Learning to read: a new policy

I deleted yesterday’s post about Catholic charity and the Children’s Invasion of the southern US border because, for the second time this week, some idiot couldn’t bother reading closely enough to grasp who had written what.

The first time, a cretin attributed to me what Tom Kratman had not actually written. Tom expressed a sentiment, I articulated my surprise that his sentiment had not included a certain action, and from this the cretin somehow concluded that I was advocating the action. This was not true; for all that I think very poorly of progressives, I have never advocated crucifying them en masse. As it happens, I would never advocate crucifying anyone, for much the same reason that the Apostle Peter insisted upon being crucified upside down. I prefer to sentence progressives to living in the hellholes their policies have created, with no possibility of escaping them to Californicate other more sensibly governed communities.

The second time, a moron attributed to John C. Wright what I had written. I pointed out an absolutely undeniable fact: the US military would be perfectly justified in defending the borders of the nation by machine-gunning absolutely everyone attempting to invade. The estimated 235,000 illegal immigrants (which counts only those who are expected to be apprehended) considerably outnumber many invading armies of the past; the Immifada is three times bigger than the First Crusade, which was considered an “enormous” army by medieval standards. It is exactly the size of ARMIR, the Italian 8th Army that defeated the Soviets at Serafimovič before being targeted and destroyed in Operation Little Saturn by the 1st and 3rd Guards Armies.

It should be obvious that this is a military and historical and Constitutional perspective on the situation, not a theological or religious one, still less derived from the Catholic Catechism on charity.

As it happens, I do not advocate the machine-gunning of invasive immigrants, particularly not when they have been tacitly invited into invading by an exceedingly dishonest administration. I was merely pointing out that it is a legal and civilized option, and one, I will add, that would be preferred to surrendering and simply accepting the invasion as a prelude to eventual civil war and societal collapse. I favor the immediate humane and civilized repatriation of all the invading immigrants, just as I favor the humane and civilized repatriation of all post-1986 amnesty immigrants from all nations not preferred in the pre-1965 immigration regime. A commitment was made to the American people as part of the 1965 reforms, a commitment that was violated as egregiously as any ever made by politicians. Americans have a right, indeed, they have a responsibility, to hold their government to that commitment.

I don’t blame Mr. Wright in the slightest for not wishing to have his views twisted and misrepresented so completely. Whether that was done in ignorance and carelessness, or intentionally in a vicious attempt to slander him, I do not care at all. In the future, if you falsely attribute to one individual the views and statements or another, your error will be immediately noted. If you do not delete the statement of your own accord after the error has been pointed out to you, the comment will be spammed.

Look, it’s really not that hard. Simply read through the entire post, and preferably, the linked piece as well, before you think to leave a comment here. This is a terrible place to utilize the idiotic practice of skimming until offended, then blurting out your literally uninformed reaction to whatever you imagined you read. There are few things I despise more than comments that begin: “I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but….”

You haven’t? Then don’t write anything, don’t say anything, don’t even try to THINK anything, until you do. And before you decide to criticize anyone, take the time to ascertain that the individual you are criticizing actually wrote what you think they wrote.