So we have this video going around at the moment that is being shared in a frenzied attempt to justify president Trump’s ban on some countries with terrorists while ignoring Saudi Arabia completely.
Should I go on?
OK.
Milo Yiannopoulos, the charming gay man with the anti-feminist-hypocrisy sentiment (don’t alway’s disagree there) and crusader against white guilt, shared this on his facebook page, presumably to educate people about the real threat that Islam poses to the western way of life:
Milo seems to use some questionable material to promote his opinions.
Ignoring the original video’s nauseatingly see-through national anthem closing (designed to appeal to frenzied gun touting ‘dukes of hazard patriots’) and the glorified soldier image (which Milo cropped out before he put his logo on it), this is a classical case of how opinion can be influenced when not put into proper context, searching for an emotional response that legitimises the acceptance of another short-sighted solution.
What on the surface looks to be logical common sense, on closer inspection reveals itself as specious communication combined with the omission of essential facts.
His overall premise is framed inside of a conversation he has with local Iraqi men. He states ‘We were having a discussion about the president’s executive order and the Iraqi’s had expressed their displeasure’. He then goes on to say he doesn’t want to get into policy (because that’s of little significance apparently) but rather, wants to make a comment on a discussion he had with ‘these Iraqi men’ (once they all stopped screaming and yelling) in which he asked them a simple question.
The conversation went along these lines (paraphrasing):
The marine asks:
As an American, if I went out into town, would I be welcome?
The men answer:
You absolutely would not be welcome.
The marine then says:
If I go out into the local populace in Iraq today, what would happen to me?….
The men answer:
The locals would have you killed, tortured and beheaded, then put on video as an example.
This is the basis for the marine’s and Milo’s justification of the Trump immigration ban. The local populace would do this to us in their country, so why would we let them into our own country? Why would we be so naive as to think they wouldn’t do it to us at home? Such a simple argument.
There are a couple issues, however, with this guy’s little presentation.
1) His entire premise is based on an extreme generalisation
He said ‘and these guys aren’t al-Qaida or ISIS (when referring to those who would beat, torture and behead), they are the local populace‘.
So who are the local populace? Does he mean everyone? Man, woman, child, toddler and newborn? Every single one of them? This is a huge statement backed by literally no evidence whatsoever except for this marine’s broadly generalised retelling of a conversation he had with an undisclosed amount of Iraqi men.
Who are these mysterious Iraqi men? We aren’t told. Were they really Iraqi citizens? Or were they from one of the myriad extremist tribes running in around in Iraq? Or were they the Iraqi government forces? He paints the entire Iraqi populace as extremists, ignoring that there isn’t really any Iraq left at all, in the wake of numerous warring tribes trying to seize power and enforce their own brand of oppression on the nation’s people.
2) He is a US Marine
Ahhhh, shouldn’t these people love him for all the peace and democracy he brought to their country? Ignoring the logical fallacy there, he is a US marine and not a US citizen and there is a difference.
The US Marines destroyed the Iraqi nation by following orders that were a lie (WMD). So maybe the people of Iraq are a little upset about US Marines since the lie has long since been exposed. Except, them being upset contradicts the fact that the marines and their new puppet government are still there (even when they said they were leaving) because apparently, the Iraqi government desperately wanted them to stay (to clean up the ISIS problem they created). You still with me?
The little disclaimer of ‘as an American’ in his initial statement frames the deception exquisitely. He then proceeds to paint the picture of a US citizen in the streets (presumably, anyone white walking around without a Hijab) getting grabbed, tortured and executed by all capable mothers, toddlers, children and men in close vicinity.
You know, if a baby was crawling away from his mother in Iraq and was accidentally white so therefore, blatantly American, he’d be butchered and ‘on the spit’ later for the community banquet of celebration.
This appears deceptive. I inconveniently found out that there are US citizens, that aren’t dead, living in Iraq right now.
3) The United States are supposed to be the leaders of the free democratic (lol) world.
Comparing the mentality of an utterly devastated country (coincidentally, mainly because of the US’s illegal invasion) to a first world democracy, is intellectually dishonest. It’s like comparing the actions of a 3-year-old, to a (supposedly) responsible adult. Asking a ‘civilised public’ to stoop down to the level of an ‘uncivilised public’ to defend themselves from that ‘uncivilised public’ seems to me, to be a contradiction. Especially when we have institutions like the NSA using incredible amounts of taxes, resources and private information to watch terrorists anyway. This is one of the advantages of being far superior to these ‘animals’ in the technology category. We don’t have to act like them.
4) This guy plays the game of ‘justifying the symptom’
As mentioned, reverting to a ‘dog in the manger’ protectionist reaction policy of ‘security’ that ultimately creates more division and alienation of everyday people, instead of addressing the problem that was ultimately self-created, is seemingly an attempt to cover up the real issue. This plays into the hands of the current neoliberal corporate takeover that we are fighting against and leads me to conclude that guys like Milo need to be examined closely. These guys take the heat off the real issues, fuelled by the hypocrisy of the left.
We need to be aware of partisan puppets posing as freedom fighters.
Division, can’t defeat elitist tyranny. Division, is the minorities’ number one advantage against the majority.
Pragmatism over progression is no longer an excuse.
Very well said. But I would avoid personal name calling myself as it lowers you to the level of the very people who use it as a tool to be divisive and promote themselves as demi-gods.