Set Theory

Time for a little exercise in Set Theory!

Consider, for example, "N", the set of all Nazis, being the set of all people who adhere by choice to the belief-system of Nazism.

Also, consider "G", the set of all ethnic Germans, being the set of all people who by accident of birth happen to have certain parents.

Clearly, N is almost entirely a subset of G, although some members of N lie outside of G. In other words, most members of N (Nazis) are also members of G (Germans), but the reverse is not true.

And most importantly, being a member of G may be correlated with being a member of N, but it is not causative.

And yet, in spite of Germanness being not necessarily indicative of holding any particular belief system, during WW2 all Germans (members of set G) were essentially held responsible for the behavior of the Nazis (members of set N).

Why? Because the beliefs of N were so destructive and dangerous, and they were imbedded in G, to eradicate them we basically just had to go through anyone who stood in the way.

The burden was on the members of G to get out of the way or be considered implicitly supportive of N!

Yes, the results of such a policy were tragic in many cases.

War is tragic. Life is tragic.

But to allow N to thrive would have been worse.

So we mowed down G by the tens of millions on the way to stamping out N. And gave everyone who did so a medal and called them "the greatest generation."

You see where I'm going with this.

Now think of M, the set of all people who adhere to the Muslim belief system. And its proper subset J, the set of all people who adhere to the Jihadist belief system of spreading Sharia and violently offering you the choice (if you're lucky) of "convert or die".

Note how much stronger the connection between M and J is than between G and N!

Unlike G, M is not accidental, but a personal choice. And all members of J are necessarily members of M!

So not only is being a member of M correlated with being a member of J, but it is also necessarily causative.

Indeed, being a member of J simply follows from being a very "good" (i.e., strictly observant) member of M!

And yet -- and yet! -- we are all entreated and exhorted to hold M completely blameless for the actions of J -- even though both are related belief systems of choice, and not "racial" attributes at all. Indeed, it is demanded we profess that the beliefs of M have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beliefs of J!

Curious, no?

Logic demands that there are only two ways to view this glaring inconsistency of viewpoint.

Either WW2, "The Good War", was a racist misadventure waged in a criminal manner by the Allies...

...or we're all now suicidally reveling in the decadence of an illusory "moral high ground" out of self-indulgent, short-sighted narcissism.

It's one or the other. Which is it?