a simple and cohesive explanation

My detractors claim that I -- Jeff Scott -- am a racist. Yet this cannot be
correct, since Islam is a multinational belief system, not confined to one
single race.

My detractors claim that I am mentally ill -- yet this cannot be case, since
I am merely citing documented facts.

My detractors claim that all my quoting is a lie, yet this cannot be true
because it's simple and easy to check my quotes and verify that they are in
fact a documented printed record of what is currently being written in the
mainstream Islamic press.

So all the claims of my opponents fall apart on examination. They make no
sense. They are completely self-contradictory -- I am insane yet I am so
cleverly clear-minded that I deceive people with my diabolically slanted
scholarship.

I'm a bigot but I'm not a bigot because I am discussing the belief system of
Islam, not any particular racial group.

I'm full of hate but I'm not full of hate because I merely cite documented
facts and ask what a sensible person concludes beyond a reasonable doubt
from the preponderenace of the evidence.

Against these incoherent and self-contradictory arguments, I have a simple
and elegant and irresistabilty powerful argument: people who urge the murder
of innocents for reasons of religious belief are morally bankrupt, and
people who tell repeated lies in public in a futile effort to defend such
morally bankrupt Islamic true believers are themselves morally bankrupt, and
the facts prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Murdering or calling for the
murder of innocent people is proof of moral bankruptcy. Telling repeated
lies in public is proof of moral bankruptcy.

Therefore the liars support Islamic murderers precisely because the liars
are morally bankrupt -- birds of a feather flock together.

This explains simply and clearly why the liars lie (because they have rotten
moral character) and it also explains why they try to defend people who call
for the murder of all unbelievers and the genocidal deaths of innocent women
and children and old men (because they have rotten moral character).

The liars defend Islamic murderers for the same reason that Tony Lo Bianco
defended his cousin's rape and murder of innocent women -- because they have
rotten moral character. They do not care about the difference between right
and wrong. They are, in a word, sociopaths with no concern for others and no
ability to empathize with other people and no concern for the consequences
of their actions.

A person who tells repeated lies in public engages in sociopathic behavior,
just as a person who urges the cold-blooded murder of innocent women and
children merely because they believe in a different religion also engages in
sociopathic behavior.

Is it any surprise that one sociopath defends another?

How could it be otherwise?

If one sociopath condemns another sociopath for his sociopathic behavior, it
opens the door for others to condemn him for his own sociopathic behavior,
does it not?

Therefore we would expect that people who do sociopathic things like tell
repeated lies in public would desperately try to defend Islamic clerics who
do sociopathic things like call for the death of all unbelievers -- for the
alternative would require that we examine and deplore the sociopathic
behavior of the liar, isn't that obvious? After all, once we begin
examining and deploring one kind of sociopathic behavior, who knows where it
will stop? And this poses a deadly danger for the sociopathic liar, does it
not?

- Jeff