(subtitled the sharia compliance theory) Two article caught my attention recently. I look at things differently, or I try too at least. For some unexplained reason, Newton's first law. Inertia and Mass State of Motion Balanced and Unbalanced Forces immediately sprung to my mind. ( I blame my habitual use of the "devil weed" for this strange occurrence)
Pakistan claims credit for cancellation of Dutch cartoon contest. Imran Khan's government claimed victory after far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders cancelled his provocative contest for people to draw cartoons of the Prophet after receiving 'death threats'
The second article is here
"The 19-year-old suspect is accused of stabbing the Americans in an unprovoked attack after he arrived at Amsterdam's Central Station on an international train. Prosecutors say he did not know the victims were U.S. citizens. Prosecutors say the suspect believes that Islam is 'insulted' in the Netherlands, and that drove him to travel to the Netherlands to carry out an attack. 'It is apparent from his statements that he believes that in the Netherlands, the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, Islam and Allah are repeatedly insulted,' prosecutors said in a statement Monday, noting that the young Afghan man specifically mentioned Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, who is well known for his fierce anti-Islam rhetoric".
(Islam is Arabic for submission, so in reality, Geert Wilders is anti-submission. But it will never be phrased like that. As that, in, and of itself, is likely to inspire more jihadi violence.
The two articles lead me to theorize this sharia compliance theory. Based on Newton's principles. The systemic application of violence is the quickest, and surest way to establish and enforce sharia in a secular, non-Islamic society. Think of it as Newton described Inertia in his "first law". A society evolving at a natural pace will proceed in the same general direction unless acted upon by hyper-violent jihadis enforcing sharia on a non-compliant society. Unless an equal, or greater force is applied to the Jihadis, the secular society will inadvertently adopt the seventh-century murderous, misogynist, antisemitic, pedophilic norms found predominantly throughout the Islamic world.
The law of inertia states that:
A body will preserve its velocity and direction so long as no force in its motion's direction acts on it.
Paraphrasing Newton's law to examine jihadi violence. My theory of sharia compliance postulates, thus. A nation or society will preserve it cultural and legal codes, only so long as no jihadi force disrupts a nations cultural and legal codes by means of the application of persistent applied violence, directed at the civilian population of said nation.
What does this mean?
This means that there is a natural tendency of nation states to keep on doing what they're doing. All nation-states, as a rule, resist sudden, drastic, unnatural, changes in their state of governance. In the absence of an unbalanced force, ( such as--unopposed jihadi violence) a nation state will maintain a general direction of governance supported widely by the will of the people as determined in open elections. It is this hyper-violent outside force, applying pressure (jihad) that changes the trajectory of a previously secular nation to become sharia-compliant.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal"........................... (Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies).https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ABKGP4E?ie=UTF8&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&tag=paroftheday07-20&creativeASIN=B00ABKGP4E
This simply, and easily explains that nation-states, do not start, stop or change direction all by themselves, needlessly submitting themselves to become compliant with seventh-century sharia norms. It requires some great effort, or force acting upon them from the outside to cause such a change. ( I identify this force as applied jihadi violence) While this concept seems simple and obvious to me today, I have not been infected with the politically correct memeplex, permanently blinding me to this unfortunate, really, really, "fucked up" reality.
A meme may improve its prospects for survival if it becomes part of what Dawkins termed a “memeplex”. This is a situation where a number of compatible memes join together in a manner that is mutually supportive, and may be seen as a roughly analogous situation to that where genes work in concert with other genes in the genome. Political and religious beliefs and also the combined knowledge of experts such as blacksmiths or builders can be seem as memeplexes and they clearly help to secure the longevity of the memes of which they are composed. https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/02/whats-in-a-meme/