This [deciding what to think about the current Moslem invasion of Europe, following this successful model (**), and abetted by the rulers of Europe] would all be easier if the people who were pro-massive-immigration could all be sectioned off into particular areas of the country and forced to live among the migrants, while everyone else could have their enclaves to themselves.What an absolutely shitty thing to say!
What? Gentle Reader doesn't yet understand my point, especially considering that that's just the sort of thing I might say? Ah, well, let's back up a bit.
Back in October 2014, at Victor Reppert's blog, I dissected some assertions by someone using the handle 'Karl Grant', and concluding with:
... You know, Churl, it's too bad we can't make a deal with the Moslems (as if they honor their word, ha!) to chop you first.Now, the important thing to understand about 'Karl Grant' is that he's not just a leftist, but an apologist for all things Islamic, and especially of the current resurgence of the 1400-year-long Jihad against Christendom. He likes to lie about what is going on in the world today, and he likes to lie about those who seek to call others' attention to what is really happening.
It would be nice if the evil consequences of the advocacy of foolishly wicked policies could be reserved to the advocates. But that's not how the world works, and that's not how sin works -- sin always seeks to push the consequences off onto the innocent.
'Karl' didn't like any of my post, of course. And, being a good leftist ... and practitioner of taqiyyah ... he took no time at all to paint himself the victim of my final comment
So I say something you don''t like and you wish me bodily harm and death? I think your talk about "bloodthirsty, genocidal leftists" is simply projection of your own violent tendencies and fantasies.
Then, later in the thread, after some back and forth with a certain crudé minded indivdual, 'Karl' played the 'to quoque' card
And if we are going to talk about things we would rather point to in this conversation, I would rather point at the sentence where you condemned or criticized Ilion, who is also a self-proclaimed conservative, where he said he would love to hire people to chop me up because I voiced sympathy for a viewpoint he don't like as opposed to pointing at you getting worked up because you felt that I might have unfairly tarred some conservatives with my rhetorical brush. The problem is I am having trouble finding it.
To which the crudé minded individual replied:
Yeah, I think saying 'it's too bad we can't make a deal with the moslems to chop you first' was a shitty move on Ilion's part. I think he'd call it a joke when pressed, but it was a bad joke. Not a serious threat, but the conversation doesn't need that all the same. I criticize it thus.
Why would I call my comment a joke? I *mean* it! It is too bad that the evil consequences of open borders, and especially of open borders toward Moslems, can't be limited to the advocates of destroying the nation. But that's not how the world works.
Anyway, back to the first quoted post -- once again, by his own words, the crudé minded individual condemns himself.
(*) that's a pun, son, from the basic meaning of 'crud' as being 'shit'
(**) which model, by the by, is the one the Mexican government, with the collusion of the Democrats, has been using against the US for many decades