1. Resort to anecdotal evidence which, of course, opens the whole fact-finding process to distortion.
2. Resort to name-calling i.e. "xenophobic," "far right," "neo-Nazi" etc. which are replete with in this article.
3. Exaggeration.
These and many more demagogic techniques are deployed to establish a predicate for the government to control expression of opinion, the very thing our First Amendment is designed to prevent. Time and again the authors complain of the ineffectual measures, or complete absence of measures, taken by the government to interdict and even criminalize free speech. Note how threats of physical violence are neatly conflated with arguments against open borders.
What you describe is what Jonah Goldberg has called , “Liberal Fascism.”
The history of it is well revealed here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
And we will have to fight them and destroy them.
From the article:
“It’s hard to get through to people who have been consumed with a hysterical degree of hatred.”
The author assumes his position is correct. It’s hard to get people to agree with changing the demographics and culture of their country when they wish to have their own children and culture continue to predominate in their own country.
How unreasonable.
Nathan, your three points are correct, but their is at least one additional: tell ONLY one side of the story.
Nothing at all about Theo Van Gogh and others who suffered from the hate of Islam and the left.
Oldplayer
You are absolutely correct.