Bennett complained of Trump, saying: The leaders of the U.S. must condemn and denounce the displays of anti-Semitism. Insteadand forgive me if this sounds familiarhe left it to his son to do the dirty work of signaling his true calculations and reassuring what remains of his political base. Young Yair Netanyahu explained that the Nazis shouting Jews will not replace us in Charlottesville belong to the past. Their breed is dying out. However the thugs of Antifa and BLM who hate my country (and America too in my view) just as much are getting stronger and stronger and becoming super dominant in American universities and public life.

Just as Moses said of God, He visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children (Exodus 34:7), so too shall we suffer for the sins and misjudgments of pro-Trump Jewish conservatives for generations to come.

See the original post here:
Disdain for Liberals Drives the Jewish Pro-Trump Right - The Nation.

The WA Liberals moderate faction, aligned with deputy federal leader Julie Bishop, is pushing for changes in the state partys preselection process. Photograph: James Ross/AAP

The West Australian Liberal party is facing a potentially bruising fight over its preselection process, with members trying to replicate the voting reforms championed by Tony Abbott in New South Wales.

A special meeting of the partys state executive was held in Perth on Wednesday evening to discuss the reform proposals but the fiery meeting ended in disagreement.

As a consequence, the partys state conference on 2 September will now be asked to consider whether more rank-and-file Liberal party members ought to be allowed to vote in preselection contests, without first having agreed on the proposed model.

It is unclear whether the members pushing for reform will have the numbers at the state conference. They will need 75% of votes to be successful.

The reform push is coming from WA moderates aligned with the deputy federal Liberal leader, Julie Bishop, and Senator Linda Reynolds. If they are successful, it will dilute the power of the dominant WA conservative faction led by the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, and Liberal state MPs Nick Goiran and Peter Collier.

The moderates reform push has gained considerable traction since last month, when the Liberal partys NSW convention passed a motion championed by Abbott to grant members the right to vote in preselection contests.

Interestingly, the push for change in NSW came from Abbott-led conservatives, not moderates, because Abbott has long been trying to dilute the influence of party moderates in the preselection process in the state.

Candidates in WA are currently chosen by a committee of delegates appointed by branches but the state conference next month will be asked to vote on a proposal to change the preselection process.

One motion will propose amending the partys constitution to give all members (of at least 18 months standing) the right to vote in a plebiscite for candidates and senior office bearers.

The plebiscite motion is being heavily pushed by the moderates. It was written by Andrew Reynolds, the brother of Senator Reynolds.

A second, alternative, motion will propose retaining the existing preselection arrangements but also allowing a greater number of branch-appointed delegates to vote.

Liberal party members have told Guardian Australia it will be difficult but not impossible for the plebiscite proposal to get 75% of the votes at the state conference.

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is scheduled to attend the conference on 2 September, as is Abbott.

At the NSW Liberal party convention last month, Turnbull spoke in favour of plebiscites as a way of giving more power to members and building the partys membership base. He described plebiscites as a fundamental element of party democracy.

Abbott, who has been criticising the direction of the federal government under Turnbull, said afterwards: Now we can go forward as one united party.

Abbott also told reporters that those who opposed his one member, one vote motions were advocating fake democracy.

A key proponent of the NSW reforms, the Warringah electoral conference president and powerbroker, Walter Villatora, said last month the NSW party membership had clearly spoken and the reforms would make NSW the most democratic division in Australia.

Abbott is in WA this week and will be speaking at the Samuel Griffiths Society conference in Perth on Saturday.

Follow this link:
WA Liberals braced for bruising contest over preselection process - The Guardian