There is a LOT of media-perpetuated misconceptions about Trump's controversial executive order ... and just about everything your liberal friends have told you about it is flat out false.
By: Jimbo X
You know, liberals don't actually give a shit about Muslims. They same way they don't really care about the substandard living conditions of blacks, homosexuals and Hispanics, they don't give a fuck how crappy an Islamic person's life is, just as long as they agree to vote for their candidates. Democrats don't see Muslims as people - they see them as political weapons, and their only practical purpose is to make Republicans look like Hitler. Beyond that - and their precious electoral points - liberals have no use (nor any cares) for the Islamic community. All the proof you need of this is the deafening silence from the party of tolerance on the scores of Middle Easterners blown asunder by decree of one Barack H. Obama from 2009 to 2016.
And that's a major, major mistake on the Democrats' part. Right now, the liberals are all huffed up and pissy about Donald Trump winning the election so they've concocted a gameplan to win in 2020 by forming a coalition of basically everybody who isn't a straight white Christian male. The problem there is that the basic virtues and morals - let alone political wants - of all the disparate special interests groups not only don't gel, they're logically incompatible.
If you've been following the libs' "intersectionalist" strategy, you might notice something fairly peculiar. Like the Teutonic weregild espousers of yore, the Democratic strategists have literally assigned a marginalization points systems to their electoral bread and butter. There very much is a pecking order when it comes to who and what is most marginalized in the eyes of contemporary liberals, and as a result, you get this weird pyramid scheme of self-victimization going on. For those of you who do better with visual aides, I've done you the kindness of drawing up the following pictograph:
So as you can see, not everybody is oppressed equally according to contemporary Democrats, and the more "persecuted" you are - which, really, is just code word for "the most demographically opposite of the aggregate Donald Trump voter" - the more "value" you have as a political cudgel.
For example, straight men, Christians and white Republicans[*] (ironically enough, the very people who not only founded the Democratic Party but have been the bulk of its constituency for a good 90 percent of its existence) all have the same overall score - which is zero. That means liberals gain zero sympathy points for pretending to defend them from rampant cultural "oppression" and/or "prejudice."
[*] You disagree? Seeing as how the Democratic Party was founded by hyper-nationalist Indian-slayer Andrew Jackson - not to mention almost all of the Jim Crow supporters in the South had a big old "D" next to their names - I don't think there's any way around it.And if you don't think the modern Democratic Party doesn't have at least a couple of ounces of genetic white supremacist blood swishing around in its capillaries, just look at how ferociously liberals of all colors malign and attack any Republican who isn't a straight white male. The attacks of the left on conservative leaning women, homosexuals and ESPECIALLY African-Americans are far more caustic, vicious and personal - just take a look at what black liberals have to say about Ben Carson. Indeed, defending them from perceived oppression or prejudice actually COSTS the liberals sympathy points - in that, the sub-foundation literally becomes an indefensible grab-bag of social pariahs whom liberals cannot came to the aide of for any reason whatsoever.
The rest of the persecution pyramid pretty much explains itself. A black man is inherently a victim of American society just out of principle, according to the Democratic moral orthodoxy, but the same script says white women are even bigger ones, so defending a white woman must always take precedence over defending a black man. However, the narrative posits black women as even bigger victims than white women, so if they are ever in opposition to each other, it's the Democrats' duty to take the side of the victim with the higher point total. And while the Democratic dogma states that black women have it really, really bad, the secular religion also declares transpeople to have it even worse than they do, so if the two demographics are ever in conflict, again, the "persecuted" population with the greater marginalization value is automatically "the right one."
...I think you can see the fatal flaw with this approach already. Building an entire political brand around identity politics won't work if you're going to ask those same people to simultaneously consider their own identity less important than a more "victimized class." When your entire core identity revolves around an ethnocentric persecution complex, something tells me you probably won't be too happy when "your people" don't win the gold at either the summer or winter Victimization Olympics.
Well, for whatever reason, today's Democrats have decided unilaterally that nobody's more persecuted than the Muslims. Defending them, per the great liberal code of honor, takes precedent over defending all other potential democratic voters, including the demographical bloc's sworn arch enemies, the Jews (who, up until recently, were the absolute apex of persecuted liberals ... their annual earnings, naturally, notwithstanding.)
Why this is the case is pretty hard to fathom. As a whole, Muslims represent less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population - and of those, at least 20 percent are native converts, the bulk of them black - so their electoral impact is rather negligible. Economically, they post lower earnings than the aggregate white family, although they are collecting advanced degrees in astonishingly high numbers. Indeed, according to one 2011 assessment, one out of 10 Muslim heads-of-households had a doctorate in something.
But Muslims remain underrepresented in the two industries that mean the most, politically - general business and media. As far as the cash they can kick into the Democrats' coffers, it's not a whole lot - and certainly not enough to consider alienating the ethnic bloc that's more or less the financial backbone of the entire party.
So why prop up the Muslims as the ultimate liberal victims, when the electoral and economic rewards of doing so are so minimal?
Because Democrats desperately, direly, deeply want the Republicans to do the same things to them that the Nazis did to the Jews. They WANT Muslims to be FORCED to register on a national list and they WANT to see them denied the same basic rights as everybody else. The whole reason they give a shit about Muslims to begin with is because they are props that can be used to conjure up Godwin's Law incessantly for the next four (and potentially, eight) years. Literally the only intrinsic value Muslims have for the Democratic Party is that their plight can be used to show just how mean and bigoted the Republican Party is. Their actual plight doesn't mean a damn thing to the liberal big wigs - what's important is how they can exploit their plight in such a way to possibly, maybe get more votes come 2020 (and naturally, collect some cold, hard "walking around money" in the lead up to the general election.)
|Looks like Starbucks' refugee job training program is already off to a rousing start!|
Nothing exemplifies this more the recent brouhaha over Donald Trump's alleged "Muslim Ban" executive order.
Never mind the fact that the EO doesn't even have the word "Muslim" in it.
Never mind the fact that the EO didn't bar people from the six countries with the highest number of Muslim residents - Indonesia (204 million), Pakistan (178 million), India (172 million), Bangladesh (145 million), Nigeria (75 million) or Turkey (74 million) - from entering the country.
And for those who have tried to pass on the narrative that Trump excluded Muslim-majority nations where he had business interests, never mind the fact that Trump doesn't have investments in Pakistan (96.4 percent Muslim), Algeria (98.2 percent Muslim), Morocco (99.9 percent Muslim), Uzbekistan (96.5 percent Muslim), or Niger (98.3 percent Muslim) - yet none of those countries have travel restrictions placed on them.
And especially never mind the fact that nationals from all seven countries "banned" by Trump - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen - were already banned via the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016.
And of course, never mind the fact that even IF Trump wanted to enact an actual "Muslim ban," the President has full Constitutional power to ban whoever the fuck he wants from entering the country at any time, thanks to 8 U.S. Code Section 1101 and 8 U.S. Code Section 1182.
And please do never mind the fact that Trump struck a deal with the governments of the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia to house more Syrian refugees just a day after signing the traveling restriction E.O.
And please, with sugar on top, never mind the ban is only in effect for 90 days, with the whole point being to set up more intense vetting procedures before allowing additional refugees into the country, with Trump himself saying the visas are going to start flowing like wine around mid-April.
But of course, if you tune into CNN or click on over to The New York Times, they're convinced - convinced, Allah damn it - that Trump's about to send every Koran-owner in the U.S. into a concentration camp. Despite the fact such a statement is a bold-faced lie, they continue to circulate "news" of the E.O. under the drumbeat that it directly targets a specific religion, that such a move is beyond the Constitutional powers of the Oval Office and that it's the first step towards a wide scale expulsion of an entire demographical group.
So in other words, they're literally spreading disinformation and intentionally obfuscating the truth in order to create hysteria among the dyed-blue liberal base and their sad-sack sympathizers. For people who sure do like to bring up Orwell's name to attack Trump, it's the liberals themselves who have mastered the art of The Two Minutes Hate - indeed, the "mainstream" media has more or less devolved into nothing but a echo chamber of people screaming just how much they hate Trump (and especially how much they hate the fact that other people don't hate them and they can't just send them to a re-education camp to change their minds) while still having the audacity to claim to be unbiased spectators.
Once you peel back all the hysterical emotional outrage and dig deep into the facts of U.S. immigration policy, it becomes woefully apparent that Trump's travel bans aren't much ado about nothing, they are much ado about something that's already been the case for almost two whole years but nobody said nothing because it was done by somebody they liked as opposed to somebody that didn't.
It's all bullshit, kids, just like pro 'rasslin but with worse acting. All of the bleeding heart liberals and their bed buddies in the media want you to hate Trump so bad that they're willing to make shit up and obfuscate the clear-cut truth to get you to think what they want you to think.
And unfortunately, I reckon we're going to be seeing a lot more - a whole lot more - over the next decade.
Get your bullshit detecting goggles on tight, folks - we're going to need 'em.