Sunday, August 21, 2011

Hesperado's Third Law


















I'm getting better at this -- better at making these "laws" more concise.

This one I've been saying for years, but it's an important part of the equation, of which these "laws" are crucial elements. Again, the pithy formulation is followed by an explanatory elaboration.

Here goes.


Hesperado's Third Law:

Given what we know about Islam, we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between the ostensibly harmless Muslims and the dangerous Muslims -- and therefore we must assume all Muslims are equally dangerous.

The explanatory elaboration would be:

Given what we know (or should know, by now) about Islam, we cannot discern, with an adequate margin of error, the difference between the putatively harmless Muslims (even granted that they exist in great numbers) and the actually or potentially dangerous Muslims -- and therefore, in order to protect our societies from the horrific consequences which the latter can cause us, we must treat all Muslims as equally dangerous.

(For my first two "laws", scroll immediately downward from here.)

(Note: Zenster in a comment on this "law" in its posting on the 1389 Counterjihad blog reminded me of the inadequacy of the formulation as I had it, where I had no "ostensibly" modifying the "harmless Muslims" -- so I inserted it here just now, as well as on the 1389 Counterjihad blog. Here, that nuance is adequately brought out in the "explanatory elaboration" which, for brevity's sake, I had not included in my version on the 1389 Counterjihad blog.)

4 comments:

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...

I raise you one:

HTL:

"Given what we know about Islam, we must consider all followers of Mohammed to be our existential enemies."

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Sagunto,

While I agree that Muslims desire to destroy our existence (through a combination of violence and subjugation based upon violence), I don't think Muslims threaten our existence -- because I don't believe they have a chance at succeeding at fulfilling their desire, given the astronomic superiority of the West vis-a-vis their abysmal inferiority.

What they are capable of, however -- merely in trying but failing to succeed -- is sufficiently dangerous to our societies for us to take serious measures to protect ourselves from them in the coming decades.

Sagunto said...

Of course I agree that for our very existence to be threatened the way they desire, Muslims would need a "deus ex machina" to escape their inferiority, inherent in Islam. More than once I've pointed out that, left to its own devices, Islam will self-destruct. It is both inferior and parasitical to the core and it needs a superior host to "prosper" and multiply. Exactly the way things are proceeding for some time now.

Obviously, I was referring to intent, without speculating about their chances. And by intent, enshrined in Islamic law, Muslims are our existential enemies.

What can one say about the dwindling existence of "infidels" in lands that used to be more "diverse", like the Christian/Greek/Jewish Middle-East or Turkey? The empires preceding the Mohammedan invasions might have entertained similar thoughts about superiority. While we are in agreement about the current situation, these historical examples show that one never should underestimate how fragile we are.

Take care,
Sag.