> The vagrants are literally shitting in the bushes
This is a simple failure of civics. If you have people somewhere, you provide them toilets or you get shit on the ground. Cities do it when festivals and street parties happen - but they don't do it when homeless poeple show up, and then they spin it as disgusting behaviour on the part of the people. Everybody shits. If you had no access to a toilet, or place to dispose of your shit, you would shit on the street or in the bushes too. Fixating on shit is also an attempt to rile up your disgust reaction, and link it to a group of people.
> Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants and homeless people taking over public spaces (as has happened in so many American cities)
A leading lie. American cities have problems with public homelessness because they have no social safety net, and an economy that drives up homelessness. Crackdowns, like my city has done, only spreads the problem out and makes providing services like toilets impossible. It wasn't as bad before not because it "wasn't tolerated" but because the economic conditions were less harsh in the postwar era.
> You have to act. You have to protect the sheep. Standing idly by while your livestock is devoured by predators or your neighborhood is taken over by migrants is a pathetic abdication of any functioning society's most basic duty to its citizens.
This is a straight up fascist mentality. Us vs them. Protect our weak from their strong. It leads VERY dark places. Ask yourself this - why are the wolves the migrants? Could you not just as easily frame them as the sheep in need of protecting? Have they not been abandoned and pushed out by society? Without a barn to sleep in, the sheep will wander where they aren't welcome - is that the sheep's fault, or the shepherd's?
I have no idea if you've traveled much, but this has not been my experience traveling throughout major cities in Europe.
There's often NOT public bathrooms ANYWHERE yet streets are much cleaner than somewhere like San Francisco, where there actually are some public bathrooms.
Essentially I feel the same way as him (I wouldn't write about it in the same menacing way, but I feel the same way). There are multiple catastrophic culture clashes going on across the western world. It's a real, serious, hysterical crisis. We need to address it as humanely as possible.
As long as the suggestions remain similar to things like "enable them to stop the disruption on their own", "forcefully but lawfully stop the behavior", or "move them", then I have a hard time not at least sympathizing, even if I don't agree with the letter of the suggestion. Until the suggestions escalate to "kill them" or "imprison them indefinitely or in cruel conditions", then I don't believe we have crossed the line into absolutely indefensible territory.
It's tempting to portray what he is saying as "kill them" (since that's the obvious analogy with wolves), but it's simply not the case in reality. He is using a dramatic analogy, but not suggesting genocide.
I also don't believe in rhetorical analogies. They are a distraction. I'm not interested in extrapolating the wolf analogy from his post, to your post, and beyond. It's dumb, frankly (not on your part - on his).