Let’s say a family member of yours committed a massive crime. Homicide, maybe. Rape. Or they robbed a bank, or sold a child into slavery.
Something massive. Something major. Something that you know beyond all shadow of any doubt that if it ever came out that it had happened, that person would disappear either into a prison or into an electric chair, and your family name would be stained for as long as memory can reach.
Memory can reach quite a ways; you could wind up paying for this for a very long time, even though you were totally blameless. After all, it was this crazy relative of yours that committed the crime!
The question exists, though, and it exists because society has rules which it validates through passive understanding. Its rules are disseminated and indoctrinated through schools, documents, social norms, you name it. They exist because the society exists, and everyone knows that those rules are very important.
The question is: do you turn that person in?
You know you’re supposed to. You know it’s bad to let a criminal roam outside judicial reach. You know that its blood on your hands if that person does anything else which breaks the law, and now that you do know they are a criminal, you are an accessory to whatever crime it was they committed and continue to accrue crime yourself just by not turning them in. You also become legally and systemically complicit in whatever other crimes they commit.
So, again, do you turn them in?
For most people, even given all this, it still depends. It depends on the strength of their connection. It depends on the cost-benefit. It depends on whether they owe that person anything. It depends on things other than just a strict adherence to the systems they inhabit. Those systems, more colloquially called “nations” or “countries,” tend to be pretty unforgiving about this stuff and everyone knows it.
Where am I going with this?
So the thing I was thinking about is pretty simple. Whenever Italian mobsters are seized, or something like that—whatever format of criminal you like best—the people that the police then go and interview, who surrounded that criminal throughout their life will almost always claim to be completely ignorant about what that person was going to do, or did.
We see this with a lot of the people who help raise or live near to mass-murderers, like the perpetrators of the Columbine shootings. Hands are thrown up. People froth at the mouth and yet claim ignorance. The boy I knew would never, they say.
It’s a way to passing the buck. Like claiming both not to know the person who committed the crime, but also that you did and they wouldn’t. So that person must have undergone a massive, dramatic change about five minutes before they did commit the crime, because otherwise? They would never have. Or at least, there was nothing you personally could have done.
You know what’re they’re really saying? It’s the far-left mantra. Not this community. Not all people in this community are like that. Don’t blame us. Don’t make us feel bad. Don’t communicate any responsibility for this onto us. That wouldn’t be nice. That wouldn’t be pleasant. That doesn’t feel good.
We pass the buck like this because it’s in our nature to do so. Pack mentalities feature guilt by association and ostracism as their most dependable weapons to modify behaviour, and nobody wants their behaviour modified through this sort of force. It’s what makes those weapons so effective.
Plus, passing the buck means it’s not the community that’s at fault for this, right? It means whatever sudden, catastrophic change turned that kid into a person willing to shoot up the Columbine school is totally obscure to you, the person being interviewed by the police. That means that those factors don’t exist in you, in anyone you know, and by extension, the community at large. It’s a method of self-defense, and of defending everyone you know.
So when Muslims abruptly ship out to join ISIS, or are found guilty of violent attacks, nobody in Islam will say anything like, “Well, there are those pages in the Qoran which just might justify…”
Instead, they’re passing the buck. Nothing in their religion, they will say, gives any excuse for this sort of behaviour. They’re gonna say, “Not all Muslims are like that.” As though there was nothing in there that verbatim described violent behaviour or justifications or inference or anything at all which might explain any of this.
And that’s not even the point. I’m not going to close-read the Qoran, because whatever religion it happens to be that we’re using as an origin point is totally irrelevant. The fact is that all religions and all ideologies of any sort imply the use of force against everyone else on some level because they claim that they’re right about things.
You wouldn’t sit there claiming to be right about everything if you weren’t willing to fight about it. When you think about things that way, every single unreasoned position is ideological and therefore a claim of superiority.
That means every force on Earth is arrayed against all the other forces. From armies and theocracies to the ideas inside each human mind. The great unifier is civilisation—discourse, and free speech, which lets us set those ideas in tension with a view toward eventually figuring out which one is the real one, or at least the stronger and more persuasive idea.
People don’t think about things this way, though. Instead, they think more along the lines I mentioned above. The buck-passing, so things can work in tension.
Some of the problems we’re having now, though, are a result of those tensions attempting to resolve despite the individual participants.
Alright. I laid the groundwork out for you. Now I’m going to tell you exactly what I’m talking about.
You know what we never get to hear about? Religious groups disavowing other religious groups. About the only person who currently does this is Pope Francis, whom we all more or less expect to eventually describe the Bible as having been sort of an infinitely interpret-able zero-draft of what God actually meant.
At some point, he’s going to start ripping pages out and shrugging, sheepish grin on his face like, “Well, what do you guys expect? They were sorta primitive, you know.”
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s the other way that these tensions are beginning to sort themselves out. Free speech, reason, and honest discourse have reduced Christianity to scrambling to try to explain things that it once so took for granted that people were murdered for defying them.
But then they were forcibly divided from government. Then they were forcibly divided from science. Then they were forcibly divided from reality. Once you began to root an ideology out of your everyday life, it becomes pretty clear that there is actually a separation there.
Like a scab, people as a whole tend to start picking at it. What results is basically two thousand years of literature which sums up to wondering, “What if God really doesn’t control everything?”
Then you wind up with a blushy, grinning Pope Francis with no clear idea of what to tell you when you try to ask him questions about life. He’s king of the faith, but it’s no longer totally clear what, exactly, if anything, you’re supposed to have faith in.
It’s not really like that for Muslims, for example.
The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity suffered through two thousand years of writing and secularism which slowly squared it off by itself, and allowed it to be stripped out of the lives of its subjects. It became something which only happened on Sunday morning.
Meanwhile, Islam dominates its societies.
A theocracy is defined as “a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.”
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Kuwait and many other Muslim nations are or have been ruled by theocracies. Henry Kissinger describes in his book World Order how the rulers of Iran not only totally and unironically embrace this philosophy, but actually view anyone who doesn’t follow it as being illegitimate.
That’s right. Muslim theocracies don’t just view Western representative democracies as being different—they actually view them as not being governments at all. If you are sitting there claiming that your God is running things, anyone who isn’t letting your God (somehow) run things has to be totally evil. They have to be fixed, right? It’s against the rules for God to not be running everything.
That’s more sort of what I meant at the beginning. After all, if it’s anywhere in the religion, you can’t both be in that religion and also protest this state of affairs. Especially if everyone around you is also in the religion, agrees with that religion, and are armed, as tends to happen in these parts of the world which are much less well-regulated than we in the West.
This creates a lot of forced adherence, but that’s enough to convince children and things that behaving in such a way is totally normal. Scared children turn into compliant adults and at that point, where’s the free speech going to come from?
Well, it isn’t.
Even if you’re starting to have doubts, who are you going to risk talking to about it?
So when someone from your religion, in the name of that religion, does things that that religion might justify with the right reading and interpretation, how much training do you even have to start to deny it? And how interested are you in doing so?
This creates a polarising effect. As the incidents pile up, it becomes harder and harder to suddenly change course on things and quite abruptly be like, “No wait! Islam doesn’t give you license to fly planes into buildings!”
Much less anything anyone does in the name of Islam after that.
So what is partial assimilation?
It’s this inability to resolve the tensions between ideologies. A nation is an ideology, you see, which requires you to totally submit to it.
In other words, if you are not partially assimilated, there is no doubt in your mind about whether to turn in your criminal family member. You have, in fact, already made the phone call, and have already made a citizen’s arrest of your father, or brother, or mother, or whatever it happens to be.
Otherwise, you’re like most people. You’re struggling to figure out which strain of beliefs you want to gratify, and most people view, paradoxically, the nation which gifts them with everything they have as secondary to whatever ideology promises them eternity for what really amounts to about as little work as you could possible expect.
That’s why you rarely see Muslims denouncing other Muslims, or Christians openly denouncing other Christians, or feminists denouncing women, or so on and so forth.
Doing so would stain something you’re a part of just in the same way that having it known that your father lost his mind and killed three people would put a stain on your family name.
Now, is there any way to resolve this?
Nope. The only way to do it is like how we did it to Christianity. You minimise and isolate things until they can be taken on by themselves and compared against their surroundings. Inevitably, this allows free speech to flow in around the edges of the ideologies competing in your head, and lets you use that free speech to engage in discourse, which might reveal the truths about how your world works.
This takes time, though, and as waves and waves and waves of particularly ideological soldiers crash into Western countries, the time we have appears to be running thin.