latest, media watch, United States
Comments 88

What’s the End Game: hype and hysteria surrounding the “Muslim Ban”

by Kit

Activists gather at Portland International Airport to protest against President Donald Trump's executive action travel ban in Portland, Oregon, U.S. January 29, 2017.  REUTERS/Steve Dipaola

Activists gather at Portland International Airport to protest against President Donald Trump’s executive action travel ban in Portland, Oregon, U.S. January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Steve Dipaola

They’re calling it the “Muslim Ban”, that’s the headline attention-grabber. It has its own twitter hashtag too. Everyone, all around the progressive “free world” is coming together to denounce this barbarism with one voice. Actors are making speeches at the SAG awards, and earnest navel-gazing columnists are writing about how this travel ban clashes with “British values”. There’s a petition to ban Trump from entering the UK with over a million signatures already (only tree from the British Antarctic Territories this time). John Harris, in the Guardian, even manages to make this all about Brexit – how triggering Article 50 will push us closer to a Trump administration that is “ruining America’s reputation”. Not even Jeremy Corbyn was immune, his biggest weakness it seems, is that he cannot ever miss an oppurtunity to be “nice”.

In a Guardian opinion piece, Jack Straw – a man currently under investigation for permitting the use of torture – is allowed valuable column inches to moralize. He quotes Dick Cheney on “American values”. He compares Donald Trump unfavourably with George W Bush.

As foreign secretary I dealt with the Bush administration – and this is far worse.

Say what you want about a warmonger like Bush or war-profiteers like Cheney, but they were never evil enough to order a 90 day travel ban on the populations of the countries they bombed. In an increasingly insane world “racism” is now worse than cynical acts of industrial-scale murder. And we are preached to on the perils of Trump by criminals and sycophants. Anybody attempting to point out this apparent contradiction BTL was removed. The comment section? Decimated.

So what does it all mean? How will this travel ban, and resultant hysteria, change the world? I have no idea. Possibly not at all. Is it a catastrophe? Absolutely not. It’s not even a surprise. This is something Trump spoke about doing over and over again during his campaign. That we’ve got to the point where a politician actually doing something he said he was going to do is a shock, is perhaps the most revealing aspect of this whole situation.

    Some fact-checking:

  • It’s NOT a Muslim ban. It applies to only seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. All in all less than 200 million of the world’s 1.6 BILLION Muslims are affected. Interestingly, only Syria is specifically named in the order, the other countries are taken from the official list of “Areas of Concern”, drawn up under Obama’s administration.
  • It’s NOT permanent, or even long-term. It’s only 90 days long for everywhere but Syria.
  • It’s NOT unprecedented, Jimmy Carter banned all immigrants from Iran during the Hostage Crisis, and Barack Obama put a six month delay on Iraqi refugees in 2011. Just two years ago, during the “ebola crisis”, America imposed a travel ban on people coming in from West Africa. It is an entirely sensible and pragmatic thing to do….if you believe your country to be in some kind of danger.

NOTE: Somehow, in the last four years or so, the media has established a meme that protecting the borders of your country is akin to racism. (This is probably part of a corporate, globalist agenda to allow the free movement of cheap labour, to undermine workers rights).

Now – let’s look at the seven banned countries.

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These seven countries have all been bombed by America in the last 12 months, and regularly going back dozens of years.

Obama sent predator drones to attack weddings and markets in Somalia and Iraq, and Britain and US sell bombs to the Saudis, who drop them on Yemeni civilians without a thought of repercussion, or even rebuke, from their Western allies. These countries have been destroyed. Libya, Iraq and Somalia are husks of states, with barely infrastructure enough to supply water to everyone, let alone do background checks on all the mercenaries and militant zealots hopping over the borders between the various war-zones America has dotted the Middle-East with.

Interestingly, none of these cynical and murderous acts of war ever resulted in a petition to stop Bush, Clinton or Obama from entering the country. Creating a failed state, killing a million people, and rendering millions homeless is less of a black-mark on your character than a 90 day travel ban.

The idea it “damages America’s reputation”? That is hilarious. America’s reputation was in tatters decades ago, to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention. If drone assassinations, or dropping Agent Orange on Vietnamese children, or cluster bombs on Baghdad, or torturing people in Gitmo doesn’t dint your belief in American values…then a 90 travel ban shouldn’t either. And if it does, you need to re-sort your priorities.

What those seven countries have in common is not Islam, but chaos, violence and (allegedly) terrorism.

IF you believe in the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS, IF you still think that these organizations are anything but American constructs for proxy wars and regime change, IF you truly believe in the fear porn and staged-managed terror the media hydra constantly pumps out, IF you truly believe these people are a threat to ordinary innocent civilians all over “the West”…then you have to agree a travel ban is a practical and logical step to control that threat. Just as it was in the 1970s, just as it was in 2011, just as it was in 2014.

And if your response to this move, as the mainstream media response has been, is to talk as if this threat doesn’t exist? Well, then you are admitting that you don’t believe your own coverage, that all the hyped-up “terrorism” talk was at best ratings driven hysteria, and at worst agenda-pushing lies.

The political establishment’s rush to virtue signal and oppose this move simply confirms what so many of us in the alt-news have been saying for years – terrorism was never the threat they pretended it was.

The question becomes – why is the vast majority of the media, the establishment and their various media voices so against this move? Is it because it means nothing? It is essentially harmless, but allows “liberals” and “progressives” to add some virtuous notes to their CV though strident opposition.

Is it simply a case that Trump will be opposed and ridiculed no matter what he does? If so, why? What good does turning the POTUS into a figure of scorn and mockery do anyone?

Is Trump essentially the anti-Obama? Obama was a construct that allowed immediate good-by association. Supporting Obama meant you were a good-guy, perhaps in a change of tack we now have a president you have to hate. Perhaps it’s all just an elaborate social experiment. It’s impossible to tell anymore.

The first 10 days of Trump’s presidency has, so far, produced far more questions than answers, but one thing is for certain, you cannot believe the lie that somehow this is a step in the wrong direction for American foreign policy. You cannot let warmongers and torturers get away with whitewashing their own reputations, to use their attacks on Donald Trump to somehow retroactively morally legitimize their own actions. We cannot let hysterical outrage fool us into accepting that this America is somehow “less moral” than all previous incarnations. When it comes to foreign policy, there is no “less moral”.

Editors notes: This article was updated on the evening of 30th January, following the publication of Jack Straw’s column in The Guardian.

Advertisements

88 Comments

  1. What dribble. I could not continue reading this most foolish and naive of articles. You are clearly ill informed and have been living in you own toxic bubble. The ban IS a Muslim ban. The countries that have been banned have not produced one single terrorist attack in the U.S. FACT. Saudis have not been banned because of Trumps business interests. Be informed before you spew lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not to say that I don’t wholeheartedly agree with your admonition that, before you tackle other people’s lies, you should be informed — at least a bit — but:

      The list of countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban was supplied by the Obama Administration, In 2015.

      Just to quote a short bit from that piece written by Danny Haiphong, not to overburden anyone with too much reading, but just enough to make the point:

      There are many protesters and observers in the United States who may see Donald Trump’s policies as surprising, perhaps unprecedented. Trump’s actions, however, are not without a catalyst. That catalyst is none other than former President Barack Obama. A Mic article published the day of Trump’s executive order reminds us that the list of countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban was supplied by the Obama Administration. In 2015, Obama signed into law the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. The bill restricted Visa waivers for anyone who applied after visiting Libya, Syria, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, and Iraq within the last five years. This list is now being used by the Trump Administration’s to enforce the travel ban.

      Clearly, it’s true, then, different people do live in different bubbles.

      And since Trump is, so to speak, really ratifying Obama’s own immigration policy, it can’t possibly be that it’s a “Muslim ban” — can it?

      Or was that the point you were making?

      I mean, unless I missed it, I don’t see this particular FACT mentioned by Kit — although to my mind it tends to reinforce his thesis more than weaken it, doesn’t it?

      Like

  2. As someone on the other side of the pond, I wonder if the class aspect of sheer snobbery is not involved.
    There was an air of entitlement to the Clinton campaign which her supporters bought in to.
    How shocked they must have been when she lost, especially after polls suggested she would be a clear winner.
    Of course, what the polls and mass media reflected was the popular vote – and not the electoral college vote.
    How galling, therefore, that what they perceived as a bumpkin candidate won with the support of country hicks.
    For Clinton supporters, this presidential result also indicates that their electoral system is deeply flawed.
    How can people who think they are entitled to assume they live in the world’s finest democracy reconcile that?
    It is all far too troubling; maybe the simplest response is to go out on the streets, led by anarchists.
    How else are they to express their rage – justified or otherwise – at the outcome?
    It is either that or they have to resort to de-stressing suites.
    The street sounds like much more fun, don’t ya’ think?

    Like

  3. chrisb says

    The ‘Emergency’ demonstrations against Trump in the UK are another sign that the Left has lost interest in winning elections and is now content with shouting loudest in the Twittersphere.

    Of course there are honourable exceptions.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Melissa says

    while the protests in Europe have a liberal character and are not of an anti-imperialist character its worth thinking that this is an opportunity to further divided imperialist countries, against the USA. I don’t really care if the anti-trump protests in the UK are liberal left whining about muslim bans rather than imperialism IF it acts to turn the population of the UK against the USA and further serve to divided the imperialist block

    Liked by 1 person

    • writerroddis says

      I’ve had similar thoughts, and certainly enjoyed the discomforture for Theresa May. We can’t rule out anything right now, and should all try to make room for what we just don’t know. That said, I don’t believe this will seriously threaten the ‘special relationship’ and so divide imperialism in any significant and long term manner. It’s a faint possibility, I guess, but one outweighed by the fact those liberal protests against Trump – more muddleheaded than hypocritical – are music to the ears of a US imperialism that never wanted Trump and, now they have him, will make it very hard for him to do the few things we want him to do: like rapprochement with Russia.

      Like

  5. The end game is the end game: the ‘anti-Obama’ (Trump) is Obama (not literally – but think yin and yang or better still, good cop, bad cop) – the goals of the US Imperium remain the same. Unchanged and virtually unchangeable.
    Can anyone imagine a scenario whereby the US Imperium withdraws and cedes its sphere of influence in the entire MENA region? Or contemplates autonomous and self-determining rule for independent sovereign nations in said region? Or allows the area to come under the sphere of influence of a Russian/Chinese/Iranian alliance? Thought not.
    Look what happened to Libya (and in particular its leader) when he tried to create an economically autonomous MENA/ Pan-African alliance beyond the reach of the almighty dollar.
    They haven’t waged a faux War on Terror since ’02 to simply pack up and go home – they want ‘full spectrum dominance’ over those resources. Trump and Tillerson are ‘extractivists’ – they want every last drop of hydrocarbons for the Imperium alone. Failing that they may accept a substantial cut (the lion’s share) – but never, never will they cede all that blue and black gold liquidity to autonomous nation states or a rival trading bloc. Never.
    All this identity, gender and gesture politics is mere gestural Kabuki. For many (or at least some) there is genuine emotional expression, but the created focus and hype is to create a change-agenda – that something ‘different’ is about to happen – positive or negative, true or false, real or imagined.
    Behind the tears – the objectives of the Imperium continue unchanged.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. michaelk says

    Real problems may start if there’s a backlash against the liberal/left, who are out on the streets, having found a cause and a symbol they can unite behind in their crusade for progress, and Trump supporters start to demonstrate as well. As this is the United States, where people wear their hearts on their sleeves and violence is always just below the surface. It could turn very nasty in a society that seems to be losing its mind and polarizing along sectarian lines to an extraordinary degree, not witnessed for decades.

    The liberals and most of the political class, and the media… typified by the Guardian, are annoyed that their job of selling US imperialism is made so much more difficult and obviously partisan, due to Trump’s lack of liberal… finesse. Trump’s USA is a really hard sell, compared to Obama full of grace.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. The whole idea of a travel ban on a number of countries which have been wrecked by previous US subversion and active war is pointless.

    The reason it is pointless is that the so called would be terrorists always are enabled to move freely without due interference. Or they pop-up home grown. So in this respect Trump is continuing the “terrorist threat” meme which has worked beautifully for many year for administrations internationally as an excuse to oppress who ever they choose.

    However I do agree with the argument that in the over all scheme of things this is just a ripple on the tsunami of US global aggression, death and pain brought to the world, this being purely a disruption to some peoples lives.

    I have yet to see if Trump will change anything, or even change America at the moment it is just a cleaning process. I expect much of what has gone before in US domestic and foreign policy with just a little change of emphasis.

    However I have to say that I don’t recall a great outcry from the WMSM when sanctions were put on Russia for Ukraine. When America acted against international law by instigating and backing the illegal coup there and blaming Putin. Neither was there outrage at death and destruction caused by the connivance of America and its liberal elite backers internationally in the Libyan or Syrian conflicts, to name but a few of the most recent.

    For all the chimera of an orderly transfer of power on Jan. 20th, the reality behind the scenes is one of a divided nation and a state of war between Trump and the still-present Deep State elites. But not the Deep State’s foot soldiers, many of which it appears, may have voted for Trump.

    I expect in this respect the change of guard in the elites ruling America still to be a threat to global security and individual freedom for a long time to come.

    Like

  8. michaelk says

    I don’t think this travel ban has much practical significance in the ‘fight against terror’ at all. Clearly it’s very significant and irritating for individuals with roots in these countries who’ll find it difficult to leave or enter the United States for a period, at least.

    This thing has, in contrast, a hugely significant symbolic value, both for Trump and even more so for those in opposition to Trump. It’s an issue they can all agree on and rally around and demonstrate about, precisely because it is, so symbolic and sends out a series of signals to friends and foes alike. When Obama was ordering the extra-judicial assassination of Muslims in a swathe of overseas countries, there were no comparable demonstrations and the media/Hollywood axis didn’t condemn their beloved and iconic liberal President, Obama full of grace, for his actions. Apparently a campaign of mass murder, when ordered by someone who’s ‘cool’, can pass with barely a protest, whilst a mere travel ban is roundly condemned as a policy worthy of Hitler… go figure!

    Obama’s intervention is also unprecendented. Ex-Presidents don’t immediately attack the policies and actions of new Presidents. This has never happened before, and that alone is another important signal.

    The media, of course, like Steve Bannon accurately described it, is functioning as the real opposition party to Trump, as if the election never happened and the result is still in doubt…. maybe it is. The problem for the left/liberals is that they risk totally alienating vast swathes of US public opinion by their extreme partisan rhetoric and actions. They have to act with consistancy if they aren’t going to be seen as cynical hypocrites, who remain silent when Democrats engage in outrageous and unlawful acts, including mass-murder, but viciously attack Republicans for the same or even far lesser ‘crimes against humanity.’ I think this may prove to be a grave tactical error for the left and cost them dearly, further alienating and detaching themselves from millions of people, who might agree with some of their economic policies, but are shocked by their double-standards and dreadful need to moralize and display their virtueousness in public in an almost ‘religous’ fashion.

    Like

  9. Mike Gilsenan says

    Just two short observations:

    On a post today from LBC, Richard Obrien named arguments like some if the one’s posited in this article as ‘whataboutary’. Specifically he interrogated the 6 month ban/delay enforced by Obama as untrue – explaining the process.

    Secondly and, perhaps, more importantly is the question of what is the intended end game of the article? It comes across as a dig at those appalled by Trumps actions and criticising them as, somehow, hypocritical and assuming Obama to be inherently good. This, I think, is counter- productive and continues to polarise. I wonder if, because Trumps actions are so blatant, that more people can clearly see the horror and a useful approach would be to acknowledge and encourage protest while educating people about the ‘extreme centre’ (Tariq Ali) that has bred such hatred?

    Like

      • Mike Gilsenan says

        Possibly, although I’m not sure about that since there appears to have been greater involvement in campaigns and protests coinciding with the Sanders campaign in the US and the Corbyn election here in the UK. That, however, is my own unsubstantiated suggestion rather than a numerical fact 🙂

        Like

  10. Entirely agree: “[w]hen it comes to foreign policy, there is no “less moral.” Or to frame it as Sartre once did: there are no good or bad colonists (i.e., imperialist oppressors); there are only colonists (or imperialist oppressors).

    The Trump administration is neither more nor less in all conceivable terms than what went before or will follow.

    After all, the selfsame ruling classes or coteries of unelected power elites rule, and though disagreements among them about “tactics” may on occasion be rife and sharp, their aim remains singular: the continued subjugation of as much of the world as is possible — politically, economically and, by implication, militarily.

    And so indeed, the ‘outrage’ on display is nothing but a show, a grand theatrical media production designed to maintain the blindness of the popular masses to their real predicament, to provide them yet again with officially sanctioned ceremonial occasions for deep emotional release, for cathartic and publicly proclaimed condemnations of everything worth damning, in order to soothingly settle them once again back into the collective, misdirected and demobilizing illusion that they live under “democratic” rule.

    Trump very much is as you put it, Kit, the president to hate, every bit as much as Obama had been not only once, but twice(!) the projection of all hopes fulfilled.

    At this point, it isn’t only an ‘elaborate experiment,’ but from the standpoint of the American oligarchy, a well-tried and proven prescription of establishment rule.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Excellent analysis! I particularly like, “Perhaps it’s all just an elaborate social experiment. It’s impossible to tell anymore.” That pretty much sums up how I feel. I can’t say for sure either, but I have a gut feeling that all this hullabaloo is an elaborate social experiment or part of a continuing psychological warfare divide and rule strategy.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Most Americans don’t realize that the ‘good ol’ USA commits a bunch of terrorist acts and has created some of the terrorist groups themselves as a direct result of the actions of a ‘mostly’ hidden agenda. And yes I’m an American but less proud of it on a daily basis. The lies repeated by the MSM and their ilk gets tiring and helped me along to a major depressive break last year as I learned about all the seedy stuff the US govt does. So much for that. What I see happening with the ‘new administration’ is more of the same ol’, same ol’ nonsense, with some steroids and a dose or two of meth tossed in. Maybe something will wake people up but it probably won’t be in my lifetime. Anyway continue to keep the pressure on politicians on both sides of the pond and try to hold them accountable.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. The reflex by some on the left to subtly defend Trump is…interesting. The hypocrisy of the shrieking media and various celebrities and politicos and their acolytes is mind-boggling, absolutely. The shameless self-righteousness of those who were prepared to follow Clinton into WW3 if necessary, and who gave Obama a free pass to murder, maim and pander to Wall Street for eight years knows no limits. And had their Queen come up with a “MuslimBan” they would be twisting themselves into pretzels defending it.

    Accepting these points does not mean one has to accept Trump as anything but a businessman turned politician who will likely plunder his nation for personal gain and inflict death and suffering on poor people who remain out of sight and of mind. Business as usual in other words.

    Trump’s value lies in inadvertently exposing the rotting and putrid core of empire. But he’s still an asshole and an authoritarian with a large and fragile ego. Stop making excuses for him and painting him as a reasonable guy.

    Maybe he’ll surprise everyone and turn out to be a peace loving man who only has the interests of his people at heart. If that turns out to be the case, credit where credit is due. But please don’t pretend this “ban” is anything but cheap, bottom of the barrel politics that panders to bigots and xenophobes and lets Trump supporters crow that, look he keeps his promises!

    (It’s silly to think this circus, which only serves to inconvenience thousands of people and gifts ISIS and AQ with new fodder for recruitment propaganda, is about fighting Islamic terrorism. The one country that promotes the violent and puritanical sect of Islam, Wahhabism, that inspires 100% of civilian slaughtering extremists is not included in the “ban”. Neither are any of its closest allies. Funnily enough its rivals and competitors are affected. Not that including SA would “protect” anybody from terrorists, but the fact that the ideological home of the terrorist organizations Trump is claiming to fight speaks for itself.)

    Liked by 3 people

    • You make some great points, but I think you may have misunderstood. I didn’t take it that the author was defending Trump at all, just trying to show that the new administration is not more evil than the last – they are all pretty much the same.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I have no problem with anything you said. Things were already bad, they say. Which doesn’t mean that you and I, and others who have issues with Trump don’t know that. 😉

      Like

    • Trump is a buffoon. But he is far less likely to start a world war than was Hillary Clinton, and even on his worst day he is no worse a barefaced liar than she. I’d say the American people came out of it with the best of a bad deal, considering the election featured the two most hated and polarizing candidates in American history.

      America – both its people and its political system – pretends to a sense of values which dictates that when a man (or woman) wins something fair and square, you keep your thoughts to yourself and put your shoulder to the wheel for the good of the country. That philosophy has gone completely out the window with Trump, and a certain element seems determined to throw itself about in hysterics regardless what kind of laughingstock it makes of the country in the process.

      Like

  14. I have no doubt that for the real ‘Gods of Money’ – the endgame is exactly the same – total dominion of the ultra-rich few over the many. In the rush to achieve that, they potentially manifested Armageddon – so now they may be taking the longer view. Same goal, a different timespan, and a more patient development of the strategic pieces on the Grand Chessboard.
    The ‘Muslim Ban’ may just be a stalling tactic; in the next 30 days Trump wants the Pentagon to come up with a plan to ‘defeat ISIS’ (he is either playing the ‘game’ or he hasn’t had the briefing yet that they are his proxies now.) Call me cynical, but that means regime change in seven countries – can you guess which ones?
    BTW – six of those countries were on Wes Clarks “seven countries in five years list.”
    For the new Commander in Chief – a cosmetically enhanced ongoing battleplan?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott Adams talks out of both sides of his mouth. I love Dilbert and even linked to his website on mine, until I read his apology for Donald Trump. Later, I discovered him saying things that he disagreed with elsewhere. – http://bit.ly/2jnRFsD

      Like

  15. Sounds like Kitt supports Trump on this one–without actually saying it. Kitt supports banning Muslims from said countries from entering the USA. How can anybody in their right mind defend this egregious ban? I guess if you’re a big fan of the ‘war on terror’ hysteria that’s been going on since 9-11, then you’ll like this Muslim ban. Contrary to what Kitty has typed up here, this ban on Muslims entering the USA is indeed a catastrophe if you’re a Muslim in the USA. In stark contrast here’s legendary Middle East journalist Robert Fisk-

    “There’s no getting round it. Call it Nazi, Fascist, racist, vicious, illiberal, immoral, cruel. More dangerously, what Trump has done is a wicked precedent. If you can stop them coming, you can chuck them out. If you can demand “extreme vetting” of Muslims from seven countries, you can also demand a “values test” for those Muslims who have already made it to the USA. Those on visas. Those with residency only. Those – if they are American citizens – with dual citizenship. Or full US citizens of Muslim origin. Or just Americans who are Muslims. Or Hispanics. Or Jews? Refugees one day. Citizens the next. Then refugees again.”

    Source:http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/30/trumps-wicked-precedent/

    To actually defend this Muslim ban is really fucking lame, and you might as well come out and say that you hate Muslims and want them banished from entering the USA. And yes–it is a catastrophic and racist ban.

    Like

    • Sadly you seem to have entirely missed the point of the article you are notionally “responding” to. Kit is not supporting the ban. He is trying to cut through the hysteria and point out that anyone who considers this to be a new low in US foreign policy has -to be polite – left the path of reason. A travel ban is not worse than mass murder. A travel ban is not worse than torture.

      A travel ban is not worse than the wholesale destruction of a nation’s infrastructure.

      Yet those clamouring over this ban were mostly silent over, or even approving of, these atrocities weren’t they.

      And about your style of expression — please try to calm down and moderate your language. You only destroy your credibility with such poorly-reasoned and frantic abuse. Most commenters here know how to be rational and civil even when they disagree. To claim an author says things he has not said and then use this falsehood as a platform to attack him is frankly trolling. We don’t feed trolls here.

      Liked by 2 people

      • pavlovscat7 says

        What no trolls….? not even pavlovscat ?…..Zorry.. Admin be right and kit be eloquent to all but the involuted. The informative article reminds me of all those times I’ve heard the genuine and disingenuous say, Is the media and hollywood a creator or a reflector of events and history? …An event horizon of both I would say;

        Like

      • You think I’ve ‘missed the point’? Well, I think you have more than quite missed the point. I wonder: do you ever actually read the mainstream media? Or you do you prefer to preach to your own little alt-right choir here which has gathered at this blog? It finally hit me the other day: this is a closet alt-right website for right wingers with extreme right opinions. I found it quite remarkable that you post flattering articles about Duterte, likening him to some ‘socialist hero’ with the Vltcheck articles–willfully turning a blind eye to his death squads. Or, another telling thing is how commenters at this site, like ‘Brian Harry Australia’ can openly state “the Holocaust never happened” and actually get thumbs ups!–more than thumbs downs! This tells me a lot about the type of folk that hang out at Off-Guardian. Not my kind of peeps. Sorry, but I think the Holocaust happened and I ain’t very fond of Adolf Hitler unlike Brian Harry Australia and obviously many others at this site. But back to this Kitt article: he is completely divorced from reality: just look at Google news: mass demonstrations at airports, the attorney general Sally Yates just refused to follow Trumps Muslim ban directive and fired straight away–these are extraordinary things happening right now. It IS a big deal, and Kitt is wrong and in denial of plainly these plainly evident facts. To argue the ban is a good thing as he does is ridiculous and wrong. To argue that this ban is no big deal stuff like this has happened before is to deliberately downplay what is in fact a very big deal: there have been like 1000 people who have been detained or blocked by U.S. customs and border protection, and green card holders are now banned from returning to the USA from trips abroad. Business people with tech companies cannot come back into the USA to their families and jobs. I think Kitt, and Off-Gs smug and judgemental admins, and many alt-right lurkers at this blog are too hung up on their hatred of Obama and Clinton to actually see the forest for the trees, i.e. how bad what Trump is doing to Muslims is. Leaving you to your alt-right choir preaching, best, Deschutes M.

        Like

        • johnschoneboom says

          The point you still seem to be missing is that this piece is in no way a defense of Trump. It’s an attack on hypocrisy. The main point — or so it seems to me — is where was all this outrage when we were outright bombing instead of (merely, in relative terms) banning? (Not that Trump isn’t doing or won’t do both, but the targets of outrage are instructive.) It points to a continuity in the premises, ergo a discontinuity in the reactions.

          As for the alt-right, you know, it’s disturbing to see them wherever they turn up, but these days searching for trustworthy news and analysis is making for some strange bedfellows. In some ways the whole left-right paradigm is outmoded as a useful filter. I don’t know what to call the new paradigm, as all terms like ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ and ‘post-truth’ and ‘bullshit’ are all impossible to establish definitively. But anti-tyranny can find support across the left-right spectrum. So can tyranny. Let’s be anti-tyranny.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Searching for truth in news and proper analysis of events doesn’t necessarily depend on the political allegiances and ideology of the source. The fact is that no-one is perfect and everyone should be considered a little bit suspect. We all have our prejudices and biases, our hopes and dreams but we also have to temper our beliefs with critical thinking and accept that if we’re to find truth, we must follow where evidence is leading us no matter how distasteful or jarring to our beliefs the path is.

          Nowhere in his post does Kit give his blessing to Trump’s EO. I find it really puzzling that Trump’s administration did not foresee that drafting the EO in such a way, linking it to previous legislation signed by Obama, could create problems and risk damaging diplomatic relationships. Someone who had a hand drawing up that EO or researching information for it was incompetent and should be removed before another such mistake is made.

          The real issue is that the MSM – which you urge us to read even though we came to Off-Guardian originally because we were fed up with the MSM – has chosen to hound the Trump administration over a law which, if it had been signed by Obama or Hillary Clinton as POTUS, would have been ignored by the same MSM or at most, buried somewhere after the business news and before the sports results. This is in itself tells us that the MSM is out to besmirch Trump whatever way it can with repeated lies, omissions and bullshitting, constantly misrepresenting and twisting news about what he actually does, and continuing to give a free pass to Obama and the Clintons. Why would the MSM persist in doing this in spite of falling sales and revenues?

          If you choose to continue believing in the MSM and decide not to question them by asking for evidence or proof that something happened the way they say it has, if you prefer to believe stereotypes about people because they have been repeated over and over by the MSM you trust and do not question, if you think you are right in doing this, then at least have the courtesy to show how wrong we are by debating us on the points and arguments we raise, show credible evidence from credible sources that your point of view is correct, and refrain from making accusations and slandering people you know nothing about.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Did Kit argue that the ban was a good idea?
          I don’t think he did. How did you manage to persuade yourself otherwise?
          As for the holocaust: sure, Jews died in Europe in the 1940s – but so too did Poles, Germans, Slavs – especially Russian Slavs in far greater numbers than Jews.
          I also think the collapsing Third Reich had far more to do with an increased numbers of deaths, as allied bombing made re-provisioning of labour camps much more difficult and it also caused the medical services in the camps to collapse, which – in a pre-antibiotics era – made the scale of casualties greater.
          deschutesmaple needs to question if her/his comments are not some sort of inner projection instead of being related to anything anyone else has written here?

          Like

          • Lupulco says

            @John
            As for the holocaust: sure, Jews died in Europe in the 1940s – but so too did Poles, Germans, Slavs – especially Russian Slavs in far greater numbers than Jews.

            The above is conveniently ignored by many. No I am not an holocaust denier.

            The second thing, instead of MSM always going on about the terrible Germans and what they did. [it was 70+ years ago] and still making the current generation of Germans responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

            Atrocities are committed by all sides. Israel included, but then again Israel is fighting to survive against an enemy that as only to get lucky once.

            Like

    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      Ummm… is it just a ban on Muslims from these countries? Are non-Moslems exempt? I ask because a large number of people in several of these countries are not Moslems but Christians and other variants. Does Trump’s ban exclude them? Can Christians and other non-Moslems from Syria, Iran, Somalia etc still enter the US freely?

      If the answer is no then it’s not a Moslem ban is it? It’s a statewide ban. And Islam is a religion not a race, so isn’t describing any of this as racist the worst kind of patronising and simplistic colonialist thinking?

      It’s just such a standard trick of the neoliberals to use faux outrage about imagined racism/sexism/genderism to cloud the issues and stampede opinion I think we need to be very clear about the details and fine points of what is really intended by this ban.

      Like

        • A most interesting read.
          One of the bases for exclusion was involvement in so-called “honor” killings.
          How can anyone argue with that?
          The Executive Order also introduced an annual cap of 50,000 refugees.
          Did anyone question if that figure was too high or too low?
          What was not mentioned was the word Muslim or any other religion-related word.
          As pointed out elsewhere, only Syria was specifically mentioned in the EO.
          As ever, there seem to be a lot of assumptions being made by Trump’s critics.
          What is lacking is intelligent analysis on the part of the critics of the ban.
          It is this kind of lazy and slovenly thinking that undermines Trump’s opponents.

          Like

  16. labrebisgalloise says

    I’m all for exposing the hypocrisy of the neo-cons and their MSM allies but the evidence points to terror attacks in Europe and the USA having been committed by Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghans, French, Belgians and British (amongst others). Trump’s executive order doesn’t do anything to deal with them (or the possibility that US agents had a hand in some of these “outrages”) and, like the Israeli separation wall, it doesn’t seem to be of any practical use. As for seemingly defending a government of reactionary millionaires, they can afford lawyers to do that for themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Sorry to see my earlier comment deleted. I will make it again and if it is deleted once again, I will be out of your hair once and for all so that you can continue in your pro-Kremlin, pro-Assad comfort zone. My comment: Kit is repeating the talking points of Trump’s spokespeople. All of them are referring to the seven countries Obama identified as if that legitimizes Islamophobia.

    Like

    • Your previous comment wasn’t deleted it is in the pending queue for some reason. Do you want us to publish it even though you’ve said it all again?

      Like

    • And it might be helpful if you could list (simply and without too much extra verbiage) what those “talking points” are and why they are invalid. If you believe these countries are indeed hotbeds of radical Islam terror does it not make sense to restrict travel? In what sense is such a ban different from those enforced by previous administrations?

      Of course OffG has never taken the view that the former statement is correct therefore, and, as the article says, we view the ban as essentially meaningless gesture-politics. I don’t think Trump’s spokespeople are saying that are they? 🙂

      Like

    • Frank Russell says

      Think about what is the point of even making your comment, Can you not see that with it you are representing the very essence of the hypocrisy exposed in the article?

      Like

    • U r quintessential zionist apologist . U would do us all favour and never rite on this site. Did u listen to REP Gubbard how she debunks all ur lies and exposes ur anglo-zionist conspiracy. SEVEN COUNTRIES IN 5 YEARS. GEN Wesley Clarke. WAR IS A RACKET GEN Smedley Butler. Greater Israel Project. Zionism is a racist fascist political ideal. Prove us wrong and u can’t.So go and be a repentant marxist.
      P.S Historical contextual reasoning might help ur arguments . 1916 Sykes -Picot /Balfour. Sir Rothschild and Disraeli PM in the 1880’s already eyeing the Palestinian lands with annexing it for the Zionist cause. Facts r facts and events surrounding the facts. USS Liberty. The 2006 war on southern Lebanon. Pax -aAmericana dropping a bomb 1 every hour. 3.8 billion dollars of my tax money subsidising the racist fascist zionist regime of the colony of anglo-zio0nist greed and deception.
      After 9/11 Pax -Americana virtually tore up article 51 of the UN statute which was written specifically to deal with aggressive military action of one country against another sovereign country.. Hence the US has been on a war footing ever since. Consider this that Obama was POTUS for eight years and for eight years the US has been aggressively bombing these seven countries . The Wolfowitz doctrine has been part and parcel of all US foreign policy doctrine since the Bush administration. When Obama in 2011 first initiated this similar ban as u have kindly noted KIT ,where were all the SJW fake leftist.
      Trump is an extension of the americana fascist swing. Since the Reagan and Thatcher years , the political,social and economic shifts have been to the right. The increased finacialisation of all facets of western economies, the austerity and erosion of the post ww2 social policies and the further erosion of the commons of all western citizens is only going to increase. Labelling Trump as such an evil corporatist just totally ignores all historical events since 1979. Facts r facts and events that have occurred truely reveal the whole change that is unfolding today. The western politicos have consistently shown how morally and intellectually bankrupt they have become. They constantly get away with it. IE: Al Qaeda blamed for 9/11 and 2001 and today Al-Nusra backed and managed by Pax -Americana is fighting for freedom justice and the american way. Total dystopia to actual facts and events present and past.
      Post Scritpum: The only dupes r we in the west cause Iranian’s Russians and Chinese definitely have the west’s number. I might also add Trump’s regime will allow the past crimes to be whitewashed and revised to make it look like what great liberal times we had but now we got TRUMP or LE PEN . IE we in the west still think that we won ww2 and this is what occurring now with Trump they will try to rewrite their past crimes and portray Trump as il Generalissimo when Reagan and Thatcher were the generalissimo par excellence . How many times did union reps go to the Whitehouse under Obama. How many times did unionist go the 10 Downing street under Cameron, Blair . How many times did unionist go to Ottawa parliament under the Tories or the Libs. How many POTUS have openly spoken against big pharma in public. .

      Like

  18. writerroddis says

    Too much false either/or here. With customary eloquence, Kit pinpoints the hypocrisy at play. However, even if we agree with the premise (as I do not) that violent Islamism is just “fear porn and stage managed terror” – as opposed to believing (as I do) that it is the all too real creation of western imperialist aggression with its violent and racist subordination of the aspirations of hundreds of millions in the middle east – the conclusion is still defective. Trump’s travel ban is neither practical nor logical, not least when, as many have pointed out, the list has such glaring omissions as Saudi Arabia.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The reality of the other special relationship with Saudi Arabia..cher-ching, now he’s President. Will he now withdraw support for the ‘rebels’ in Syria and upset his Saudi friends? We’ll wait and see. Certainly doesn’t look promising.

      Like

    • pavlovscat7 says

      I think it might be a “Claytons” Ban: ….The ban you have when you’re not having a ban.. Do you have that pernicious brew and its allegorical adaptation in the home of the land and the free of the brave?

      Like

  19. The usual fake outrage mob. Democrats who are suddenly concerned about Muslims when their candidate didn’t get elected. If Hillary had introduced these measures you wouldn’t have any demonstrations. That’s not an endorsement of Trump, just a reality.

    Until these frauds actually deal with the reality of US foreign policy regardless of who’s in the Whitehouse, instead of their cheerleading for their team colours, nothing will change.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Fake outrage, you say? Easy to say if you’re an armchair politico white person. On the other hand, it is actual outrage if you are actually a Muslim in the USA, who may be out of the country on a business trip for example. And you’re wrong: Clinton never would have introduced this ban–nope, you’re definitely not talking ‘reality’ dude.

      Like

      • I never said Clinton would have introduced the same. I said if she had you wouldn’t be getting these protests. That was my point.

        So all these protestors, or even a sizeable number, are related to Muslims trying to get into the country? I think not.

        No outrage to protest when Obama continues to murder Muslims abroad but going crazy like it’s the end of the world over a Visa ban?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Your Clinton example is a fail because she never would have done it in the first place. A bad way example to prove your argument that there are double standards. But why do they need to be related to Muslims to see the reason to demonstrate? You actually think only relatives of those banned from entering/reentering the country should be demonstrating against this ridiculous and anti-civil liberties ban? LOL! Thanks for the laughs, I feel sorry for you.

          Like

          • Thanks. I’m sure you feel better about yourself now. In fact you sound very much like the kind of smug protestor bleating without listening.

            Like

          • As with most of the ‘faux progressive’ protesters and outraged elected officials, mostly from the New Democrat? Clintonite side of the aisle, I find it rather stomach churning when Obama and Clinton sing in unison and talk about American values and civil liberties that Trump is allegedly stamping all over. For the record, the Patriot Act and all follow on anti-civil liberty legislation has been passed by either the Bush Junior Republicans or Obama-led Democrats – that the New Democrat’s had eight years to repeal the Patriot, but instead expanded on its main premise with subsequent legislation says it all. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless of what political banner you walk under and i for one won’t take lessons from Schumer, HRC or Obama – just go ask Manning, or is that my imagination too!

            Liked by 1 person

            • pavlovscat7 says

              The polemic here is the very thing the Writer of the article is noticing and drawing our attention to, in the big political theater…It is the very thing that sparks my comments ..be they poetic, esoteric, or just plain out there (you decide)..kits’ erudite or observational prose I can only confirm with my fools’ comments…”the fourth estate is an urger”. An urger is Oz argot for the arsehole that incites partys in contention by degrees…to get stuck in and go the knuckle. What do you folk call that person in USA…and do you think your press, media and politicians are lowdown sorry urgers as well??

              Like

        • pavlovscat7 says

          I just flashed on something from what you deposed there Sav….I always was gob-smacked at the presentation of “justice” re: Richard Nixon and Watergate. The media canvas behind the Watergate episode was one of, “see the system works..justice has prevailed”.. Whereas the US National conscience (or lack of it) regarding Vietnam, was somehow ameliorated by the impeachment of Nixon….over a pissant burglary of irrelevant bullshit? Can I ask you yanks that are au fait … Was that whole episode a construct and charade to those public- conscience, relativity ends?

          Like

      • pavlovscat7 says

        So deschutesmaple…Can we conclude that the House of Saud are favouring the House of Trump and not the House of Clinton in this episode of the epoch…and unfortunately the House of deschutesmaple can’t find allegiance in favourites?…. Who’d be in business eh?

        Like

    • Typical. The guy who wrote the article shaksvsha linked to is a Jerusalem Post contributor and an arch-Zionist. His intention was to justify Trump’s Islamophobia by saying that Obama was just as bad. I think that goes without saying but why would one aspire to be Trump’s spin doctor in the first place? If the litmus test for being lauded on this website is ties to the Kremlin, you are setting the bar pretty low.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You’re setting the bar pretty low for yourself in continuing to come here even though you should know by now what to expect.

        What was wrong with quoting from Seth Frantzman’s article (which SOTT.net reposted from his own “Terra Incognita” blog) anyway? He was not the only one to have pointed out that Trump’s executive order referred to legislation made earlier during Obama’s presidency. His ties to Israel are irrelevant to his argument. But it seems to be typical of you to try to shoot the messenger down when you are unable to debate or respond to the points Frantzman makes.

        Like

      • pavlovscat7 says

        If you keep looking at, and qualifying the players….You lose sight of the game and all of its contingencies:

        Like

  20. johnschoneboom says

    The overall point of this piece is a good one: that if you’ve accepted the rationale behind the bombing then you cannot dismiss the rationale behind the banning. It’s always worthwhile pointing out hypocrisy. But the piece goes somewhat overboard. First, unless I missed something, we haven’t bombed Iran in the past 12 months, so the assertion that the seven countries “have all been bombed” in the last year is wrong. Six out of seven ain’t bad, but we don’t do ourselves any favors by being loose with accuracy. It’s not a testament to careful critical thought.

    More importantly, I think it strains the limits of logic to equate a ban based on a physical, virulent contagion with a ban based on politics. It even strains logic to suggest that if you think terrorism is real then you’re obliged to think a total ban on Muslims from seven countries is a reasonable or effective safety measure. This particular ban can be criticized both for being over-broad (certain to affect mostly non-terrorists) and over-narrow (doesn’t include Saudi Arabia et al). Believing in terrorism as sold in the media does not require you to believe that this particular ban is “practical and logical.”

    So yes, there’s plenty of hypocrisy in the hysteria, but I feel that it doesn’t help matters to overstate the case and stretch the logic to the breaking point. Don’t get me wrong, I love a lot about the article, but I guess I’m a stickler for being as thoughtful and rigorous as possible with our arguments.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Glad to read to some critical thought about that.
      I think this article presents a false dichotomy.
      I don’t believe the fear porn about terror (I have been a 911 truth advocate for ten years), and I think that this ban is right to be pulled up as controvening international and constitutional laws. Aside from that I agree with john that it cannot even pretend to serve a purpose in ‘combatting terror’. I think that probably quite a few of the people protesting at JFK airport at least question the terror paradigm – the power of the liberal media on peoples’ minds can sometimes be overstated.
      I think that the hashtag has arisen partly as a reference to Trump’s previously stated intention to ‘ban all Muslims from entering the US’.
      I am woried about the evil intentions of the liberal media. I also think that the writing is pretty clearly written on the wall already as regards the Trump administration : it is an unfolding nightmare.

      Pheonix program anyone?
      https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1248-douglas-valentine-on-the-resurrection-of-the-phoenix-program/

      Like

      • Trump has been President for ten days. Let’s give him a little longer before deciding he’s a “nightmare”. After all he’s going t have to be pretty damn awful to be worse than the previous three or four incumbents. Maybe he will make that nightmare grade or maybe he won’t, but one thing is for sure some very powerful people want to create a lot of hysteria about him right now – so to that extent the more we scream and hand-wave the more we serve that murky agenda.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I agree. Every previous admin has continued with US regime change plans and the subsequent mass destruction. We see a child having their head slowly sliced off by the US ‘good guys’ and far from pricking the conscience of the MSM, the killers are defended for doing so, can Trump be any worse?

          Like

        • @Admin: sorry guys, it works the other way around – what you are seeing now is Trump – in the coming weeks and months you won’t know what is Trump and what is the agenda the Deep State have set for him.
          If his “I love you guys” CIA speech is an indication, he thinks the CIA are ‘restrained’ – god only knows what is to come when they are ‘unrestrained.’ Also, he hasn’t got a cabinet yet, god only knows what is to come when the billionaires come on-board.
          Does anyone really think that the real power brokers in America would let this man have sole and plenipotentiary charge of ‘their’ country for four minutes – let alone four years?

          Liked by 1 person

        • We have no choice about giving him a chance. As for nightmare, Yep, that would be my assessment. If he turns out to be less of a nightmare than we expected, then great. Ask Mexicans if they are sleeping well tonight, however.

          Maybe this article could have been finessed a little more. Yes, There’s a seemingly progressive, human rights motive for much that the fake Left does and says and, with the evolution of class warfare, along with outright aggression, to the point where the enemy has us unsure of whether he’s among us, as organization after organization (Democracy Now, The Intercept) turns out to be one the fakers, Regular people who are not geniuses or possess super computer processing power can be forgiven (and shouldn’t be chastised) for getting lost and being spooked.

          Does Trump believe that Saudi Arabia is innocent? (Okay, We can perhaps live with his temporary – which I didn’t know – ban.) If he left Saudi Arabia off of his list because he believes that it shouldn’t be on it, then that’s one thing. But I don’t believe that he does believe that Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with terrorism, as much as I think that he’s Homer Simpson with hair and an army. The army of Trump believers will be, I believe, far less questioning of the terror narrative that the White House and corporate owned media push. It’s just a fact that people generally believe what authorities tell them, although how that makes you a good leader when you react to people’s fears, based on propaganda, in such as way as to not expose their baselessness eludes me. Trump reminds me of Stephen Harper. Even Preston Manning, his former mentor, notes that words don’t mean anything to Harper. Same with Trump. Carrier played him, but that was him standing up to corporations. He’s either super stupid, or he lies like all politicians. And I don’t mean to imply that I have any doubt about his principles.

          I like Robert Parry’s take on this (http://bit.ly/2kHfqZp). Yes, I still visit sites that I consider to be fake progressive or have failed or fail in some respect. Consortium News fails by continuing to carry CIA asset, Graham Fuller’s, articles. I’m not the only visitor there who thinks so. I’m beginning to think that if I go extreme and cut out (reject and completely ignore) all of the fake progressive sites, then in a short period of time, I would be out of good sites to visit. As well, I have no doubt that many of the fake progressive sites carry worthwhile shows and information. The problem, of course, is that when push comes to shove, if you’re not as informed as you need to be, you can be suddenly turned in a terrible direction with material consequences, as Kit knows. Avaaz anyone? So then, Get informed and use your guides.

          I also did up a post about the nightmares Trump is causing, not for Mexican 1 percenters, but regular Mexicans. For sure, They’ve been living in a nightmare for a long time, courtesy of uncle Sam. – http://bit.ly/2kHfgBz

          Like

          • pavlovscat7 says

            Don’t panic patriots…If the Mexico/Us wall IS built, the loose and firm association of billionaires, squillionaires, and fools, will have already lobbied the Trumpmeister to install a little door in it to let the Mexican jockeys through….or am I making an arrogate claim here?

            Like

        • The words I actually used were ‘unfolding nightmare’ – there is some nuance there.
          Ten days have seen the appointment of a bunch of very regressive, corrupt and unhinged people to the highest offices of the US empire. It has seen military attacks on eight year old girls. It has seen sudden measures which are widely regarded to be unconstitutional and in controvention of international law. It looks to be setting out plans for an extreme form of militarism.
          As someone who spent most of Obama’s term trying to get ‘liberal’ friends and family members to cut through their emotional attachment to the brand of Obama, to the facts of what he has actually done, I understand the sentiment of ‘at least Trump is a change – at least it is wysiwyg’.
          There is a simple logic missing here though, which is that change is not always good. Learning about the worst excesses of the US deep state over the past century, I came to believe that their vision of an ‘end game’ is the destruction of the constitutional government and the instituting of totalitarian fascism in America.
          Trump is their man for this. He is the most corrupt and easily manipulated president for some, if not all, time. The populace are more divided than ever -lost in a propaganda maze- and all that Trump does is deliberately divisive.
          I agree with Binra’s writing below : once the highest authorities start to openly advocate xenophobic, racist, nationalistic sentiments then you are dead set on a course toward total war and chaos. Fear has a gravity of its own that tears appart the last vestiges of reason and drags us into a spiral which only destruction seems to bring to an end.

          The anti-establishment writers who (I think) are in denial of what is unfolding, who tell us to ‘give Trump a chance’ are understandably desperate for some alternative to the Neoliberal/ Neocon consensus. But the alternative can be worse. It is worse, much worse, and although the immediate threatening of Ruissia has subsided, I trust the opinion of Mark Ames on ‘The Empire Files’ – that six months from now……….’we probably don’t want to think about that’

          Like

          • I doubt anyone at OffG had illusions about Trump. At best he’s a loose cannon, an accidental president that has taken events off-scrpt for a while. At worst he is just another stage in the evolving agenda of chaos and insanity. The issue we have with the MSM coverage he receives is the grotesque and actually evil double standard that allows people o express more outrage over an immigration ban than mass slaughter and torture and to condemn in Trump actions they would have shrugged over or even applauded in Obama.

            Currently the entire Establishment is trying to encourage us to reject the electoral process, deny even the pretence of democracy and take to the streets. Thus currently (things may change) the greatest threat to democratic governance is not Trump but the anti-Trump alliance of very well-connected and influential people. We all know what these kind of color revolutions mean,who engineers then and who benefits. In the circumstances it makes much more sense to decline to become a part of this faux outrage movement. Because however bad Trump may be, a post-Trump coup government is not going to be better.

            Like

            • I agree with most of that last comment.
              However, I am ever conscious of falling into the trap of condemning anyone who is critical and deeply worried about Trump by assuming that they ‘shrugged or even applauded’ Obama’s state crimes against democracy and against humanity. Not all of them did.
              I am right behind the out-ing of liberal hypocrisy. I think that ‘Brand Obama’ was a cynical program to complete preparations for post constitutional governance in the US, through the setting of precedents. The naïve need to know what has happened the past 8 years.
              That though, is different from ‘shrugging’ (?) and saying that, At worst he [Trump] is just another stage in the evolving agenda of chaos and insanity, when ‘just another stage’ could well mean the ‘one big one’.
              Maybe string pullers have gotten people like us to believe that Trump really was the best option to avoid Hillary’s WWIII scenario, that he really is ‘anti-establishment’. Maybe that is bullshit? We know next to nothing. I already have rejected the ‘electoral process’ – it is utterly farcical:
              http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump
              I get the reticence about faux colour revolutions, but am conflicted in that at least there are now large sections of the population who are (all of a sudden) aware how bad things have got. Considering the appointments and Trump’s history and personality, I just cannot see this going anywhere good.
              How does someone voice dissent?

              Like

              • I see, you think the current storm of protests against Trump isn’t a cynically orchestrated attempt to overturn the remaining shreds of democracy, but ordinary people suddenly realising how bad things have got. You think this isn’t a rent-a-crowd color revolution but a genuine if belated popular uprising against the evils of the Empire.

                Forgive me but – why would you think this? These protests aren’t about imperial wars, they aren’t calling for the troops to come home or for Gitmo to close. They’re calling for an end to Trump and only Trump. If it’s not a completely orchestrated event it’s the worst kind of meaningless pseudo “activism” designed to focus people’s energies and achieve nothing. The last thing any thinking person should do is lend it credence or support it.

                Liked by 1 person

                • I see, you think the current storm of protests against Trump isn’t a cynically orchestrated attempt to overturn the remaining shreds of democracy, but ordinary people suddenly realising how bad things have got.

                  I think that people have legitimate grievances, that they are right to be worried, that many (not all of them) are victims of a huge PR exercise called ‘Barak Obama’, that many (not all of them) are hypocrites for conveniently ignoring the imperial crimes of Democrat presidents, I think that the protests are being manipulated and amplified, but I do not think that the protests are ‘orchestrated’, I think that there are no ‘remaining shreds of democracy’.
                  I think that the US empire is declining into an openly fascist phase, that the era of pretence that society is lawful and just, is coming to an end. When the aspirations of society (no matter how previously deluded) change towards open hatred, racism, sexism and assertions of raw power, then uncontrollable dark forces are unleashed in the world.

                  Is that something to support, celebrate?

                  If not, then how to express a lack of support?

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Well at least we can tell the truth, no? For whatever reason the media and its masters are busy creating a towering falsehood that Trump is somehow uniquely evil and unconstitutional and must be uniquely resisted. We know the first two are false and we should say so. There’s nothing uniquely evil or unconstitutional in Trump. In fact – thus far – he’s done little to modify the Obama regime’s agenda and what he has done has not made anything more evil or more illegal.

                    Which brings us to the third issue – the media’s claims that he should be uniquely resisted. What is this about? Since when did the corporate media and its masters demand social resistance? Why are they trying to convince people that Trump represents some new and special form of evil above and beyond anything done by any other president? And when we go ahead and start believing this are we not doing their work for them?

                    At least wait until Trump dos something to initiate the sexist, racist hell we are told he wants. Because at this stage the worse danger of fascism seems to be springing from those demanding action against Trump’s alleged fascism.

                    And yes we do have the last shreds of democracy, in that the pretence of due process is still required. It’s not Trump threatening an end to that it’s Michael Moore and his fellow vigilantes screaming for more Obama.

                    How to express a lack of support? Well how about moderately, factually and with a sense of proportion?

                    Liked by 1 person

              • @ Mog and @ Admin,

                I find myself in agreement with both of you as the comments evolve and increasingly reveal and develop a more complete expression of your take(s) on the ‘protests.’

                I agree with Mog that there are no ‘remaining shreds of democracy’ if there ever were any, and I also agree with Admin, that orchestrated or not, the protests are at best pointless because utterly impotent to effect any kind of positive outcome in the immediate circumstances, and at worst serve to further confound an already deeply confused American citizenry, i.e., that the Trump administration is somehow or other more reactionary than was Obama’s or any other possible comparison, be it past, present or future, and that therefore, in principle, the ruling institutions of America, being formally democratic, can be made to serve the interests of ordinary Americans if the only the right people could be elected to public office.

                The solution will not and cannot be found in any kind of “expression” of dissent to what is and has always been since the inception of the United States an abhorrent system of exploitation and oppression. Rather, if a solution is ever to be found, it will have to arise on the basis of a) a collective understanding of the ways in which Americans are being manipulated and exploited and b) a broad based political organization intent upon the capture and dismantling of the institutions in which the power to oppress and exploit is currently vested.

                For the time being, activism seems to be synonymous with ‘protest,’ or if you will, with the ‘theatrics’ or ‘spectacle’ of dissent. In reality, however, there are more effective kinds of actions but which are as yet not being exploited by would be revolutionaries. It’s called ‘organizing,’ not for the purpose of launching public displays of mass reprobations, but in order to create real institutions integrating and coordinating the talents of many to specific ends.

                People need to come together. For a purpose. In the meantime, that message needs to be ‘put out there.’ In the meantime, people need to stop feeling desperate about the need to ‘act,’ and instead focus on learning about how the ‘system’ operates and teaching others about what they know about how the ‘system’ operates. You can’t ‘hack’ a machine that you don’t understand. If you are looking for the best way to “in-form” your dissent, to give “expression” to it, this to my mind is the direction in which you need to be trying to go . . .

                Like

                • Catte says

                  @Norman – Your last para is a perfect summary of my own beliefs. Informing oneself and others is the most effective thing one can do,

                  Liked by 1 person

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  RE Trump and the street/media protests Admin..You asked a question: What is this about? I think it might be about the exponent-driven, chain of psychological denial in the unique american conscience and self evaluation. There was G.W.Bush..fit for purpose of 9/11 and PANAC. but, with that periods’ post hoc, growing sense of guilt and shame for said american conscience..A shame that could not be allowed to extrapolate to a real change to the status quo..So obama was positioned as a conscience atonement, take two african american asprins and lie down and your conscience will be alright in the morning…But the migraine even with obama kept coming back and heaven forbid; So was the self examination of american’ goodness under god….bloody hell!..WHAT TO DO? …. Sir! Sir! I know….Trump!…OF COURSE!…divide and rule. An oldie but a goodie:

                  Like

                • I am glad that Off-Guardian and others are committed to some genuine effort in forming political opinion through factual analysis and the exposing of lies. Context is something else though.

                  I think it is hard to understand what is taking place.
                  Personally I am convinced that the main driver of what seems to be turning (even if you are convinced that this only amounts to media attitudes towards POTUS), is that the economy will not grow anymore during my lifetime. We are in a period of slowing, contraction, and eventual implosion.
                  I am not alone in viewing Trump, Brexit and the emergence of a new nationalism in this context. The ‘establishment’ for the most part is no different from the vast majority of the populace in that they are devotees of the religion of progress. They only think in terms of ‘growth’.
                  However, high, sustained economic growth is no longer going to happen (unless someone discovers a remarkable set of solutions to our problems), and so the whole edifice of Neoliberal, global power will fall to bits. What will replace it will most likely be smaller and smaller units of collective identity, and a resurgent nationalism is the first step in this process. The Neoliberal order was a product of the oil age, and that is coming to an end.
                  So it is no wonder that the media (tied into the globalist corporate structures) is rebelling against this trend.
                  My point is that we (as much as anyone) can be cornered in our thinking because we have spent the past decade or so pushing for some acknowledgement of the reality of US imperial capitalism and the propaganda system that supports it.
                  I stand by my assessment that Trump is a significant change, and not a good one. What the world desperately needs is international co-operation, and a massive redistribution of wealth and power. Trump will move in the opposite direction.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • I agree largely with everything you have written.
                    What the proponents of growth fail to understand is that the way in which they measure it – as a percentage of a previous figure (usually monthly comparisons with a year previous) – means that the actual percentage growth rate must inevitably decline.
                    It is all very well boosting growth in a small undeveloped economy but once an economy has matured, it becomes increasingly difficult and eventually impossible to maintain the apparent growth rates that were achieved in earlier times.
                    Adding 10 per cent to a baseline economy of 100 is far easier to achieve than 10 per cent of 1,000 or 10,000.
                    In Britain and a number of other countries, productivity levels – which can add to growth – have flat-lined.
                    With more and more societal resources going to fewer and fewer people, there is no longer the wealth available to invest in new forms of production, distribution and consumption.
                    Where new modes do arise – such as the gig economy and associated pseudo-employment – they create only marginal amounts of wealth for the few and not for the many, thereby further depressing real demand.
                    Instead of fixating on growth, people need to think much more clearly about wealth and happiness.
                    Wealth is not solely about material wealth but has to be about cultural and psychological wealth as well.
                    You don’t have to be rich to be physically, materially, culturally and psychologically wealthy and healthy.

                    Like

            • Exactly the whole charade and reporting with all events that have occurred only deflects from the real issues to be explored. Its been well over 25 years that western democracies have ignored speaking about real pertinent issues to the average person. The Globalisation and identity politics was an intentional format to divert the regular person from debating issues that matter to most of us. Health welfare education , employment, future prospects for the our kids and their kids. All diversions to avoid the real issues. MSM r missing out on policies and issues of substance. Much to their demise and the rest of the establishment class. This will continue for the next four years . They r already talking of impeachment and only 10 days out . Hell can’t wait tíll his first 100 days r over we will have a civil war on our hands with SJW the western takfiris waging a proxy war for the 1 percent.

              Like

      • Are they a liberal media or a captured channel of corporate transhuman agenda?
        Narrative control is all about presentation and association.

        Breaking a false identity and allegiance is different from breaking a true sense of connection and worth. The triggering of fears in the so called liberal mindset is not something that can be gradually adjusted to – like boiling frogs by bringing water to boil slowly. It IS shocking.

        Is this part of a power play as in blitzkrieg tactics – or is it opening freedom to move within a narrative bubble that HAS to burst for the patient to have an opportunity of recovery?

        Hate is a hateful energetic – unless wielding it in blind self righteousness. But banning hate or eradicating it by criminalizing and mob-vilification of it – is merely overlaying a veneer of pretend liberalism over the very same hate. This sort of ploy is commonly asserted as part of the dark arts of deceit and needs to be broken out from the spell of.

        Getting in touch with real fears is very different from reacting to a matrix of conditioned fear-displacement. Fear is a transformative force or it is used to shut down and deny the change that is part of Life in exchange for ‘command and control’.

        As I see it the media ‘channel’ is operating a mindfck program – either because the war on consciousness is determined that none shall be allowed to interfere with its ‘power’ of broad spectrum dominance – or because the mindfcked can only behave insanely. Or of course both.

        Hope of change is not wrong because change is the only guarantee – but investing in idols is like backing a horse. It generates all the torsions of emotional involvement in place of reading the whole as it unfolds.

        I feel there are good points in the article without having to need to exonerate Trump’s actions.
        I am watching out for Robert Kennedy Jr – and the exposure of pharma. The genocide via pharma and other toxic exposures is not much accounted within political debate – but mind control operates through trojan pathways of power and protection while attention is diverted to tribal loyalties or identity politics.

        But is social mind control an active force or a susceptibility resulting from passive acceptance of a dominant narrative assertion?

        Like

    • pavlovscat7 says

      And entry bans do have a practical effect.. in that all the displaced civilians caused by the ‘terrorists’ that are created and facilitated by the military- industrial- corporate- complex, can be said, (but mostly implied subliminally) to be banned. Because they might be terrorists. That way your portfolio and the bottom line of your capital account can be as clear as your conscience?….. And these things, goodly- hearted shareholders, are just a few of the sins that INRI has keept off your charge sheet by volunteering for a damn good belting and a deserved nailing up. GEE’Z love cults, don’t you?

      Like

  21. The liberals & MSM are still in shock Trump is POTUS, and demonstrating over everything he does (hand holding with T May) causing an outpouring of dismay, too.
    MSM is out to ruin Trump, no matter what he does, it’s gone way beyond politics, and is guiding the hysterical liberals into unhearing, unreasonable, foot stomping banshee’s and orges.
    The desparate measures used by once unbaised, reliable news organisations (BBC, CNN ect) are examples that they are scared by the changing opinions of Joe Public but obviously can’t attack this populism uprising with such verve as that metered out to Trump, Farage, UKIP, Wilders etc.
    One reason for the verhmence is the massive change these MSM will face; leaving the EU will probably mean the BBC will be sold off. And Trump is anit-globalist, and anti-fake news, the latter is justified.
    So the banning of terror suspects issue is just another bone to the rabid dogs; MSM are going to run with the story with all their bitter might.

    Like

    • Hi Debs, I agree with much of what you say, but I have to take issue with your assertion that BBC and CNN were reliable and unbiased. Sure, they used to appear a lot more professional and a lot less hysterical, but CNN was pushing an agenda from day one.
      As for Trump being anti fake news what exactly is an “alternative fact”? Trump has his own fake news, he just objects to fake news that is critical of him. In fact, he objects to anything critical of him.
      I had slender, no, anorexic, hopes that he would be an adequate president until his inauguration speech when he blamed the loss of jobs on China and Mexico. China and Mexico did not force US companies to move away.

      Like

  22. Edwin Vieira, Jr. says

    Forget the “seven countries”…the President has the statutory authority, based on Congress unlimited constitutional authority, to ban ALL immigration at any time for as long as he considers it in the national interest. See Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182(f). It is surprising, and disappointing, that Trump’s executive order seems to rely only on the lesser authority in Title 8, U.S.C., Section 1187(a)(12).

    Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s