Monday, June 23, 2014

Particle Physics in the Counter-Jihad










The asymptotic tendency within the A.I.M. (the Anti-Islam Movement) expresses itself in formulations by which the holistic position is diluted or minimized, often in the slightest ways that may be barely noticeable without the use of a high-powered microscope.

The asymptotic person is incapable of simply condemning Islam and all Muslims. He must inject various words (or even one word will suffice; or at times a mere "-ism" tacked onto the end of Islam) in order to qualify the holistic position that may seem, apparently, too radical and extreme for his ethically sensitive taste.

An example for our exhibit:

I ... believe ... that no believing Muslims should be in the United States, period.

Sounds like a tough and no-nonsense statement, eh? Can anyone spot the sub-atomic particle in that quote by which the holistic position becomes watered down, and by which the supposedly no-nonsense toughness being expressed becomes incoherent?

Yep -- it's the adjective "believing" in the phrase "believing Muslims".

Why does Lawrence Auster (the author of that quote) feel the necessity (which I have elsewhere called the "asymptotic twitch") to inject that word there? If I knew that he was using that phrase synecdochally to refer to all Muslims, I'd be less concerned; but I doubt he is.

Does Auster believe, in any event, that come the day we begin taking rational measures to protect our societies from Muslims, we will be able to tell the difference between a believing Muslim and a non-believing Muslim?

On what basis can we possibly make that distinction for our practical purposes of protecting our societies? On the basis of superficial indicators -- such as Western clothing, perhaps; or seemingly Western habits, like music appreciation, having a wife who does not wear a veil, having your kids playing baseball in Little League in some all-American town (as the Muslim-American software engineer "Mike" Nawash, before he felt the call of Jihad and went off to kill Americans in Afghanistan, had)...?

Or does Auster know about some top secret device the Pentagon is developing, by which we will be able to read minds and know what any given Muslim really "believes"...?

Auster in an email to me once objected to my holistic formulation as being too "totalistic" for his sensitive taste and ethics.

Apparently, I must repeat myself every few months on this: My holistic position is not an ontological position; it is a pragmatic position. I.e., I am not saying "All Muslims are in fact dangerous". What I am saying is that:

"Because we cannot tell the difference between the Muslims who are dangerous from the ones who probably are not dangerous, we must pragmatically treat them all as dangerous, and base our policy accordingly."

Contrary to the anxious wishes of our various asymptotic analysts in the A.I.M., the escalating, metastasizing behavior of Muslims over the following decades will force the issue: Eventually, the West will have no choice but to treat all Muslims with reasonable prejudice as deadly.

Not all dangers warrant a reasonable prejudice that expands the problem into a sweeping totalism. Various factors and features of the problem of Islam, however, when put together, do.

The longer the West waits to come to this rational realization, the costlier, the messier, and the bloodier (on both sides) will be the eventual result. Meanwhile, our asymptotic analysts in the A.I.M. -- by helping in various ways to put the brakes on the holistic meme -- may be serving to enable the Western retardation, which as yet shows few signs of coming up to speed to deal adequately with the problem.

9 comments:

Egghead said...

"My holistic position is not an ontological position; it is a pragmatic position. I.e., I am not saying 'All Muslims are in fact dangerous'."

For me, it IS an ontological position. Islam is a criminal enterprise where each Muslim is either an active criminal or the beneficiary of another Muslim's criminality - at the direct dire expense of non-Muslims.

Muslims MUST repudiate the evil of Islam. Muslims should never self-identify as Muslims - but should ONLY as self-identify as former Muslims - and be ready and willing to give the many reasons for that repudiation - including a 100% repudiation of Mohammed and all evil that he represents.

Christian Europe understood that it is Christians versus Muslims and strictly forbade Islam and Muslims in Europe until the very recent past.

Muslim countries did - and do - understand the existential threat that Christianity and Christians pose to Islam and Muslims - and thus still forbid and persecute Christianity and Christians where possible in Muslim countries.

Hesperado said...

Well, being criminal doesn't necessarily mean you are dangerous in the systemic sense Islam stands for. Anyway, it's kind of semantic, since my main point is that because we don't know which Muslims are dangerous (even given the possibility that some are not), it doesn't matter: they are all equally dangerous in pragmatic terms.

Egghead said...

"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29

Egghead said...

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Egghead said...

"In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

"Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution."

"The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the 'notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority'.[citation needed] 'Sedition complements treason and martial law: while treason controls primarily the privileged, ecclesiastical opponents, priests, and Jesuits, as well as certain commoners; and martial law frightens commoners, sedition frightens intellectuals.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

Egghead said...

"Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) is a crime under United States law. It is stated as follows:
'If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.'

"For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not be actually attempted. According to Andres Torres and Jose E. Velazquez, the accusation of seditious conspiracy is of political nature and was used almost exclusively against Puerto Rican independentistas in the twentieth century.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy

Egghead said...

The West really CAN use civilian courts to charge and convict and then imprison and deport Muslim terrorists (due to their mere self-identification as Muslims) with criminal conspiracy, treason, sedition, and seditious conspiracy under existing laws IF the West examines the words and deeds of Mohammed and Mohammed's exhortations to ALL Muslims to replicate his words and deeds in the attempt to violently conquer ALL non-Muslims.

Muslims MUST repudiate Islam and the evil criminality of Mohammed.

Hesperado said...

Thanks for all those links, Egghead. I agree that Islam is a conspiracy to overthrow not only America, but all governments in order to establish Islam as supreme on Earth. As such, any Muslim is ipso facto a traitor/seditionist. The next step would be to recognize that, given Islam, a Muslim cannot be a citizen, but can only feign citizenship, and that all the Muslim citizens any Western polity has must be -- not redefined, but correctly defined as what they already are, citizens (in effect) of another entity whose citizenship requirements necessitate an essential incompatibility and contradiction with citizenship in any non-Islamic entity.

Egghead said...

Thanks, Hesperado. I agree with your last comment.

Please note that Obama's top Muslim advisers continue to tell the press that the USA is an Islamic country.

These Muslims are attempting to set the precedent that American Muslims believe the the USA is already in the ummah.

As Mohammed indicated to Aisha, silence is consent.