Sunday, January 08, 2017

A reader's query

http://745433944.r.lightningbase-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/57-robinson-apfel.jpg

A reader posted a comment that was essentially a battery of tendentious attacks masquerading, in part, as rhetorical questions.  In the interest of reason and the perhaps perennial tendency of other readers not to fully inform themselves before forming opinions, I set the record straight by addressing this particular reader's points (an exercise much like painstakingly collecting buckshot fallen from the various targets it has missed).

You never answered the most pertinent question: how do you tell who is a moslem? 

I love it when someone begins with a claim impossible to verify.  I can say that, in fact, I have, on multiple occasions over the years (including in numerous essays right here on this blog), answered that "most pertinent question".  It's my word against his, I suppose; and when your interlocutor accuses you of "lying", it's time to shake the dust from your sandals and take your leave.  This reader's question is framed rhetorically, implying he thinks it's impossible to tell who is a Muslim.  If that were the case, then PEW polls, and news services, and the United Nations, and the CIA Factbook, etc., etc., would be unable to tell us how many Muslims currently reside, year by year, in various countries of the world, including France, Germany, England, the U.S., Canada, etc. etc.  So, when a question seems to be based on such elementary lapses, it's hard to take the questioner seriously.  I try to make it a practice not to answer questions that a reasonably intelligent person (unlike the questioner, apparently) could answer for themselves.

Tell us again how that is going to happen ? will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ ? or possibly, ‘brown skin’? 

Already, we see the telltale signs of lurking PC MC in this supposedly no-nonsense Counter-Jihadist (whom I suspect of being one "PRCS" who says he has been a U.S. Marine; only proving that even Marines can be infected by vestiges of PC MC).

What if they lie? 

Yes, that's a problem which law enforcement has never faced in the history of law enforcement!  Can I get an LOL...?

How do you know who the moslems are? What about the nominal moslems, who fear for their lives and are only seeking a way out of the mess? You're going to round up all 'brown-skinned', 'middle-eastern' looking people you see and drop them somewhere else?

At this point in his interrogation, this reader's style is quickly approaching the hyperventilating state of buttonholing his opponent (me), as though he had me up against a wall, and with his pudgy index finger, like Edward G. Robinson, jabbing at my chest as he asks each one of his specious, rhetorical questions.

Philip Jihadski and Angemon have already, on many occasions inquired as to, exactly, how you intend to go about his dream of Total Deportation. You never answered, nor have you ever given any, pragmatic instructions as to how to carry it out. 

In fact, I have addressed this, multiple times -- and addressing it has often included elucidating how the questions are specious and misguided.

Now here is the evil in what you desire:

Oh, this ought to be good...

In NAZI Germany, literally thousands of Jews (practicing, nominal, non-practicing ? whatever) were deported to places outside of Germany (mainly, Poland, at first), in an effort to create a JewFree Germany.

So now he launches into the argumentum ad Hitlerem fallacy.  There are so many things wrong with this.  For now, I only point out the most obvious:  In the 1920s and 30s (and escalating in the 40s) when Hitler's Nazis were targeting Jews, then rounding them up and putting them in labor & extermination camps, Jews hadn't done anything wrong (nor had they in the preceding decades going back to the 19th century and earlier).  Jews hadn't rammed planes into buildings in order to mass-murder.  Jews hadn't blown up various public trains; various random numbers of them hadn't gone around stabbing people in crowds; no Jews had assassinated any film-makers or the staff of any magazines or newspaper publishing houses; no Jews had rammed cars and trucks into people in order to mass-murder.  Jewish clergy hadn't been preaching fanatical hatred and sedition in various places of the world (including throughout the West), calling for the destruction of the non-believer.  Jews elsewhere in the world hadn't been massacring Christians in veritable attempts at ethnic cleansing if not genocide.

All of this has, in fact, been done by Muslims in our time.  That's the difference.  And the brief list I provided above is only the tip of the motherfucking iceberg of all the ghoulish, fanatically hateful, violent shit Muslims have been doing around the world as they undergo a global revival of Islam (and I haven't even included all the facets of the insidious Stealth Jihad, facilitating the invasion of the West, and enabled by the Useful Idiots who abound in the West, infected by the same PC MC which infects my questioner).  For this anonymous questioner (perhaps "PRCS") to overlook this crucial difference between the Jews Hitler targeted, and the Muslims of our time, demonstrates a shocking lapse in pragmatic thinking on his part.

Dr. Jackass seeks to create a Muslim Free United states, by deporting them all. Herein lies the rub: many, many of those “Jews” were not Jews, AT ALL! They were “ratted out” by neighbors who had personal beefs, or those who seek favor with the NAZIs by telling lies (much as Voegy does on these page) and condemning people to death.

Now he's insulting me like a child.

What happens, for example, if we deport a, say, 12 year-old girl (nominally moslem, but trying to escape the clutches of her famiy and Islam) by force, according to Dr. Voegy’s wild-eyed NAZIesque scheme?

Yes, wars have never, ever had tragic collateral damage.  How many 12-year-old girls were killed, or horribly injured, by the devastating mass-bombing campaigns the Allies waged against the Axis power nations?  PRCS and his friend PJ might as well ask the same question (reworded, of course) of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Gen. Patton.

That reader's interrogation quickly deteriorated past the point of no return:

Well, let me tell you what happens ? Donkey Boy then has the blood of that innocent girl on HIS hands!

Yes, he is no better than a NAZI, in this regard. He sees a moslem in every brown-skinned person, in every Middle Eastern-looking individual, etc.

His little scheme is incredibly dangerous and fraught with possibility of mistake.

Now, to conclude, I absolutely advocate the deportation of all moslems who can legally be deported. Other than that, I refuse to have Hitleresque blood on my hands. 


And here's the kicker: This reader is a part of the Jihad Watch commenting community, a solid part of the longtime veteran commenters there -- and as such, a representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. That's why I have, belatedly (I held on for dear life to hope all these years), become a pessimist with regard to the chances of the West to survive the protracted invasion of Mohammedans as they undergo their global revival of Islam and try to realize their dream of finally conquering "Rome" (i.e., the West). If those few who are waking up, those in the Counter-Jihad, tend to be this dense, what chance has the rest of the West to wake up in time?

9 comments:

Nobody said...

Hesparado, I'm not so pessimistic as far as the future goes. B'cos when there will be mass casualties after an attack, it becomes more and more likely that there will be vigilante counterattacks on Muslims. That's what happens when law enforcement (read government) refuses to do its job

I like Trump's Extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem Vetting plan. The original Muslim ban would have taken care of all foreign Muslims, but done nothing about others who hate the West. This plan would cover those anarchists as well.

Also note where majority opinion is. When Trump first announced his Muslim ban, within his party, 70% of Republicans agreed w/ him - even though his own support was just half that number. Overall, 45% of Americans agreed w/ him. Expect that number to only grow, as more people notice what Muzzies are up to.

I also agree w/ NUKEMECCA in the referenced thread who wrote that it's easy to tell a Muzzie from others, not by skin color or garb, but by talking to them. That's how the Israelis do it, and that's how Americans too can do it once they figure out the difference

MukeNecca said...

@Nobody

"I also agree w/ NUKEMECCA in the referenced thread"

It's, actually, MukeNecca :)

Hesperado said...

Thanks Nobody and Muke,

I agree that physiognomy and garb can help in identifying Muslims (but the Philip Jihadskis and Angemons of the Counter-Jihad would misconstrue that into a straw man of "physiognomy and garb by themselves can absolutely identify ALL Muslims" -- and then they'd go tilting after that straw man more zealously than Don Quixote after his windmills. Long ago I articulated in a couple of essays here how the identification of Muslim would obviously involve lots of different techniques, not just one. And it would likely be imperfect. But apparently the Jihadskis and Angemons of the Counter-Jihad reject everything that is not perfect (OCD much...?).

I disagree that vigilantism will solve the problem. Vigilantism is beset by problems, including a usually unavoidable mix of wrongheaded motivations, and their ensuing disorder. It is likely in fact to exacerbate the problem and play into the hands of the Mohammedan strategy, which is to increasingly wear us down and reduce us to zones of killing fields and civil unrest, shaking up the structure enough over time to then be more vulnerable to delivering actual military blows (rather than relatively small-scale paramilitary terror attacks).

I am less optimistic about Trump's vetting plan. His choices of Generals indicates he still thinks the problem is a Tiny Minority (perhaps a Slightly Less than Tiny Minority) of Extremists. Also, vetting is impossible because of taqiyya -- netting only the ones on whom one already has evidence (from a paper trail, from Internet accounts, from associations, etc.). To me, when a politician calls for "vetting" it's on a par with distinguishing "extremist" Muslims from Muslims in general. It's not a realistic response to the actual nature of the problem. Vetting is better than no vetting, I suppose; but only as a psychological step toward Total Suspicion of All Muslims. I still don't foresee that psychological progress will happen fast enough, and comprehensively enough in the West, to save the West.

Hesperado said...

some slight rewording:

"shaking up the structure enough over time to then be more vulnerable to delivering actual military blows (rather than relatively small-scale paramilitary terror attacks)."

should be:

"shaking up our social structures & infrastructure enough over time to then be more vulnerable to delivering actual military blows (in addition to continuing, relatively small-scale, but escalating paramilitary terror attacks)."

Anonymous said...

Donkey:

" Long ago I articulated in a couple of essays here how the identification of Muslim would obviously involve lots of different techniques, not just one. And it would likely be imperfect. But apparently the Jihadskis and Angemons of the Counter-Jihad reject everything that is not perfect (OCD much...?)."

___________________________________________________________________________________

1.) Donkey want a "Total Deportation" of Moslems from the US.
2.) Donkey is asked how he'll identify ALL Moslems, a predicate fundamental for a "Total Deportation" - because it's "Total Deportation", not "Partial Deportation".
3.) Donkey can't expain how he'll identify ALL Moslems.
4.) Donkey complains that JihadWatch comenters are OCD because Donkey can't explain how he wants to do what he set up to do - "Total Deportation".
5.) Donkey never explains how he'll frame his "Total Deportation" nonsense under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.



This is why I call him a Donkey - he never stops to think, just plows ahead, braying and kicking, thinking himself a race horse when he's just an ass - an ass banned out of almost every site on the CJ blogosphere.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, I knew that would get you up in arms. I really like this bit of nonsense:

"I love it when someone begins with a claim impossible to verify. I can say that, in fact, I have, on multiple occasions over the years (including in numerous essays right here on this blog), answered that "most pertinent question". It's my word against his, I suppose; and when your interlocutor accuses you of "lying", it's time to shake the dust from your sandals and take your leave."

__________________________________________________________________________________

"Impossible to verify", Donkey? "I have, on multiple occasions over the years, answered", Ass? Give me one example and I might begin to entertain your fantasy.


Now, Donkey Ass:

1.) Look at 50 people on the street in New York.

2.) Tell me who is a moslem.

3.) Tell me who is not a moslem.

4.) Tell me who is lying.

5.) Tell me who is not lying.

6.) Tell me who is dangerous.

7.) Tell me who is not dangerous.


The simple fact is that you cannot now, nor will you EVER be able to do these simple things.



More from Dr. Jackass, putting the cart in front of the Donkeys:

"Yes, that's a problem which law enforcement has never faced in the history of law enforcement! Can I get an LOL...?"
__________________________________________________________________________________

1.) Donkey gets asked how to tell who's a Moslem and who isn't because there's no way to enforce his "Total Deportation" fascist fantasy without it.
2.) Donkey replies with a Deus Ex Machina - "law enforcement".
3.) Law enforcement has no way to tell who's a Moslem and who isn't because law enforcement, like Dr. Jackass, can't read minds and tell who's lying and who isn't.
4.) Dr. Voegy, being the Donkey that he is, insists that somehow "Law enforcement" gets to decide who is a Moslem and who isn't - even though law enforcement is far from infallible, even on matters that require no mind-reading. Is law enforcement supposed to ship every single American citizen to Guantanamo and waterboard them until they're convinced enough they're not Moslems?

Here is how events would unfold in the Donkey's fascist state: someone - Dr. Voegy, the Ass - doesn't like somone else - me. All Dr. Ass has to do is go to "law enforcement" and denounce me as a Moslem. "Law enforcement" investigates me, finds nothing wrong but they can't prove I'm not a Moslem because that's exactly what a Moslem would do - she'd say she's not a Moslem and hide her religion because being discovered means gettiing parachuted without a parachute over Sudan, and it becomes Dr. Ass's word against mine. Now, in Dr. Donkey's fascist state, "law enforcement" must be "hard" on Moslems and err on the side of caution - so I get parachuted without a parachute from a plane over Sudan - all because the Jackass doesn't like me and "law enforcement" has no way to prove I'm not a Moslem.

Anonymous said...

Finally - and this is the evidence that the Jackass is a craven liar - he doesn't explain what laws need to be created to "deport" Moslems who happen to be American citizens. I brought it up - Dr. Voegy, the Donkey, cherry-picked it out:


Get one thing in your thick head, Bobby: we have this called the Constitution, which, in the case of moslems who are citizens of the USA, prevents us from “forcibly deporting” a moslem, simply because they are a moslem. Espousing this notion, which you have obviously done, and which – YES – shows that you ARE ignorant of our laws – leads to a very slippery slope. The question begs, “Who’s next – the Catholics, the Atheists, the Jews? What you are espousing, as I said very clearly, is the beginnings of a NAZIesque police state, where people (read: 12 year-old nominally moslem girls, who are seeking a way to get out of Islam and their honor-killing ways) are deported to their deaths, because we suddenly foregone all of our Constitutional protections. And yes – you ARE willingly ignorant of this.

Again, Donkey - within the constraints of the United States Constitution and U.S. law, how do you justify the expulsion/deportation of an American born citizen? You never answered that question, Donkey - you left it out on purpose. Why? Because you can't answer it - and you know it, you big phony.

Your accusations of "lying"? Projection - because, as any malignant narcissist knows (or, perhaps not, in your insane case) projection is necessary to keep the scam going - the scam being your "Total Deportation" which I completely debunked a few times over the last few days.


Donkey Turd for bonus points:

"I agree that physiognomy and garb can help in identifying Muslims"
_________________________________________________________________________________

The Donkey, being a Donkey and thus unable to walk back, expects Moslems to keep calling themselves Moslems, growing beards and wearing Moslem garbs when the punishment for doing so is "deportation".What happens when they stop doing so? Or maybe the Ass, being insane, thinks that PEW census tracks names and addresses. Dr. Donkey's "Total Deportation" - and he's stated many times it's "Total Deportation" or nothing - becomes far less than that - and the Donkey will beep braying on, never admitting a fault because he will never admit being wrong on this. Because the malignant narcissistic Donkey, being a beast of braying and burden but not of logic or reason, insists that anything other than "Total Deportation" is being "soft" on Moslems - but there's no such thing as "Total Deportation" as the beast of braying tells us - "it would likely be imperfect". "Total Deportation"? Not according to the Donkey.

Hesperado said...

Perhaps Anonymous hasn't gotten the message. Here it is: I will only respond to him if he stops doing two things:

1) insulting me

2) buttonholing me.

I don't say this here and now because I expect him to be able to manage his seething anger; only to express the principle of the matter. And even if he stopped doing the two things listed above, his attempts at argumentation would likely continue to be riddled with logical fallacies. Logical fallacies I find annoying and repellant; when one laces them, as Anonymous does, with belligerently abusive browbeating, I check out. So again: If Anonymous really wants me to respond, responsively to all his points & questions (something he never does, by the way), he has to stop #1 and #2.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Donkey:

"Perhaps Anonymous hasn't gotten the message. Here it is: I will only respond to him if he stops doing two things:

1) insulting me

2) buttonholing me.

I don't say this here and now because I expect him to be able to manage his seething anger; only to express the principle of the matter. And even if he stopped doing the two things listed above, his attempts at argumentation would likely continue to be riddled with logical fallacies. Logical fallacies I find annoying and repellant; when one laces them, as Anonymous does, with belligerently abusive browbeating, I check out. So again: If Anonymous really wants me to respond, responsively to all his points & questions (something he never does, by the way), he has to stop #1 and #2."
___________________________________________________________________________________

You first, jackass. Answer my questions - until then - you'll keep reaping what you sowed.