Saturday, August 20, 2011

Hesperado's Second Law

Following my first "law" (see my posting immediately below), I now unveil my second "law". One rule for such "laws" is that they be formulated as concisely as possible. I will do so, then follow up with an explanatory elaboration:

Hesperado's Second Law:

Any Muslim who defends Islam as non-violent and as harmonious with modern Western human rights is either a) lying, or b) seriously delusional. There is no third alternative.

The elaboration of the above "law" is as follows:

Given what anyone of elementary intelligence and responsible diligence knows (or should know, by now) about Islam -- its essential and massive evil contextualized by its paradigmatic militarism and expansionism against all others, all evident in the sayings and actions of its founder, Muhammad, along with the teachings of its core texts and tenets, its history, and the behavior and speech and writings of innumerable Muslims all around the world in our time following the aforementioned -- any Muslim who continues to defend Islam as good, supportive of modern human rights, non-militaristic and non-expansionist, either a) is trying to deceive us, or b) is seriously delusional. There is no third explanation for such a stance of defending Islam. The logical conclusion of this law is that, therefore, we cannot trust any given Muslim, no matter how sweet the nothings he or she whispers in our ear -- for any given Muslim will be either a stealth jihadist or, at best, mentally and emotionally deficient and unstable.

As for the non-Muslim PC MCs who continue to defend Islam, that is a more complex subject about which I have written at great length, and which will be the subject of a third "law" coming soon.


There is the special case of the non-Muslim Westerner who converts, as an adult, to Islam. Such converts are either Gnostic Leftists who hate the West, or are garden-variety PC MCs -- which (unfortunately) constitute probably the majoriy in the West. Most Western non-Muslim PC MCs, however, persist in their "intelligent stupidity" about this by virtue of the fact that they largely don't bother to research the subject, and simply follow the givens and axioms of the paradigm of PC MC without really thinking about them, or about the data concerning Islam and Muslims.

A Westerner who converts to Islam, on the other hand, doesn't have that excuse, for he is choosing a path by which he is ipso facto deepening and broadening his acquaintence with the data of Islam and Muslims. Nevertheless, initially, as long as he is not a West-hating Leftist, he may be given a "grace period", so to speak, during which we do not impute anything especially more damning of him than we do normally of any non-Muslim PC MCs. I.e., such converts may well have gravitated toward Islam by virtue of the variety of unremarkable assumptions about Islam which their own Western PC MC inculcates: it's a wonderful, "diverse", "interesting" and "uniquely spiritual" religious tradition -- just another "world religion" perfectly harmonious, of course, with the other two "Abrahamic faiths" (Judaism and Christitanity), with the added spice of a marvelous "tapestry" of ethnic "cultures" which, needless to say, must always -- on pain of being branded a "bigot" or a "racist" -- be admired and embraced and accepted and never criticized much less condemned for anything they inculcate.

After that "grace period" during which we do not especially blame the recent convert for his stupidity, however, his persistence in admiring and defending Islam becomes suspect, for the more one knows about Islam, the less will one wish to defend it -- if one is a good, decent person who supports modern human rights, that is. I don't know for sure where to situate this "Muslim Unicorn" (see my preceding essay, immediately below here); but all indications suggest that he (like the convert "Tom Haidon" -- again, cf. supra) has been a Muslim long enough, and has had the time and motivation to learn about Islam and Muslims long enough, to have long passed his "grace period".

Further Reading:

For further amplification,
see my previous essay on my first "law" (immediately below.


1389 said...

I am especially creeped out by those who convert to Islam so as to marry a Muslim.

Don't they have any common sense or any principles? Why did they let themselves get into that situation to begin with?

Zilla/MJ said...

@1389 so am I!

Nice work, Hesparado! 1389 brought me here, I'll add your blog to my blogroll!

Hesperado said...


Well, as I imply, they get into that situation due to normal PC MC. But as I also state, once they get into Islam as a convert and remain such for a certain period of time (I don't know what that "grace period" should be, but not long), they have no excuse any longer for not knowing that they must leave Islam immediately (unless they are in imminent danger of course).

There is also the possibility that some converts are actually double agents on our side (but that, of course, should not distract us).

Hesperado said...

Thanks Zilla, I appreciate it. I'll check out your blog too.

1389 said...

I answered your comment on the blog post about Kent Clizbe. I agree with everything you said.

I must say that this leaves us with another problem - where to get a sufficient number of reliable, competent, non-Muslim researchers who can "vet" and/or do "opposition research" on candidates for political office, for the specific purpose of weeding out dhimmis, Muslim sympathizers, actual Muslims, and even flagrant practicing jihadis.

I'm not looking for a general-purpose check on whether a candidate is good or bad in other respects. I'm looking for each candidate's record of words and deeds with regard to Islam, and more to the point, whether his cronies, relatives, business partners, candidate staffers and so forth have Muslim ties.

Trouble is, across the US, there are a heckuva lot of elections at the local and State levels, and there is no way on earth I could possibly research more than a handful of the candidates on my own.

Hesperado said...

By the way, Clizbe in his article about David Ramadan happens to mention another American politician who is supposed to be another "good guy" -- opposed to Hezbollah.

Only problem is his name. His last name is "Issa". It gives me a profound headache and indigestion to think we have American politicians named "Issa" now.

Here's Clizbe's paragraph about Congressman Issa:

Earlier this year, Congressman Darrell Issa (R, CA) introduced the Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act. The act ensures that no American aid to Lebanon will enter the hands of Hezbollah. Congressman Issa said, “Hezbollah is a terrorist group and a cancer on Lebanon. The Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act surgically targets this cancer and will strengthen the position of Lebanese who oppose Hezbollah.”

Perhaps Issa is a Middle Eastern Christian. Let's hope so.

If not, this raises an important point you raised on 1389 -- namely, that Clizbe is effectively using his credentials to vet "bad" Muslims in order to vet supposedly "good" ones. If Issa is Muslim, his opposition to Hezbollah may mask a deeper problem which will be harder to uncover if people relatively on our side think he's a Good Muslim.

Sagunto said...

I agree with Zilla, nice work! I liked the "First Law" topic, and I look forward to the upcoming third instalment in this series.
Now let's try and stir up some debate with a suggestion for a possible "Fourth Law of Hesperado":

"Within the rank and file of the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement, there are people pointing to the roof of our house being on fire, while also calling attention to the fundamentals (or rather: foundations) being eroded. As a matter of routine these people must be called "alienated doom-mongers".

Due to a more recent, post A.B.B.-extension of this law, it is now ok to depict these people as ideologically only marginally different from the Norwegian mass-murderer.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Hesperado said...


The error in the "alienated mood", as I see it, lies not in noticing the house on fire, nor in having the unremarkably good sense to want to take urgent action to stop it -- but rather in the a) culprits identified; and b) the motives, machinations and influence imputed to those culprits.