Since it's still #1 on the amazon bestseller list (one week later), I figured it would be appropriate to quote something that I think is relevant that I've seen in the general/social/media "debate" over the weekend. It also applies in a general sense wrt the genius of understanding and manipulating clowns.
1984 wrote:The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP. CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity... orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.
And later on ...
1984 wrote:[Winston] set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation.
But that book was written ~70 years ago ... whereas today one does not need to perform mental contortion oneself to engage in crimestop. The internet makes it easy to remain dumb and just google and share prefabricated memes or slogans that work just as well.
I think what we've seen over the weekend just confirms how much "crimestop"-mentality (clown) now dominates. Field research indicates that a majority can't even find the banned countries on a map much less know any background or why these countries are on this or that list. I bet most think visa refers to their credit card and that the Visa Waiver Program refers to how one can pay for groceries without having to enter a pin code.
List of crimestop arguments I noticed on social/media until my brain developed an acute case of hypoxia:
[This is an anti-muslim ban.] Sure all countries on the list are majority Muslim, and yes, Rudy Giuliani has admitted as much. That Trump made a statement about favoring Christians doesn't help. However, there are plenty of other majority Muslim countries that did not make it to the list. Of course in the simplistic clown-optic, many will see this as anti-Muslim and thus play into the terrorist recruitment narrative and possibly increase domestic terrorism which has always (except 9/11) been the biggest source factor of US terrorism. See below ...
[This is to protect us from terrorism.] Another meme list is circulating indicating that 1) Of the seven banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen), none of them has actually contributed to any terrorist-based killings (this is a fact, but see (*) below). 2) The ones that actually have caused deaths: 9/11 (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE), Boston Marathon (Russia), Charleston Church (US born citizen), Chattanooga (Kuwaiti-born US citizen), San Bernadino (US born citizen with Pakistani parents), Orlando (US born citizen, Afghani parents), Ft. Lauderdale (US) are NOT on the list ... and Trump has businesses in [many of] the latter ones.
If you look at the ban list ... you'll find countries that the US either has had an oppositional relationship with either for decades (going back to the cold war) because they sided with the Soviet Union (Sudan, Somalia) and/or because they were anti-Israel (Iran) or cheered for Iraq (Yemen) or they are countries that the US has recently droned, bombed, or otherwise tried to destabilize (Iraq, Libya, Syria) but over the past few years have a positive relationship with the government (but maybe not the people who were living in an anti-US country until recently.)
And if you look at the allied or terror-incident list ... you'll find countries that are either military dictatorships, absolute monarchies, or heading in that direction. The US has a rich history of being rather pragmatic in that regard. The enemy of our enemy is our friend regardless of how nice or above-the-board our expedient friend is.
How would I explain the difference?
- If your country is trying to overthrow an oppressive government in some other country and people flee in your direction, I think odds are good that the refugees are running your way because they like you. This explains why there haven't been any successful(*) terrorist attacks from countries on the banned list.
- If your country supports an oppressive government in some other country, it's not unsurprising that the people of that country aside from hating their own government will also start hating your government. This explains why all the terrorist attacks come from these countries.
So in effect ... this ban does nothing to protect us from terrorism. If the goal was to prevent terrorism, then on top of vetting any immigrants from the countries the US intervenes in ... also vet immigrants from countries the US supports that relate to various small wars or ongoing insurgency. And if you want to be really sure, look at domestic sources as well (see below).
Yes, Trump probably has businesses in countries that sourced terrorists, and you, yes you, probably do too if you own stock in transnational companies. Most of the countries from which people committed acts of terrorism are US allies. So it's an asinine argument that the terrorist-sourcing countries are not on the list because of Trump's personal business interests.
[Look at Europe and their problems with refugees. We don't want that in the US] Fair point ... but it just looks bad to officially go out and refuse to clean up the mess that one has generated over the past 2-50 years (Republican and Democrat administrations alike) in the interest of opposing the Soviets, helping Israel, or stabilizing the oil price.
What this actually is ... is a refugee ban. It's just, we can't call it that w/o looking like jerks to most humans. Taking at least some responsibility of the consequences of one's actions is a fairly universal human value. "If you break it, you buy it."
[But Obama created the list] Yes, but he didn't use it to ban/clobber immigrants or previously approved visa holders. There are two policies here. In 2011, the fingerprints of two Iraqis on SIV (from aiding the US military in Iraq) living in Bowling Green, KY were matched to finger prints found on IEDs. This caused a revision of the SIV(+) vetting policy which slowed it down but didn't stop it. In 2015, the list of seven was excluded from the Visa Waiver program. This means that instead of doing ESTA and filling out those papers in the airplane, these countries now had to obtain a normal visa first.
(+) That's just one particular visa program. As far as I know this just slowed the processing down. It did not affect green card holders, researchers, etc.
[So why aren't people outraged when Obama did it too] While Obama's order meant that people had to obtain a visa first, the Trump order outright canceled all visas retroactively. This meant that people with green cards, student, research, professional, etc. visas were suddenly prevented from entering the country. This caused a great spectacle in the airports. Obviously, if visas can be taken away while someone is on the plane, it's a risk both to the people living here and the companies and universities that employ these people. In terms of long-term damage to the US economy, people now have to decide whether it's worth it to go do research or take a specialist job in the US ... insofar you effectively could risk being prevented from coming back to your job, house, family, etc. if you go on a vacation, business trip, conference, etc. As a green card holder, even I consider this a risk now ... how can I be sure that a new order doesn't ban people for other reasons overnight (for writing a post like this, for example) at some point in the future.
[But it only affected 1% of travelers so who cares?] Obviously not anyone who has never left their home state and doesn't plan on it either for the far future. But I've seen articles both from the business and the research community on how to handle this new risk. Google recalled all their employees (don't leave the country). Everybody in the research community will likely know a co-worker who's affected. Here's the message this order sent to the entire international research community: If you come to the US to do research, it's in your best interest not to leave once you get in. Therefore, you can't go to the usual 2-6 conferences you normally be expected to attend annually; this in turn will probably sink your future career prospects, so maybe consider other options if you have them. Ditto specialist workers and students. These professionals are not oblivious; they're highly mobile; and they're able to connect enough dots to wonder if they're the next ones to get thrown under the bus and if their career risk is worth it.
(*)[But a couple of these countries did have terrorist immigrants] Fair point. But notice how they were all caught before they managed to do anything. The vetting process is already pretty extensive. Notice that actual terrorism is either from US allies or it's homegrown either inspired by social media+foreign policy actions (e.g. US born with family ties back to a state where the US is dropping bombs or allied with an oppressive government or simply based on religion) or it's in places where the government for some reason doesn't seem to look, e.g. white supremacists (Charleston) and anti-government (police assassinations); and that's not because these terrorists are particularly clever and refrain from bragging about their nefarious plans on social media. It's rather that the government doesn't run similar vetting for these homegrown terrorists.
However, good luck in trying to make this point with anyone who has mastered "crimestop" (see first quote) or its modern equivalent of "memeshare". I've generally given up in disgust/futility trying to engage with people who are in the habit or making their point with memes or overly simplified talking points. The geopolitical reality is completely out of whack with the ongoing partisan sportsball-inspired "debate". I feel like another Wheaton table is coming up. I'm wondering if anyone has any success stories in terms of unclowning any clowns?
I don't really care to debate any of the above points. What I'm more interested is is the almost complete lack of analysis anywhere. I wrote this post because I haven't seen a summary like I put together here ANYWHERE else. I find it fundamentally disturbing that the focus everywhere has moved from "lets analyze the why and the where of what's going on" to "look at the genius ways the clown demographic is strategically being manipulated". It's a sad thing to watch in a democracy.