Mediaboss Marketing

What if the South had won the Civil War? Thats the premise of a new HBO series from Game of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, called Confederate. The series will be set in a present-day America in which slavery is legal, the secession of 1861 was successful, and another civil war is brewing.

Although still in its infancy, the project has already drawn backlash from progressives who are offended at the idea of two white men producing a show about modern-day slavery. A grassroots effort to quash the series spring up on Twitter under the hashtag #NoConfederate, and some have called it slavery fanfic despite assurances to the contrary from Benioff and Weiss that the show wont be some kind of weird alt-right fantasy.

But progressives shouldnt be so quick to denounce dramatic depictions of a sci-fi Confederacy. After all, modern-day progressivism is one of the Confederacys most enduring legacies in America today. Whether they realize it or not, progressives themselves are among the inheritors of the political ideology that led to the Civil War.

Civil War historian Allen C. Guelzo wrote this week that the real-life Confederacy wasnt the caricature of a rural backwater so often in popular depictions of the Civil War but an economically vibrant, industrializing region that had more in common with the modern-day administrative state than most Americans realize. But Guelzo only hints at the deeper links between Confederate governance and present-day progressivism:

The Confederate government centralized political authority in ways that made a hash of states rights, nationalized industries in ways historians have compared to state socialism, and imposed the first compulsory national draft in American history. If Benioff and Weiss are successful in creating an alternative world in Confederate, it will shock us fully as much as Game of Thrones has not for how much of the Confederate future we avoided, but how little.

If that sounds crazy to you, its because the dominant narratives about the Civil War and the South are by now so familiar, even if theyre largely wrong. Adding to the confusion is the mainstream medias penchant for portraying Republican voters in the South as a bunch of Confederate flag-waving racists, while casting progressive Democrats as defenders of equality and sincere advocates for social justice.

The truth is more complicated and more uncomfortable for progressives, should they choose to face it. And no, Im not talking about the facile argument that the Civil War was really about states rights. The war was most certainly about slavery. So much so, in fact, that decades before the war came, southern leaders were thinking about how best to preserve it in a country that was expanding westward.

Chief among them was John C. Calhoun, who could see as early as 1846 that unless more slave states were added to the nation, a growing number of new free states would eventually make it impossible for southern states to veto antislavery legislation in the Senate, as they repeatedly had done to the Wilmot Proviso in the late 1840s. Eventually, free states would have a three-fourths majority to abolish slavery by amending the Constitution without the consent of any southern states.

Calhoun considered this a tyranny of the majority, and developed a novel political theory that would preserve the minority rights of the slave states: the doctrine of the concurrent majority. Stated simply, the doctrine maintained that within the framework of American constitutionalism, certain minority groups (like slave states) had the right to veto decisions of the majority, which could only act with the acquiescence of the minority. Hence, these minorities also had the right to secede from the union secession was merely a form of veto.

The late political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa wrote that Calhouns theory was the antithesis of the Founders and Abraham Lincolns understanding of the Constitution, which held that states could only secede for just causes they could alter or abolish a tyrannical government, essentially by making the same case the Declaration of Independence made. Secession on any other basis could only lead to anarchy.

The entire purpose of Calhouns doctrine was to undermine the philosophical foundations of the Constitution and replace them with a theory supposedly derived from science, albeit the junk pseudoscience of racial inequality and Darwinism. Calhoun believed he was correcting a fundamental error of the Founding Fathers. He rejected not just the principle that all men are created equal, but also the idea that political communities are rational and voluntary. Calhoun had a Darwinian view of human nature and society; he believed, in Jaffas words, that Constitutions are the result of mindless struggles in which chance adaptation to the constitutional forms results in the benefits which causes the form to be perpetuated.

Rather than base government on the tenets of natural law liberty, equality, consent of the governedas the Founders did, Calhoun thought government should be based on scientific principles. His aim was nothing less than to redefine the basis of the American constitutional order. Unlike Lincoln and the Founders, he didnt think it was possible for a majority to respect and preserve the rights of a minority because he rejected the idea that political justice arises from human reason informing human will. He believed politics was sheer will.

Calhouns political theory anticipates in nearly every important respect the science of twentieth century behavioralism, writes Jaffa, who notes that in many ways, Calhouns scientific political thought was a precursor to Marxism, which also rejects the philosophical foundations of American constitutionalism.

Calhouns political philosophy and his doctrine of the concurrent majority didnt die with the Confederacys defeat in 1865. It lives on not among southern racists but among progressive academics like Lani Guinier, a tenured professor at Harvard Law School. Guinier is a proponent of racially proportional representation, and has argued that no legislation should pass without a majority of minority representativesessentially an updated version of Calhouns minority veto. More recently, legal scholars like Eric Posner and Nicholas Stephanopoulos have advanced modified quadratic voting theories that would replace our democratic system of one man, one vote with a scheme designed to concentrate voters interested in certain issues.

More broadly, Calhouns general philosophy of government has been adopted nearly wholesale by todays progressives. Instead of a limited government that protects our natural rights, progressives want an active, pervasive government that doles out benefits, imposes vast regulations, and dictates our affairs based on scientific principles. Whats more, progressives today reject outright the idea that the laws of nature and of natures God shaped our Constitution, which is why they seem to have such little regard for free speech and the free exercise of religion, especially when these rights are seen to impinge upon the interests of a favored minority group, whether Muslims or gay couples or transgender people.

And no wonder. The purpose of a progressive scheme of governance is to circumvent the forms and restrictions of the Constitution so the government can do things they think need to be done. Such a framework does not recognize any natural limits on the governments authority because it denies that its authority arises from the consent of equal human beings. Its authority arises from the will to power. Calhouns ideas have such currency today, writes Jaffa, because they fit within the framework of the historicism and positivism that have dominated the intellectual world of the West in the intervening years.

Not that the creators of Confederate are likely to acknowledge or represent any of this in their show. But an honest depiction of a modern-day Confederacy would hit close to home not because slavery is rampant today, but because Calhouns progressive vision of government has endured.

Read the original:
The Confederacy Still Lingers Within The Progressivism That Birthed It - The Federalist

Opinion section staff editor Bari Weiss wrote Tuesday that while she considers herself to have been a supporter of the Womens March, it turns out there is a lot not to like about its leaders, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, who also have some chilling ideas and associations.

Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke, Weiss asserts.

She notes Womens March leader Linda Sarsour this homegirl in a hijab has a history of disturbing views.

Weiss continues:

There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: Nothing is creepier than Zionism, shewrotein 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, likethisfrom 2015: Youll know when youre living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesnt it? She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali inthe most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is not a real woman and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Alis vagina this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.

Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right andmotivatedby Islamophobia. Plus, theyve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.

Weiss observes, however as did CNNs Jake Tapper that Sarsour has been spewing hate as recently as July 16, when the Womens March tweeted a birthday greeting to revolutionary #AssataShakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.s list of most wanted terrorists.

Subsequent to Sarsours reply to Tapper that he was now aligning with the alt-right against her, Weiss asks, Since when did criticizing a domestic terrorist become a signal issue of the far right? Last I checked, that position was a matter of basic decency and patriotism.

She continues that Womens March leader and black activist Tamika Mallory is not only an admirer of Assata Shakur, but is also a fan of Fidel Castro who gave Shakur a safe haven in Cuba.

We have some nerve!

A post shared by Tamika D. Mallory (@tamikadmallory) on Nov 26, 2016 at 11:53am PST

Similarly, Mallory and her colleague Carmen Perez are devotees of Louis Farrakhan, Weiss writes, who is notorious for his anti-Semitic comments.

The editor observes:

WhatisMr. Farrakhans truth? Readers born after 1980 will probably have little idea, since he has largely remained out of the headlines since the Million Man March he organized in 1995. But his views, which this editorial page hascalledtwisted, remain as appalling as ever.

And dont you forget, when its God who puts you in the ovens, its forever! he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters. Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. HecalledHitler a very great man on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a gutter religion.

Weiss points out some of Farrakhans other views that still are managing to endear him to progressive Womens March-ers:

Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950sviewsof gender: Your professional lives cant satisfy your soul like a good, loving man. Recently hetoldJay-Z that he should make Beyonc put on some clothes. He alsoopposesgay marriage.

Resist Trump Womens March supporters are likely toget their dander up when Weiss takes them to task, likening their antics to those of the populist, racist alt-right that helped deliver Mr. Trump the White House and are now hollowing out the Republican Party.

She acknowledges that, for her views, she will likely be tarred as Islamophobic, alt-right, or some equally heinous label by Womens March supporters.

But what I stand against is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships, Weiss asserts. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Here is the original post:
NYT Editor: Women's March Progressives Who 'Embrace Hate' - Breitbart News

|

Posted: Aug 03, 2017 9:58 AM

There was a timeover a hundred years agowhen to battle the forces of rapacious greed for meat safe to eat, railroads safe to ride, and tenements safe to inhabit was the noble call of some progressive voices. Yet, Teddy Roosevelt reformers were not rough riders upon Americans individual liberties in pursuit of better, safer lives.

From another Roosevelt era onward, however, progressives eschewed the rights of individuals for the power of the state. Instead of the Old and New Testaments, and the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, theirs have been the Books of Marx and Alinsky. Instead of Love thy neighbor, it became Compel they neighbor for the common good. No longer were individuals seen as beacons of liberty but as threats to a new order where, progressives said, each would receive according to his need. In and of itself, progressivism may not be evil, but its steroidal mutationsfascism, Nazism, and communismhave been nothing but.

In 1984, five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Pope John Paul II said, There is the danger of replacing Marxism with another form of atheism which, praising freedom, tends to destroy the roots of human and Christian morality. In his book, A Pope and A President, Dr. Paul Kengor says JPII was referring to secular progressivism, a movement responsible for millions of abortions in the name of freedom and banishing God from the new constitution of the European Union.

Banishing God from everyday life was an important first step following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Leninists were ruthless in their quest of a Godless society. Todays progressives need not be, as an entitlement public marches steadily away from an Almighty Providence to a governmental one. Because progressives have nearly driven the Almighty from our public spaces and made it uncool to attend places of worship, it is a matter of time before Freedom of Religion will be its own relic. Europeans have largely abandoned active faith in God, and where has that gotten them?

Why do progressives fear God so? Because the very notion of a Creator is critical to individual liberty. Who may have been one of the first in our country to see progressivisms threat was Bishop Fulton Sheen, who spoke the truism that, God can live without democracy, but democracy cannot live without God. What he was getting at was nothing less than our survival as a free people, and he was speaking as only an American could.

The Gospel of Matthew I heard on Sunday speaks of the man who finds a pearl of great price and does whatever he must to possess it. This and other parables proclaim the universal truth that our relationship with the Almighty is an individual one, and it is a tenet held by all Abrahamic religionists. Aside from the unique covenant with the Jews, our rights do not come to us with a group discount because we are female or male, Black, Latino, White, Asian, or a member of the LGBTQ brigade. Rather, we were born to our rights as human beings, individually endowed by our Creator, and progressives know they cannot be legalized away if God is in our lives.

The difference, then, between the progressivism of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren and the natural law philosophy of Aquinas, Locke, and our Founders is stark: they firmly believed our individual rights to be inalienable, that they come from the one Creator and no one else. Obamians believe our rights are granted to us by the government of the moment, that our Constitution must morph to what (progressives think) is necessary for our times.

Without the principle of inalienability, of individual rights, there is little to resist the siren song of free stuff progressives constantly sing. Theirs is a Ponzi sham where the state takes what it wants and distributes it according to the lights of the current ruling clique. Its not as if taking the life of a viable infant in the womb, breaking into our country and living here illegally, or trashing several thousand years of marital practices are God-given rights. Progressives know these to be vote-buying bribes, not inalienable rights from the Almighty. As such, they are flimsy, fragile, and ephemeral, and that includes the pursuit of happiness, when elected progressives decide how we marry, raise and educate our children, and perhaps, how and when we die.

In less than one generation, when numberless baby boomers burden an already sagging health system, and maintaining the warehoused millions denies dollars to new state largesse, such as a free college education, progressivesin powerwill propose, ultimately, a final sunset for vast numbers of the elderly. Because the Creator has been removed from the progressives equation, there will be no moral basis to object, and rights, once thought immutable, will be taken away for the greater good. Will 90 And Out be their 2024 campaign slogan?

Its always a fair question to ask supporters of progressivism what liberties (of ours) they would trade for government goodies, when in the world of Obamians, progressivisms ultimate price in securing power must always be liberty itself.

There are times when even rugged individuals must act in unison, knowing what patriots of 1776 knew: We acted then to bridle the power of a king and declare independence. We must act now, not just to resist the progressivist tide, but to advance the liberties for which so many have lain their lives on the altar of freedom.

In an era when voters seem easily driven toward the warming notions of empathetic rights, elegant speech, kumbaya companionship, and spandex liberties, when so many are brushing aside the Author of our national soul, the better question is:

What are all the rest of us thinking?

Originally posted here:
Progressivism's Problemthe Price - Townhall

What wasnt to like?

A lot, as it turns out. The leaders of the Womens March, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, have some chilling ideas and associations. Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke.

***

Start with Ms. Sarsour, by far the most visible of the quartet of organizers. It turns out that this homegirl in a hijab, as one of many articles about her put it, has a history of disturbing views, as advertised by . . . Linda Sarsour.

There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: Nothing is creepier than Zionism, she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: Youll know when youre living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesnt it? She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is not a real woman and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Alis vagina this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.

Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right and motivated by Islamophobia. Plus, theyve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.

But just last month, Ms. Sarsour proved that her past is prologue. On July 16, the official Twitter feed of the Womens March offered warm wishes to Assata Shakur. Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur! read the tweet, which featured a #SignOfResistance, in Assatas honor a pink and purple Pop Art-style portrait of Ms. Shakur, better known as Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.s list of most wanted terrorists.

Like many others, CNNs Jake Tapper noticed the outrageous tweet. Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba, he tweeted, going on to mention Ms. Sarsours troubling past statements. Any progressives out there condemning this? he asked.

In the face of this sober criticism, Ms. Sarsour cried bully: @jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.

Theres no doubt that Ms. Sarsour is a regular target of far-right groups, but her experience of that onslaught is what makes her smear all the more troubling. Indeed, the idea that Jake Tapper is a member of the alt-right is the kind of delirious, fact-free madness that fuels Donald Trump and his supporters. Troublingly, it is exactly the sentiment echoed by the Womens March: Our power your power scares the far right. They continue to try to divide us. Todays attacks on #AssataShakur are the latest example.

Since when did criticizing a domestic terrorist become a signal issue of the far right? Last I checked, that position was a matter of basic decency and patriotism.

Whats more distressing is that Ms. Sarsour is not the only leader of the womens movement who harbors such alarming ideas. Largely overlooked have been the similarly outrageous statements of the marchs other organizers.

Ms. Mallory, in addition to applauding Assata Shakur as a feminist emblem, also admires Fidel Castro, who sheltered Ms. Shakur in Cuba. She put up a flurry of posts when Mr. Castro died last year. R.I.P. Comandante! Your legacy lives on! she wrote in one. She does not have similar respect for American police officers. When you throw a brick in a pile of hogs, the one that hollers is the one you hit, she posted on Nov. 20.

Ms. Perez also expressed her admiration for a Black Panther convicted of trying to kill six police officers: Love learning from and sharing space with Baba Sekou Odinga.

But the public figure both women regularly fawn over is Louis Farrakhan.

On May 11, Ms. Mallory posted a photo with her arm around Mr. Farrakhan, the 84-year-old Nation of Islam leader notorious for his anti-Semitic comments, on Twitter and Instagram. Thank God this man is still alive and doing well, she wrote. It is one of several videos and photos and quotes that Ms. Mallory has posted of Mr. Farrakhan.

Ms. Perez is also a big fan. In the fall, she posted a photo in which she holds hands with Mr. Farrakhan, writing, There are many times when I sit with elders or inspirational individuals where I think, I just wish I could package this and share this moment with others. Shes also promoted video of Mr. Farrakhan dropping knowledge and another in which he says he is speaking truth to power.

What is Mr. Farrakhans truth? Readers born after 1980 will probably have little idea, since he has largely remained out of the headlines since the Million Man March he organized in 1995. But his views, which this editorial page has called twisted, remain as appalling as ever.

And dont you forget, when its God who puts you in the ovens, its forever! he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters. Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. He called Hitler a very great man on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a gutter religion.

In one of the several widely available YouTube videos hes made about the Jews, he told black Americans that the control of the Synagogue of Satan over our people must be exposed. He adds: These satanic ones have not only controlled hip-hop but they control, according to their own words, the very messages that are brought to the public. He goes on to offer a truly remarkable analysis of the hip-hop industry in which intelligent rappers are rejected by the satanic minds who insist that they want filth and encourage vulgarity and savagery. This is the first 10 minutes of an hour.

Mr. Farrakhan is also an unapologetic racist. He insists that whites are a race of devils and that white people deserve to die.

Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950s views of gender: Your professional lives cant satisfy your soul like a good, loving man. Recently he told Jay-Z that he should make Beyonc put on some clothes. He also opposes gay marriage.

If that wasnt enough of a rap sheet, Mr. Farrakhan also loves Scientology and believes 9/11 was a false flag operation.

***

I can already hear the pushback. Whats a few impolitic tweets and photos compared to the horror show of this administration? Save your outrage for the transgender ban in the military, for the lies that spew forth daily from the press briefing room, for the cuts to Planned Parenthood, the shady business with Russia, and, and, and.

But the nightmare of the Trump administration is the proof text for why all of this matters. We just saw what happens to legitimate political parties when they fall prey to movements that are, at base, anti-American. That is true of the populist, racist alt-right that helped deliver Mr. Trump the White House and are now hollowing out the Republican Party. And it can be true of the progressive resistance regardless of how chic, Instagrammable and celebrity-laden the movement may seem. Recall that only a few months ago, Keith Ellison, a man with a long history of defending and working with anti-Semites, was almost made leader of the Democratic National Committee.

Will progressives have more spine than conservatives in policing hate in their ranks? Or will they ignore it in their fury over the Trump administration?

I am sure that Linda Sarsour, and perhaps the other leaders of the Womens March, will block me for writing this. Maybe Ill be accused of siding with the alt-right or tarred as Islamophobic. But what I stand against is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.

The rest is here:
When Progressives Embrace Hate - New York Times

Rep. Maxine Waters / Getty

BY: Paul Crookston August 1, 2017 4:34 pm

After progressives turned "nevertheless, she persisted" into a rallying cry in support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), they have now moved onto the refrain"reclaiming my time," taken from Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.).

Waters repeated those words to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin during a House Financial Services Committee hearing last week, when she thought he was stalling in his answer about responding to a letter she sent him in May. Committee chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) stepped in toexplain that the time did indeed belong to Waters as a ranking member of the committee, and progressives found it to be an empowering moment of defiance in the face of male verbosity.

"As a de facto leader of the anti-Trump resistance, Waters has become a bit of a rallying point for progressives in recent months and her words to Mnuchin quickly became an internet meme among women, minorities, and anyone else who's run out of time to waste and f**ks to give," Aja Romano wrote at Vox.

Progressives have praised "Auntie Maxine" (a name that millennials have given her), shared clips from the hearing, and used "reclaiming my time" as a catchphrase. Similar to the outpouring of affection for Warren when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said, "Nevertheless, she persisted" in reference to her, the attention on Waters has been supportive and enthusiastic.

Vocalist Mykal Kilgore even recorded asong in honor of Waters, titled "Reclaiming My TimeGospel Mix" and the Washington Posthailed Waters' phrase as an "anthem."

Waters took to Twitter to thank Kilgore for the song and praise his talent.

Read more:
Progressives Turn Waters' Repetition of 'Reclaiming My Time' Into a Catchphrase - Washington Free Beacon