War is for Winning

Dear Mark Steyn

2010-06-26T16:49:00.000+12:45

Dear Mark Steyn,

Climate change can be solved by small government. This may shock you, but the best solution to anything is seldom a bigger more expensive government based on over-arching socialism. Climate change should be an opportunity for small government blowhards to demonstrate the need for a small government solution.

The solution to climate change is to have every country independently operate a consumer marketplace where a high price of AGW gases is charged to private consumption. There will be no capping, trading, emissions limits, production controls, bans or restrictions - there will be no UN involvement. There will be no big government, because government retards and distorts market incentives by its existence. Our governments will exist solely to provide security and to enforce the consumer taxation on the AGW gas footprint. The smaller the government is the better the planet will be.

As the Greens have been saying for years - if the planet is to survive climate change we must make sacrifices and the best sacrifice is to relinquish our socialist spending.

Regards u-c

Climate Change Summarised

2010-06-26T15:40:00.002+12:45

Climate change is a global crisis caused by over consumption of Earth's resources. This crisis demands a rapid and effective response. Cap and Trade is a negative unworkable response, it is a big government initiative. Small government offers the only effective positive response to the climate change crisis.

Western capitalist societies dominate the worlds economy and are consumer driven, not production driven. Positive solutions harness the consumer economy to combat climate change, negative solutions attempt to control production.

We are consumer driven democracies, we must empower consumer growth in enviromentally sustainable pathways - we must give consumers more access to wealth and tax pollution literally off the planet. We should not engage in production controls, there should be no limits set.

The pollution taxation should be as high as we can possibly make it, as high as our local economy can stand. This taxation rate should be higher than the anemic costs suggested under a global Cap'n'Trade, but differ in positive ways. Taxation should be in the form of a Value Added Tax (VAT) for a sales cummulative of all pollution ultimately charged to the domestic consumer. Equivalent pollution tax to be charged on local and imported goods, but not charged on exports. Thus our productive economy is unharmed and able to adapt quickly to changed demand, whilst our consumers are directly aware of any saving to be made by reducing the amount of pollution their purchases create.

This taxation regime couples consumer driven change to saving the planet, therefore to be most effective requires maximising the amount of consumer involvement. We must reduce the size of the state, because the state is not a consumer driven entity. A states funding mechanisms (taxation and borrowing) are immune to the effect of consumer taxation, because they are the recipient of that taxation. This means a paradigm shift is required not only for our present taxation policy, but also our state spending - it must be reduced. We need to motivate as much of the economy as quickly as possible to reduce pollution, by doing what co. Getting rid of all non-essential state enterprises and moving state employees to the private sector will be amongst our highest priorities should we wish to save the planet.

Welfare is socially required. Welfare programs (pensions, unemployment relief, healthcare) should be increased to cope with the additional demand pollution taxation places on the poor, but these programs must be stringently asset tested and privately administered.

Kyoto - Destroying The Planet

2010-04-07T21:51:00.000+12:45

The Kyoto Protocols are planet destroyingly bad policy.

The "idea" behind them is flawed. The results are catastrophic. The precedent they set is that it is okay to fail as long as you mean well. The only "good" is the publicity its supporters bring to highlighting the facts of climate change.

The "idea" is to limit Annex I countries to 10% less emissions than their 1990 levels. This is presumed to be a good thing, when even if it were (in some unlikely event) achieved it would deliver no good outcome. The reason it doesn't benfit the planet is that a cap of emissions from point source producers (factories, farms, incinerators) allows us consumers to offshore our pollution. This exercise in pointlessness, migrates consumed pollution elsewhere. A real solution to climate change can only be found through the modification of consumer society.

The Flawed Economics of Emission Trading

2010-04-01T23:36:00.000+13:45

Basic economics: 0 << x = 0 x is the probability of a catastrophic climatic event occuring.x >> 0 to justify the neccessity of tackling climate change and joining up to the Kyoto Protocols.

x = 0 to select an Emissions Trading Scheme as the lowest cost methodology capable of meeting the Kyoto Protocols.

This seems a little flawed to me, but hey what would I know.

An ETS is useful only in meeting Kyoto requirements. To be effective at combatting climate change an ETS would need to be global and that is unlikely. By eliminating any consideration of climate change from the economic equation an ETS has been selected by our government.

0 < x = 0

Very soon we will be getting taxed to save the planet by getting taxed to kill the planet...

Cap and Trade

2010-03-24T21:49:00.000+13:45

The thinking behind Kyoto and Cap'n'Trade is that limiting production will drive the economy to a low carbon future - this fails. The refusal to address the causes of crisis with the most powerful driver to a solution is killing the planet. We need to empower consumers to make changes to the global economy and fight climate change this has become imperiative, because we have suffered years of Kyoto driven pollution.

We embarked on the disastorous Kyoto derived Cap'n'Trade pollution generation process for two self-serving reasons. The Green movement has been captured by the political Left who are very much against relying on consumer driven solutions, because ultimately such solutions require empowering consumers and reducing the state. The movement arose in the consumer society democracies of the West where the imposition of high consumer taxation was not going to be popular and so the Kyoto process of Cap'n'Trade was born to shift costs elsewhere. Cap'n'Trade is an effort to create a global market in pollution that will spread the cost across the globe, through trading imposed costs on production.

Cap'n'Trade will not be adopted worldwide as China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Vietnam are developing countries who have production driven economies and cannot afford production cost increases. The developing world citizens are less than keen to endure poverty as the solution for a problem caused by the developed world. (Even if Cap'n'Trade were to be adopted worldwide it could only ever be a second best solution, because of the arbitrariness of how the Caps are assigned it will never be the most efficient way to run a planet.) Without a global market Kyoto/ETS/Cap'n'Trade has served to drive production to the developing economies and consequentially increase pollution - Kyoto kills the planet faster than doing nothing at all. The Cap'n'Trade attempt has failled, as it was always doomed to. Al Gore is part of the problem, not the solution and we need a new direction.

European Position

2009-12-02T13:59:00.003+13:45

Short Summary:

Under a global ETS (Euro) proposal the developing world will have to pay Europeans to outsuorce production (as Europeans been doing for 20 years); whilst the developing world gets charged financial transaction fees by Europeans on European carbon markets to pay a tax the developing world can least afford.

Even Shorter Summary:

Europe demands developing world pays Europe to fight climate change.

Likely Response:

Developing world rejects proposal.

Kyoto to Copenhagen by Analogy

2009-11-19T15:58:00.002+13:45

There is a Global Obesity Crisis (GOC), something must be done.

A summit is convened at Kyoto to find a solution. The EU takes the lead and a set of Kyoto Protocols are defined. The developed countries become committed to capping food production.

After Kyoto the rate of GOC increases.

The world decides to meet in Copenhagen, the EU again taking the lead. The world is told it must adopt a cap on global food production, with a market price set for the rights to produce food. But the US Senate is still not ready and some developing world nations object to starving their people.

The USA is blamed for the failure of Copenhagen and blamed for GOC.

The Skeptics - An Appeal

2009-09-23T00:43:00.009+12:45

All climate change deniers pay attention, you are fast becoming the “dilettante intelligensia” of our time, the useless twits who let the Commies takeover Russia. You are basically all bright, intelligent people who are able to engage in a scientific debate about climate change. You might even be right*, but even if you are it doesn’t matter as scientific argument always takes place outside of the public sphere. Scientific debate is too esoteric and complicated to sway the electorate. The electorate has already taken flight from climate change, judging by the $millions more in tax we are about to be charged the electorate is freakin airborne. Its too late, give it up.

The time has come to fight the socialist model of greenery, in the way such policy is always fought. We offer low taxes, small government approach and they propose a world holding hands, bureaucratic montrosity that relies on everyone singing in harmony to work. All we have to do is put in a carbon consumption tax that is 5x higher than any ETS costed surcharge and we are by 5x the most enviromentally friendly nation on the face of the planet. Obviously to pay for this ambition to be incredibly green (and maximise its effectiveness) we will have to eliminate income and company taxes, slash&burn social spending, sell all our schools & hospitals and institute a new era of small government.

If we do not confront this effectively we risk losing out to a dawning era of global socialist government.

* obviously not on this planet, but in some alternate universe.

ETS - Arguing by Analogy...

2009-08-03T17:22:00.004+12:45

...doesn't work on the internet.

Suppose to tackle the risk of global obesity rich countries:
- set up a global "free market" on food.
- capped the market so that food production was restricted and prices go as high as possible.
- restrict participation to governments only excluding the individual poor.

Poor people starve as the price of food skyrockets, corrupt repressive regimes profit off starving their people, but the obesity total declines markedly.

Problem is solved.

The only slight flaw in this otherwise "brilliant" plan is that the governments of the worlds poorer nations must sign up to it willingly. Early indications are that some might not be keen.

Emission Trading Schemes

2009-07-28T18:45:00.004+12:45

We should not be involved in emission trading*.

Kyoto based emissions caps have a few issues which bear thinking about.

The most important of which (from my perpective as an enviromentalist) is that they do not work. They do not reduce global carbon emissions, quite the opposite. The intention of ETS is to send a price signal to reduce carbon emissions, but the actual signal is the difference between the carbon prices of various competing carbon trading regimes. It fails by definition, because it is not global.

Second most important problem is that the idea of global Kyoto based emission trading caps are dead in the water, absolutely positively never going to be adopted by the Chinese or Indians or any developing world nation with a backbone. If we've waited this long before adoption, why adopt now when they are mere months from sinking below the surface never to be seen again?

Third most important problem (and this the reason the Chinese & Indians are not buying the BS) is that Kyoto agreements are manifestly exploitative of the third world. They are a tax on industrial growth at a time when the largest economies of the third world are raising almost 1 billion people out of poverty through industrialisation. They are a tax on industrialisation that subsidises reducing industrial capacity at a time when the first world nations(Europe/USA) supporting the measure are (cue fucking amazing surprise) reducing industrial capacity. These same first world pricks do presume to be running a "market" based in the financial centres of Europe and soon to be USA which will clip the ticket of every carbon trade - further penalising the 3rd world. And the best part is that the West recognises this problem and promises to remedy the unfairness by (get this) providing "aid" - the same aid that has been so successful in fulfilling the millenial goals of debt reuction (not), combating maliria (not), assisting with HIV harm reduction (not) and having broken hundreds of other similar aid promises down the line - Third World countries have a deep understanding of the worth of First World aid promises (paper + ink + free buffet at signing ceremony).

We. Should. Not. Make. Any. Commitment. To. An. Emission. Cap. Ever.

* Modification of comment posted in Public Address.

No Limit Green

2009-07-16T21:11:00.004+12:45

Mission Statement:

The remedy to climate change is not capping emissions, that is an unworkable piece of work because it is inequitable and inefficient.

The response must be equitable and workable. The only workable response is to impose not limits, but rather to tax emisions. Consumer taxation on the carbon footprints of everything to drive change in consumer society.

And now for something completely different...

2008-11-27T22:48:00.008+13:45

Climate Change

The Kyoto Protocol, Emission Trading, "Green" politicians - these are key players in the fight against global warming and are all hopelessly wrong in their approach. They are unfair, unworkable and ineffective. Kyoto and all it accompanies is bull shit.

I do believe that climate change is a clear danger to the planet, a serious issue that deserves a serious response. Skeptics exist, but I do not understand how they can be so blase about how mankind is polluting the very air we breathe. Skeptics however are not the problem, they are bystanders. I think that much of the skepticism is derived not from a strange deficiency to face facts, but rather from an entirely understandable resistance to the bull shit approach used to "tackle" climate change.

I advocate a reduction in government to induce a reduction in GHG emissions. The final response is as yet unkown and will require massive societal change even to find. Our states are currently carbon unsustainable, they need to be pared back and resources allowed to be allocated efficiently. We the people need less interference, so that someone amoung us can find the solution. We need the cimate change solution to be compatible with human nature - encompassing economic growth, greed, ambition, safety and fairness.

GHG emissions are on the rise and we need to reduce them on a worldwide basis. This is the War that must be Won.

Iraq is becoming a normal country.

2008-09-15T23:14:00.005+12:45

Iraq is quite like a normal country. It has an army, it has a police force and it has regional civil militia. It is approaching a second set of elections with some optimism that all groups will choose to participate. The transition from lawless 2005 to quiet 2008 has been made by the famous surge and some other stuff.

The surge was a commitment to stay when it looked likely that the Americans would leave, it was from this that all else followed. The Iraqi Army needed the time to train and the assistance the Americans could offer and has proved its worth by taking Basra from the Mahdi army. The police force is more pieced together and less secure for the central government, but this works better for the police and works better for the locals. The Sunni, have joined the Shia and the Kurds in supporting the government, whilst maintaining a local militia forces who get supprt (sometimes willing, sometimes not) from state and coalition coffers. Iraq was made safe by deploying a large enough force of men.

Less positive actions have also assisted in creating the peace. The seperation of ethnic groups brought about by the Sunni killings of Shia and the Shia killings of Sunni have assisted in the formation of several motivated civil militia. The seperation has also made it easier for local police to work with the locals. And fact that it ended in a stalemate has served as an object lesson as to such operations general ineffectiveness.

Against this backdrop the economy is improving (5% GDP growth), because oil exports are secure. Oil contracts are being inked. The agricultural sector is in crisis, because there is a drought. Normalacy reigns. There are problems - banks are non-existant, brown outs are the norm and corruption runs at normal Arab levels.

They did all this without rocking up to and threatening their neighbours. At least beyond the implicit threat of having a reasonably large and battle tested army. Which means I was wrong about a lot of stuff, but mainly wrong that time would not alter perspectives.

There are no revolutionaries for a reason.

2007-11-27T22:59:00.000+13:45

Will at DSTPFW said he was a moron, I didn't totally believe. This exile * claims to be a believer in the advancement of the working class, but supports the victory of feudalist Islam. Either he is an Islamofacist or a useful idiot - betting on him being a number 2.

From the linked article:

As Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo all go tits up for western expansionism,the time is right for working class activists to start putting forward our agenda. The only problem that we have is the lack of a vehicle that will put forward out collectivist demands.

Ludicrous, isn't it?

At the very moment when the system is about to come under a major crisis of legitimacy, we have nothing prepared that can offer to take its place.

That noise that I can hear is the sound of the generation of 1945, all spinning in their graves.

They're spinning alright, but not for the reasons this moron gives.

Let us look at history and see if we can spot a pattern.

In 1945 the troops who were working class returned from a victory and decided that they did not want to have fought & won over 6 years so they could be ruled by upper class twits. In 1918 the troops who were working class returned from a victory and decided that they did not want to have fought & won over 4 years so they could be ruled by upper class twits. In 1917 Russian troops who were working class returned from a victory stopping the Prussian advance and decided that they did not want to have fought & won over 3 years so they could be ruled by upper class twits. In 1945 the Chinese troops who were working/peasant class returned from a victory against the Japs and decided that they did not want to have fought & won over 14 years so they could be ruled by the same upper class twits as before.

A pattern is discernible - win a victory, demonstrate might and leverage that might into advancement. Consequently when "the right" compromises (as it must under a democratic system) everybody gains with all boats raised (except obviously the defeated enemy) and the whole lot of us benefit. This is one of the things that makes a liberal democracy so very good, how it deals with victory and internal struggle. Everyone can win, the right gets its foreign gains and the left demonstrates the fearsome strength of people working together.

The utter moronic stupidity of the anti-war left is that the movement is the product of the elite US campus circa 1960s - not in the slightest working class - yet is now the clarion cry of "the left". The anti-war movement is designed to protect the children of the upper-middle classes from harm and that it happens to dis-empower this demonstrated means of lower class advancement is of course not a problem to its founders - who are quite happy with the status quo.

The dip shit (who is not particularly atypical of the anti-war movement) is bemoaning that there is no force for the left to advance by. Well there is a group of mainly working class men and women who are a force to be reckoned with. Only problem is the dip shit & like have been calling them bloodthirsty, inhumane, baby killer, losers for the past 50 years.

For the final word in ahistoric, lunatic, idiocy intent on destroying the best hope for working class advancement may I present the cheerleader squad of Islamofacism:

...The only way that we are going to ever ensure that our agenda comes to the fore is if the current political class is discredited by defeat.

In many ways that is the reason for this blog's existence.

So bring it on you head choppers because the more you chop the more NuLab is discredited.

Does he do it out of a middle-upper class love of comfort, for the advancement of a deviant Islam or without a brain in his head? Who cares?

* this "exile" should not be confused with The Exile in Moscow who are a fine insightful bunch.

Umm?

2007-10-31T16:26:00.000+13:45

At New York City airport they are culling off their feral cat population and the chief reason given is they are hoping to lessen the number of birds hanging around, so that the chances of bird strike is reduced. Just seems really dumb.

The Isolationist Myth

2007-10-02T11:46:00.000+13:45

The central myth of isolationists.

"People can only liberate themselves, they can’t be liberated by a foreign power.

However there has hardly ever been successful liberation movement which was not assisted by foreign powers or benefited from the regime being in direct conflict with a foreign power - Russia/German attacks of WW1, China - Russian support & Japan WW2, America/French assistance. Further in places of minimal international interest tyrannys tend to flourish - Lesotho, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Chad, Burma.

Isolationalists spin out this myth to reinforce a delusional self-image of superiority. Isolationalists need the myth so that they can justify the freedoms and lifestyle they have, as having been achieved by themselves. So that freedom and happiness become merely a choice that isolationalists (or their forebears) have made, but "strangely" the oppressed people of the world refuse to make - and therefore it is not any fault of "isolation" the oppressed are subject to.

Based upon this supposed mythological superiority isolationalists typically take a stance that place higher value on the lives lost in conflicts where interventionists have acted than anywhere else. In the case of us westerners this will mean hitting on Israel, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Never mentioned are the non-interventions including Tibet, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Burma, Cambodia that have cost approximately 4-6 times as many lives. This apparent callousness needs the myth. If it were a simple choice of the oppressed to be oppressed, then their deaths in the absense of intervention would be their own fault and only the deaths under (western) intervention would be avoidable.

Expectation vs. Hope in Iraq

2007-08-20T15:57:00.000+12:45

Assessment: that the existing Iraqi conflict is driven by foreign aggression and not by a internal based insurgency. That a tactical counterinsurgency such as that happening right now is not going to work. Indeed may be counterproductive if all it does is bring trouble to Iraqis who know themselves to be mere bystanders.

Tradition: the ways to deal with foreign aggression have been either let it happen and accept the casualties or present enough of a threat to the foreigner to scare them into stopping. The first option is not palatable to anybody, but the second I expect is unlikely to happen.

Expectation: In Iraq the American military is the most able to potentially solve the Iraq problem, but will not act. The Iraqi forces are structured to fight a counterinsurgency and are not able to provide a credible threat. The Shia militia (next strongest) in collaboration with Iranian backing could provide a credible threat thus protecting Iraq, but would likely religiously persecute the Sunnis. The Sunni backed by AQ/Saudi are not capable of gaining power if there is a large Shia/Kurdish force, which means they would need to do some "force reduction" work in country.

In an ideal world USA/UK would muscle up and tell Saudi where to stick it on human rights violations, arms sales, wahabism & terrorism (a strong policy signal that could scare most everybody into a reassessment of threat) and make a commitment of support only to the democratic states in the region (pretty much what Bush outlined 6 years ago), but this will not happen. Next best is arming the new Iraqi Army with a credible offensive capability, but the USA is rightfully scared that they will be arming people who will be less than friendly to American (American/Saudi/Gulf State) interests so will not do this.

What I (a pessimist/realist?) think will happen is that America will stay for a few more years fighting a "counterinsurgency" against something that is not an insurgency and then withdraw due to American public opinion. The Shia and Sunni Arabs will go to war with each other and kill a lot of people. A dictatorial regime will emerge and in a gesture of unification of the Iraqi nation (Shia & Sunni & Kurd alike) will blame the mass killings and mayhem they largely carried out on America. America will sell another $20billion in arms to Saudi to protect against this threat. AQ will get covert support from Iran, Iraq & Saudi and bombs will go off in major American cities. America will launch a retaliatory attack on...

Hope: that this is an internal rooted insurgency and the surge works.

Alt-Imperialists

2007-08-13T19:05:00.000+12:45

The Guardian: Comment is Free site has published this piece by Neil Clark making the case for keeping Iraqi civilians who worked for the British occupation out of the UK. Acknowledging that this will mean their deaths, but justifying them in terms of allowing the Iraqi resistance to undertake the 'healing process' of uniting the country through the blood of collaborators.

The real reason Neil Clark is in favour of their deaths is different, it is politically expedient for his alt-imperialist* ilk to have as many Iraqi die over there as possible. Throughout history empires in retreat advised by such men have sacrificed foreign races portraying lost lands as not worth having. Natives dying bloody deaths in their far away lands is an object lesson on the dangers of involvement, the necessity of withdrawl and the utter uncivilised nature of that race. Neil Clark is like all imperialists most comfortable when killing foreigners in foreign lands - a neo-imperialist will kill on the advance for his standing in the court and an alt-imperialist will kill on retreat scorching the earth to remind the court of his sage advice on withdrawl.

Neither neo-imperialist nor alt-imperialist likes to have the races that they are killing humanised. A neo-imperialist demonises the foreign race as uncivilised requiring attention and will ignore overtures of peace. An alt-imperialist will decry the foreign race as uncivilisable requiring avoidance and the last thing he needs is any unsightly exiles turning up or news of progress in that foreign land.

Neil Clark alt-imperialistic butcher.

* commonly found working in tandem with a neo-imperialist to rip some foreign Johnny apart by brute force.

Anti-Imperialism is Chomskyite Bull Shite

2007-07-21T00:30:00.000+12:45

Chomsky is an idiot. I go out my way to avoid reading anything of his. However sometimes he is referred to in places of good standing where I'd least expect. Snarksmithy critiqued an essay Chomsky wrote, doing the good service of breaking it down into mostly manageable bites. But the stench lingers.

Chomsky is anti-imperialistic, he portrays imperialism as the ultimate in brutality. He figures a spectrum of actions from the export of ideas and systems right through to the invasion and imposition of a system of government as imperialism - in this he is close enough to being right. He considers it neccessary to brutally suppress the indigenous culture to afford the expansion of the imperialistic culture. He is wrong. Brutal repression is not needed to carry out imperialism.

One theory why he reasons thus is because he is a wet behind the ears, dip shit Stalinist (he certainly has supported enough Stalinist causes). Perhaps he studied the requirements of implementing his beloved Stalinism and found it did require brutal repression. Then made a leap of faith, without evidential backing, to assume that capitalism & democracy required the same brutal repression of competing ideas.

On Iraq his reasoning works as follows. Imperalism is occuring - imperialism is brutal - but it is not working well - either not brutal enough or Iraqis are bravely resisting in an unexpected manner - propose must be more brutal or leave. He reasons that the occupation of Iraq is a failure because the Iraqis are bravely resisting the brutal occupation of the American/British forces.

He references the occupations of Europe by the Nazis and Soviets as being successful alluding as he does so to the iron fist of repression inherent in those occupations. He then mentions the failure in Iraq, leaving it to the reader to both see his implicit criticism of American aggression (brutal occupying imperialists) and American weakness (you wouldn't see Uncle Joe letting all those people out of Fallujah).

What he neglects to note in his short history of successful occupations is the occupation/liberation of Western Europe, S. korea and Japan post WWII. This was achieved at the same time as the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviets and was carried out without the brutal repression Chomsky would have us believe is neccessary. It was more successful than Soviet occupation, because it is ongoing.

Brutal repression is not always neccessary to facilitate imperialism. Sometimes the recipients of your imperialism like what you are providing.

The crucial difference between the successful Allied, Soviet and Nazi occupations of WWII and the ongoing Fook Up that is Iraq, is that the WWII occupiers made sure they secured the area. The Soviets and the Western Allies no more liked each other than the Islamofacists like the USA/UK and after WWII each knew the other side would try and screw with their occupations. So they lined up big fooking armies and told each other you cross this line and we go to war.

The borders* have not been secured in Iraq. Syria, Iran & Saudi are screwing with the occupation and no-one in Washington or London is doing anything to stop it. Brutality is irrelevent.

* apparently it is an American thing, borders mean less over there.

Targets

2007-07-17T16:23:00.000+12:45

Just had a discussion regarding the aims and motivations of Islamic terrorists. And it ended on public relations pap of the terrorists and the Saudi government. The pap in this case suggests that a target of the Al Qaeda movement is the removal of the Saudi government and the other had coupled it to the American/Western BS whine of "why do they hate us?". In combination these make it appear that Al Qaeda might have an objective of attacking the West to disrupt the economy and weaken the Western support for the Sauds.

Taken separately the memes can be dismissed.

a) The jihad has attacked New Yorkers, Londoners, Spaniards, Thai rubber tappers, Shia Arabs, Russians, the Fur, foreign workers in Saudi, Aussies in Bali, Kurds, Harza in Afghanistan, Jews, Chinese, Persians, Ethiopians, Egyptian Copts and I am sure I have missed some others. There is no targeting of the West.

b) There has been only one attack in the past decade upon a member of the House of Saud and there are thousands of these pricelings. Even that attack relies upon evidence provided the utterly corrupt Saudi police.

And taken together, how anyone can believe such is beyond me. How would you destroy the House of Saud and the Western economy if you were an armed Arab group with thousands of committed fighters and were expert in committing coordinated bombing campaigns? If only there were some vital commodity crucial to the success of both that could be disrupted by a coordinated bombing campaign and was easily accessible to the majority of your fighters - hint: Oil. Oil production in Saudi has not been touched when Jihadi Saudis are going by the hundreds to Iraqi martyrdom.

There is no rebellion against the House of Saud.

Al Qaeda/Salafists are a supremacist group of Sunni Muslims that consider all other races and creeds inferior to Sunni Islam. They seek to use terrorism to cull the Sunni Muslim population away from the rest of the world, by blowing a few of everybody else up and raising antagonism against the Sunni Muslims. They attack targets that are non-Sunni Muslim, that are considered inferior.

Saudism - I like it.

2007-06-13T22:47:00.000+12:45

In the event of choosing a religious doctrine amoung the many that Islam enncompasses, my preference lies with Saudism. It seems to be most practical in dealing with both the rest of the world and the fundamentalists. It allows a foot in both camps and sets its own agenda for both sides. I see it as a working secular alternative, with only the condition being that a practitioner appears completely religious in Saudi Arabia - a condition I'd be prepared to follow.

Plus whiskey and women and slush funds - sound good to me.

Might makes Right

2007-05-25T17:04:00.000+12:45

(Fair warning -I am a bog amatuer trying to tackle an intellectual point, intellectual type semantic criticism will not be welcomed.)

A Pragmatists Argument for the Objectivity of Morals.

I absolutely believe in the statement "might make right", in fact if you put a gun to my head and ask me to say that a set of objective morals are most important in determining a course of action I will not hesitate to agree. Aside from the obvious practical benefits in complying, it is also a consistent stance for a pragmatist to take.

A society forms of its members so that they can derive mutual benefit from co-operation. The mutual benefit maybe anything, but each society benefits from the acquisition of power. Power is the dynamic for the interaction of societies. Power can manifest in the ability to conquer competitors or nature.

Thus the morals of a society should be geared to the production of maximum power for that society. If they are not then the society will become subservient to a more powerful society. As the objective is known and the morals of society are there to fufill that objective - it can be seen that morals are objective. Objective power orientated morals of a society create the might to make and enforce the rule of a moral society.

It is in this way that capitalism has become so successful, it has wealth as the best invented (yet) tool of measuring power. And a capitalist society gears itself to the creation of greater wealth.

Equally useful is the function of democracy. The ultimate (or most perfect) methods of obtaining societal power are unkown beyond the scope of human expertise and the position of the society is changeable. Thus it is important that morals and laws and rulers are able to be changed. If any of these are considered beyond reproach, then when a new position is reached it is more difficult to effect change and thus the old morals which are of decreasing value are maintained to the detriment of society. Democracy allows continual change to be the norm, which is good because it is the norm.

Smartest Electorate in New Zealand

2007-05-07T23:41:00.000+12:45

Maori voters who voted Maori Party for electorate and Labour for party are the smartest voters of all us Kiwis. They have maximised their voting power and helped ensure that New Zealand is now governed by Labour with support from the Maori Party. This advantage takes the form of the overhang MP.

NZ has a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representative form of government, check it out. Basically we have a one chamber parliament where everybody gets two votes, a party vote and an electorate vote. In addition to this we have a race based set of Maori seats that are governed by the same rules, but consist only of Maori race voters who have consistently voted Labour (most of the last 70 years or so). These Maori seats are a separate, but equal part of the electoral system.

The first 120 seats are determined by the proportion of the party vote that a party obtains. In the last election the less intelligent voters (of which I am admittedly one) were captured by stupid parties that contested both the party vote and electoral vote. Within the smarter Maori electorates tens of thousands of more intelligent voters ticked Labour for their party vote. The proportionality of the first 120 seats was determined by the proportion of non-Maori and Maori voters party votes.

Beyond the 120 seats of the party proportional parliament exist potential electorate only seats that are not related to the proportionality, these are termed "overhang" seats. These are reserved for parties that have smart, intelligent voters who vote for them only as electorate MPs. In the previous parliament only the Maori Party did this. The votes of these Maori voters were 57%* more important in determining the government than other New Zealanders**.

There were 69 electoral seats in the previous 2005 elections (there will be 70 in the next elections). The potential power of intelligent voters grows larger.

* (69 potential seats / 120 proportional seats) x 100%

** People of Epsom who voted for Rodney Hide came second in the intelligence stakes, everybody else a distant third (and any Maori who voted Maori Party with party vote who also lean towards Labour were utter fools - do not do it again).

Inspired by kiwiblog.

Banned from JihadWatch

2007-04-27T20:46:00.000+12:45

Old post been cogitating about for a while.

I am banned from Jihad Watch, by Hugh Fitzgerald then of JW - he has since moved. Basically for inferring that the Israellis adopted a clear earth policy to the Palestinian territories back in 1947-48. This hacks me off no end, because later I learned that Hugh Fitzgerald (the very same) is advocating a cleared earth policy in the Palestinian territories.

I expect he does deny the original expulsion on the basis that he wants the heroes of early Israel to conform to a highly "moral" standing, but at the same time he denies the possibility that the same heroes were as capable as he. This is freaking massive hubris, he is hero worshipping people on the basis of them not being as committed as himself. People who actually fought for Israel are not (IMHO) less committed than policy wonks.

Further he is trying to reach a goal by abstract reasoning based on the mutual hostility of the Arab countries and Israel to conclude that they need to be seperated. This is an unnecessary abstraction, all that is needed is analysis of the success or otherwise of the expulsions carried out in 1947-48.

I've been a Fookwit

2007-04-27T20:25:00.000+12:45

I am a total fookwit, total.

Switched to comment verification last year and I turned on comment moderation. I must have got below average technical skills* and did not know I'd done this. Comments have been lying here unanswered for ages.

My apologies to - Jason Pappas, Warren, MichaelW, ElmersBro, B.Poster, FishAreFun, Irving Karchmer & Iran Watch.

The spambots can go screw.

*to Will - thanks for the prompting, will post something suitably neo-libertarian soon.

American Politics Explained

2007-02-21T11:11:00.000+13:45

American politics and the Vietnam War.

American politics are broadly Democrats = left and Republicans = right. The history of the war is fairly clear, the Democrats sent the troops in and the Republicans pulled the troops out. Critical knowledge to any understanding of American politics - the left blames the right for fighting the war and the right blames the left for losing the war.

Tyranny: the Destruction of Moderate Islam

2006-12-18T23:16:00.000+13:45

Islam is immoderate only in the positions and in the places it can be immoderate.

Islam in its fundamental form requires great sacrifice in the service of G*d. The practioners of fundamentalist Islam must be afforded the luxury of withdrawl from wider society. Fundamentalist Islam is a luxury lifestyle.

What is the proper end for man and how is it validated?

2006-09-15T01:24:00.000+12:45

Jason Pappas asked weingarten, here:

"What is the proper end for man and how is it validated?"

Weingarten answered in a way I do not agree with.

In the world according to unaha-closp the ultimate purpose of man is to obtain total power over destiny. This is validated by the way power is always rewarded in human societal interactions.

The Lebanon War

2006-08-03T00:12:00.000+12:45

This is a direct result of the disfunctionality of the Lebanese government.

The Lebanese system of government is legacy of French colonial rule (a bad start in life), that originally gerrymandered the Muslims away from power and favored the Maronites. Forever locking the Muslims (Shia and Sunni) out of power proved to be a problem. A sectarian war lasting 15 years is the most significant event of Lebanon's post colonial history. This resulted in a marginal reweighting of the gerrymander to favor both the Sunni and the Maronite minorities over the Shia. Unfortunately for the Sunni and the Maronites the war also resulted in the Syrian takeover of 90% of Lebanon, to go with the 10% Israel had taken during the war.

The Syrians brought a new perspective to Lebanon - they were in charge. Everybody else were left to get by and manage the country's affairs using the same parliamentary system, but Syrian patronage was available to any that could advance Syrian interests. Syria was largely interested in hurting Israel (a country that occupies some of Syria) and hence Hezbollah & Amal (the Shiite parties) were sponsored. Iran also offered patronage to it's co-religionists, favoring the Islamist Hezbollah over the more secular Amal.

This brought money and services from foreign wealth to the Shia people, the poorest of the Lebanese sects. This had an immediate effect of making them popular. Popularity was strengthened when they beat Israel out of southern Lebanon.

Then Lebanon changed again with the Cedar Revolution of last year. The Syrians withdrew their military under American pressure, their sponsorship was reduced and elections were held. The elections were held under the same stupid, gerrymandered system that had always excluded the Shia. The Maronites and Sunni were grasping for power, but Hezbollah was still armed. The only choices for the Shia were to follow Hezbollah (Amal was closer to Syria & weakened more by Syrian withdrawl) or to be subservient to the Sunni & Maronites.

To have any chance at peace Shia need another choice. They need to be able to gain power without guns, this requires democracy (in all its majority rule ugliness) be brought to Lebanon. If the Shia are able to share in the prosperity of Lebanon they will be more inclined to want a peaceful Lebanon.

Update 18/08/06:
There is a lull in the conflict, ceasefire in place. The UN and Lebanon government are taking charge. Let us hope that the Lebanese are able to offer the Shia a path into a free and democratic Lebanon. This could be the last chance for an equitable peace. Good luck to everybody.

Islam and the Left

2006-06-02T00:13:00.000+12:45

There is a synergy between Western Left wing parties and Islamic immigrants. It is really simple - poor people who consume lots of welfare like parties that provide lots of welfare. Parties like to have people vote for them. Very, very simple.

Conversely and somewhat counter-intuitively the only way to break the Islamic/left alliance is to get Islamists to vote for conservatives. Excentuating respect for traditional values and the womens place in the home should be able to convince one or two immams to campaign from the pulpit.

Capitalism and Democracy

2006-04-30T11:08:00.000+12:45

People are different. We all have ideas and opinions that we hold dear. We believe in different gods and purposes. We trade ideas and work with each other. Capitalist governments exist by monetarising this trade and taxing the resultant market. Most ideas we hold are irrelevent to our ability to participate in the capital markets. The only ideal that has real effect is an ideal held by the govenment. Power/force resides with the government, what it does matters.

Under a democracy a government makes an effort to compromise and include as much as possible inside the big tent of its parties. This is in harmony with capitalism which also wants as many customers as possible for its markets. Under a totalitarian state the personal ideals of the governance are enforced across the board, even the ones that really should be left as irrelevancy. Each state enforces its ideas upon the populace, who interact and produce stuff. Generally the freer the populace the more stuff they produce.

I need to think about this some more. Will get back to it later.

Islam is a Tool

2006-03-14T00:24:00.000+13:45

Islam is a big religion, it is complex and I do not understand the half of it. But it is not needed to understand the religion to see how it is used. Islam is being used as a tool of connection.

I have not attempted to read the Koran (I do not read Arabic for starters). I have not read a translation of the Koran. I am in almost total blissful ignorance of what the word of God is. There are however millions of people who have read the Koran or its translation and they all seem to have different opinions about it. It is my contention that Islam’s actual nature is irrelevant. It is a big and complex religion that is enough to make it useful. Islam provides a brotherhood of community, umma, between all Muslims. It serves to direct grievance externally.

The people who pay for all the best madrassa and schools of Islam are Kings and dictatiors of the Muslim world, some of the most insanely rich people on the planet. They gain this wealth mostly by selling the resources of their countries to the outside world. They are infamously debauchees, fornicators and inobservant Muslims, but they are Muslims. The brotherhood bestowed by the religion is used to maintain their power, by making them appear as a brother to those they oppress. Islam is employed to keep Muslims under control and maintain the power of the kings and dictators.

The modern wahabist Islam teaches the importance of keeping pure faith strong against outside influence. That Islam is the cure for all problems, if Islam can be made strong enough then the world will be made right. Teaching that all that stands between Muslims and perfect happiness are unislamic influences.

This is most useful in keeping the peasants in line. When a peasant looks upon his life and sees that he is poor with little chance of becoming rich Islam teaches him that he is part of a greater family that cares for him. It also teaches that his troubles are due to stress being placed upon this family by outsiders. Islam shows the clear path of responsibility is to protect the umma. The preachers who tell him this are paid for by the King, who is as far from being poor as it is possible to get. The King has no intention of improving the life of the peasant; there is no reason for the King to do so. Couple this strengthened faith directing grievance towards external oppression with an efficient internal police network and all the Kingdoms trouble makers can be redirected or crushed.

A big problem for the King is that if the peasants manage to flee outside the limits of his control. Such ex-peasants may be poor, but in their new circumstances they also see ways of making themselves richer. If they become rich, improving their lot whilst living among outsiders they may start to question the whole "it is outsiders, pushing us down" meme. They may start to question the role of the King in religion. To counter this, the Kings export religion - sending preachers of prestige to mosques and fine teachers to madrassa the world over - to maintain a sense of religious brotherhood. They also fund violent groups to provide an outlet for the fervent believers generated by their religion and to scare back into line any who question their religion and to turn the outsiders against the Muslims in their midst.

Thus Islam is used to serve the kings and dictators of the Muslim world.

Maybe We Have A War At Last

2006-02-27T23:10:00.000+13:45

The enemy has changed tactics. Al Qaeda has in the past week blown up a holy site of Shia Islam and attacked a large Saudi oil complex. Changes of tactic which are overdue and may work really well for Al Qaedas stated aims.

The attack in Iraq has seriously dented the progress to democracy and promoted religious division. For the past 2 years Al Qaeda (a violent Sunni group) has been attempting to create division with attacks on Shia weddings and Shia markets and Shia queues. These attacks have merely caused a ripple of antagonism and in turn a response of Shia run death squads against Sunni (including Al Qaeda) - a conflict the Shia in Iraq were bound to win. These prior attacks lacked profile, were a background noise and people can get used to anything if it is kept at a constant level. Al Qaeda needed something like this, it defines the difference between the Shia who cry for vengeance and the Sunni who will be innocent victims of reprisal. It is a masterstroke of a tactic.

The attack on the Saudi oil refinery is a very surprising. This attack makes it seem Al Qaeda might actually be serious, for until this point Al Qaeda has fought the most pathetic rebellion possible. They have shouted of ridding the Muslim world of Western influence, but left unscathed the only thing in the Muslim world that the West gives a damn about. They talked of overthrowing the venal, corrupt regimes of the Gulf, but attacked foreigners and peasants who are of no consequence to these regimes. These actions are like those of the old time Klan in the Southern USA - illegal but not even slightly anti-regime. This prior behaviour makes Al Qaeda false revolutionaries, but a successful attack against the oil industry would actually make the West and the regimes hurt.

If Al Qaeda is truly serious (yet to be determined) and can provoke civil war in Iraq and hurt the oil industry in the Gulf then a war, a clash of civilisations, is on.

Freedom of Expression

2006-02-11T13:13:00.000+13:45

The West embraces freedom, because freedom makes the West powerful. Being free is also a nice thing to be, but that is secondary.

Freedom to do anything we please allows for innovation and experimentation - the two things that drive growth. There is no one to say what is wrong, no G*d to appease. If it works use it, because if you don't then someone else will.

If we limit ourselves then we will be surpassed. And who wants to live as one of a losing culture. Respecting others beliefs is a good thing to do so we can sell stuff. Respecting others cultures by limiting ourselves is suicidal.

The Islamic religion is too all pervasive and strict. It limits the Muslims to being less than they can be. The most successful Muslim nations are in India and Malaysia and the West, where they are free to make their own choices.

We should always apologise for Danish Cartoons and the like, because it will help us sell stuff. However we should never, ever mean it.

Israel Should Nuke Iran (but won't)

2006-01-21T19:40:00.000+13:45

Iran is going to get nukes if it is not prevented. Those nukes are going to be aimed at Israel (as well as Pakistan, Eastern Europe, Iraq, Turkey...). When this happens Israel will be 10 minutes or so from destruction. To protect itself Israel is going to have to prevent Iran from gaining nukes or fall into a standoff.

In a standoff the best possible outcome is one side gives up sees the error of its ways and decides to live like the other. In this particular case I think it is safe to say this will not happen.

Next best outcome is one side sneak attacks the other with sufficient tonnage to prevent any return fire. Israel has submarines and Iran has a crap navy, so Iran cannot prevent return fire. Likewise Iran has a lot of places to stick nukes (including the Gaza strip and the southern half of Lebanon). This outcome will require luck.

All other outcomes are bad. Effective annihilation of both countries or even worse a nuclear starburst where one country targets its missiles against all possible enemies.

If Israel allows Iran to gain nuclear weapons, then by definition (and discounting the impossible outcome) Israel will be committed to a course of action that will lead to the deaths of millions.

Best possible outcome requires that Israel prevents Iran from getting nukes. Israeli conventional forces are probably not capable of carrying out this task, because Iran is too far away and too well armed. However a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iranian production facilities and research institutions will degrade Iranian nuclear potential. The research facilities will need to include universities in large cites and millions will die. However because millions are going to die anyway, and they are not Israeli, Israel is on to a winner.

Update:

On further consideration it seems unlikely that Israel will nuke Iran. To do so would risk it's friendship with America and there would be a retaliatory massed missile attack from South Lebanon. Even though these are relatively minor issues, compared to being on the recieving end of a Iranian nuclear assualt, they can be used as concrete justifications for not doing something hard right now and hoping that the future will bring a change for the good. Humanity has an innate want to be optimistic about the future, doing nothing too drastic now fufills that want.

Mental Exercise

2005-12-31T02:41:00.000+13:45

There is a whole lot of bashing of Left and Right, a candle bearer for each side may say of the other "they foster hate, encourage others to hate us and side against us". The simple truth is that it doesn't matter. It is just people shouting at each other, free debate in a free society. Neither side is killing the other - no foul, no problem. The key point is that it is free in every sense of the word.

There is whole lot of angst generated, maybe even a real sense belief that your ideals are superior to the other side. So as mental exercise I want you to take that self belief way further.

I want you to figure a solution to rid the world of blathering Moonbats or wingnut Fascists (whatever is your thing), cause them to run away back to where they came from. I want you to do this using all means - putting your morals aside - assuming the end will justify the means.
I want you to figure a cost in dollar terms to your solution.

You have now probably arrived at a large figure*.

All acts of conflict cost lots and lots. They require logistics, strategists and able people to implement. None of this comes cheap.

The terrorism we have witnessed costs a fortune, many times over. It is a plan (like that of your own) carried out by truly ruthless people. But however ruthless they are, however much hate they possess the cost does not go away. Without a fortune to spend they are people who do not like us, with the fortune they kill us. Therefore the solution to terrorism is relatively simple.

* If your figure is less large please check again. If it remains less large please consider carefully your next action, as you have a plan that may change the world.

A Perfect Enemy Is Very Useful

2005-12-29T15:40:00.000+13:45

Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism has been the perfect enemy to fight. If you are ever to have a nemesis to battle you want them to be vile, big and weak (perfectly flawed). Your conflict with them is morally pure, your side sees the necessity of strong preparation and you win.

Fundamentalist Islam can be made to tick every box.

The terrorists are vile, they show no compunction against killing anybody in their way. Almost everybody is in their way so they kill anybody. Beslan was the epitome of evil, they put themselves at a level of utter contempt. Every suicide bomb in a market or a pizzeria is done knowing that it is a pointless exercise in killing, they kill because they can. There is no tactical reason and very little strategic point in killing a few civilians at a time. The action is undertaken as a promotional exercise to show that they are doing something, to show that their holy war is proceeding. Any actor can be morally justified in confronting this vile enemy.

Islam is a big religion. A fundamentalist following of the Koran allows for holy war to be practiced against everybody. Lacking any reformation or later day teaching the Koran is the word of G*d that must be obeyed and fosters fundamentalism. It is a big book and so can justify almost any type of action from peace to war through selective reading. An actor that can portray Islam as the enemy makes a long conflict seem unavoidable.

Islam is weak, it weakens itself through the application of its holy law. The sharia was designed to provide stability in ancient Arab communities. The laws were designed to field an army of fighters to ride horses and carry swords into battle. It was very successful, it allowed Arabs to conquer the World (or near enough). However today it still relies on direct application of that unchanged and ancient law, the stability it creates is to the detriment of the economies of Muslim states. The economic weakness dooms Fundamentalist Islam to lose any massive conflict against non restrained actors. An actor can use this weakness to make victory seem inevitable.

Fundamentalist Islam is such a great enemy to have that it is used to justify actions that are beneficial without being moral, unavoidable or inevitable. Taking an oil rich country for the benefit of the economy, adding a few more houses to the west of your nominal border or showing force against restive southern provinces. Fundamentalist Islam is such a "perfect enemy" that it is fostered by stronger powers - America protects Fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia and Russia protects the Mullahs in Tehran and once upon a time Israel promoted Hamas as an alternative to the PLO.

The problem is that humanity is inventive, adaptive and progressive and above all less than perfect. The Fundamentalist Islamist terrorists will change their behavior, the longer the conflict persists the greater the risk they will get it together and become strong. To prevent this from happening we need to realise that the protection of Fundamentalist Islam in Iran and Saudi will be as damaging to us as the protection of Hamas proved to be for Israel. If the protecting powers stop being protective and become massively hostile then Fundamentalist Islam is doomed.

Need for Serious Action

2005-12-28T14:24:00.000+13:45

This is what gets me most of all.

We do not treat this as a serious enemy. Partly because they have not proven to be a serious threat (more on that soon) and a few thousands dead is not a problem. We are waiting for them to get their act together and kill a few million of us.

I have every confidence that given enough time they will improve their effectiveness. They are after all human - inventive, intelligent and driven - so have the capability of doing whatever humans can do.

At the moment we treat their attacks as annoyances. As if they are deficient people in need of counseling and support - that if they just have all the options put before them they will choose the best one (the choice of peace & profits). Unfortunately they are backed by people you have found a nirvana of profitability that relies upon them crushing rebellion and making war. These people profit from Islam - from the Saudi sheikh & Iranian mullah who use a false ummah to protect them from their subjects to every husband who treats his wife as a possession. They gain nothing from acting to choose peace and so will not choose it willingly.

To make the counseling work and produce a peaceful society requires closing off certain options. Kick out the profitability of their position by imposing costs for their unhelpful actions. Islam can be a "religion of peace" it just needs clear external cost imposed on those who do profit in diverting it from peace.

Or we can do what we do and wait for the megadeath and have a genocidal clash of cultures.

Hat Tip to Pastorius at IBA - Vlad the Impaler part ii

Cabinet Wars

2005-12-01T20:42:00.000+13:45

There are two types of wars - Wars of Necessity and Wars of Choice.

The Cold War and WWII were wars of necessity with no choice of intervening or not. Wars of necessity are fought to be won, they are the best kind of war. Capitalism versus Communism and Democracy versus Fascism both needed to be fought.

The War on Terror is a war of necessity. The invasion of Afghanistan has been part of the War on Terror, making a decisive attack against one of the enemies that sponsored fundamentalist Islam. The strikes on the World Trade Centre were part of the War on Terror, a small attack on those that would degrade Islam to a secular and merely private matter.

The War on Drugs and the Great War (WWI) were started as wars of choice (Cabinet Wars) that were entered into for advantage against competing interests. The War on Drugs remains a war of choice which is fought for the prohibitionists in America, but even if it is lost it will not threaten America. WWI mutated quickly into a battle for survival, with the loser doomed to be massivley defeated and even the winners to be degraded.

The War in Iraq was entered into as a war of choice, the invasion against Saddam and the Iraqi army was an action chosen by the cabinet. It was made for either profit (if you believe in $200 billion oil rights) or to protect us from Saddam's WMD (if you believe in Bush & Blair) . It has become part of the War on Terror, because our enemies have taken the opportunity to attack us there. It should be won because it will hurt our enemies if we forced them to give up (forced them to choose defeat). However it is still just a war or choice and winning or losing the Iraq war will not decide the War on Terror - just like victory in the Vietnam War failed to win the Cold War for the Soviets.

There are other wars of choice that the USA could engage in to fight fundamentalist Islam. Chechnya, Southern Phillipines, Kashmir and Israel all present opportunities to confront the armies of fundamentalism. These choices are mere diversions that appeal through our moral convictions of kinship and support for others fighting against fundamentalism, they are unimportant to overall victory or defeat. These wars should not be engaged in - they waste resources, tie down troops and weaken resolve to fight (as witnessed by the imminent withdrawl from Iraq).

The War on Terror needs to be taken to the source of fundamentalism for the West to win, it needs to be prosecuted against the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. If the West were to do so the War could be over within 24 months.

To win their War on Terror the Islamofacists need to attack the heart of the West. They will continue attacks in America and Europe. They will continue to lobby, infiltrate local Muslim organisations and divert PC democracy to their ends. They will win within the next 50 years or the West will become facist in response and crush them there. Democarcy is dead if islamofacism is not crushed in Saudi and Iran.

Clash of Civilisations

2005-11-19T13:30:00.000+13:45

We exist in a Pragmatic/Capitalist society that dominates the globe. It is based on a lack of specific ideals, whereby advantage is secured for the sake of having advantage. Profit is the motivation we have it drives us to excel and to capture our rewards in this world.

Democracy, freedom, equality, natural law are not inherent in our culture, they just happen to be the frameworks we use to make money and improve ourselves. If Fascism or Communism had been better able to turn a profit and make improvements we would be following them right now; or maybe looking on in wonderment at the flying cars, super weapon lasers and 3D TVs they have over in Moscow and hoping they don't invade us any time soon. ;-)

The purist Islamic alternative (as suggested by wahhabism, Al Qaeda, Jemat Islamia, Muslim Brotherhood, et al.) is that we must submit ourselves to the will of Allah. Follow the ideals of the Koran. That reward in this world is of less importance than reward in the next.

Islamic Sharia (Allah's Law) is a higher ideal, it is in competition with pragmatic capitalism for domination of the world. It will lose after the oil runs out. Until the oil runs out it may be problematic.

Islamic practice constrains capitalism and advancement to the ideals of Allah. It limits itself and cannot compete in generating the wealth necessary to fight a war against unfettered capitalism. However it does not need to, it is blessed with oil wealth. Oil wealth is the blessing from Allah that allows Sharia to compete. Not enough to win, because it still requires a flourishing Capitalist Society to make the oil worth anything, but enough to cause problems.

H/T: Liberty & Culture and The Dougout for pointing out we live in a pragmatic world.

On Vacation

2005-10-25T04:41:00.000+13:45

Am on holiday in the USA.

Big country, people are friendly - nice place to be. Toured around the Southwest and I am now on the way back home.

Al Qaeda's Aim

2005-10-01T16:56:00.000+12:45

The quotes are from Defence Link relating comments made by US Gen. John Abizaid , and this post was lifted with some slight modification from comments I made at a Qando/McQ post.

"Al Qaeda believes the most important prize is Saudi Arabia, which is home to the holy shrines in Mecca and Medina. If al Qaeda terrorists manage to take control of Saudi Arabia, they will try to create and expand their influence in the region and establish a caliphate, Abizaid said."

Saudi Arabia is a fairly simple country - it derives 90% of its wealth from oil and is ruled by a monarchy. Any attempt to gain control of SA by revolution requires that Al Qaeda attacks the monarchy and disrupts the oil economy, yet in the last decade they have confined themselves to attacking foriegners and Shia. If Saudi is their true aim, don’t it make sense to do the same they do in Iraq - attack government and infrastructure. They kill hundreds of people a month in Iraq and no one in Saudi, so why does the General think Saudi is their biggest prize?

"Abizaid said al Qaeda would then apply a very narrow, strict interpretation of Sharia, Islamic law, not believed in or practiced anywhere else in the world today."

An interpretation that would ban all alcohol, subjucate women, demand the death penalty for rape victims, execute christians, enforce conformity of dress code, use infidels as slave labour, prevent democracy, rule by holy decree, empower thugs as religious police - in other words continue with existing Saudi practice. Perhaps they would set-up madrassa to promote their brand of islam amoung poor muslims, fund terrorist strikes, attack outside influence in all things, deny the existance of israel, decry Jooos as worse than dogs - again continuing existing Saudi practice. Life for Saudis would change very little, exchanging theocratic dictatorship for theocratic dictatorship.

But maybe, just possibly, they’ll stop sending billions of dollars of defence spending to Boeing & Carlyle and cease the flow of bi-partisan money through Washington & London lobbyists - a very big change of Saudi policy and utterly beyond the pale, totally barbaric scenario that needs to be stopped at all costs.*

Summary
Saudi Arabian society is the model, Saudi Arabia is the purely Islamic state - Al Qaeda does not fight to overthrow it, but rather to expand this theocratic dictatorship to the world. Al Qaeda does not attack the state of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda attacks foriegn influence, foreign power and foriegn ideas - Al Qaeda fights as supremicists defending holy ideals. Most likely somewhere in the House of Saud exists the chief funder for Al Qaeda, who sacrafices the jihadis to expand the influence Saudi theocracy.

*This is unlikely to happen because even the most fanatical religious operator in Riyadh does realise that American protection is needed to continue with the brutal theocracy in peace. Russia (Chechnya), Israel (Hamas) and India (Kashmir) all would prefer the toning down of certain activities and Saudi Arabia is not capable of standing against any of these countries. Note: that if America were to lose in Iraq then its value of protection would be less and the Saudis will pay less - which may be why America needs to maintain a presence in Iraq.

Anti-American Me?

2005-09-11T23:39:00.000+12:45

I was brought up on the notion that certain things are important because they are important - freedom, rule of law, liberty, respect for property, free speech and democracy - that these ideas formed the basis of Western Philosophy. I was wrong - they are all secondary. What matters is making money. All those ideals just happen to coincide with the easiest way of making money - "selling stuff to other people who are free to buy it". Western Society has money as its godhead and God is secondary, the West is driven by greed and growth.

The Saudi Kingdom sits atop of the worlds best oil reserves. The Sauds have as close to unlimited cash as it is possible to get, are very close to our godhead.

The Saudis can preach hatred of foreigners and fund Al Qaeda attacks with complete impunity just as long as it continues to spend copious amounts of money on American munitions and use British fund managers. Buying protection and respectability among nations is traditional - the Swiss hid Nazi gold, Saddam bought the French (unfortunately for him they are only French) - and the Saudis have bought the best. Sure the Sauds do spend some trifling amount by way of Muslim charity in madrassa and to imams, and yes they do promote a bit of hatred but it is only in such a half arsed way that we cannot really be too afraid. Compare this to the trillions in investment and sales receipts and kickbacks.

I shall now climb upon a high and moral horse. Protecting slime ball little dictators who are playing at global terrorism is pathetic, America deserves to lose. It must stop now so that future generations will be free to live without fear of terrorist attack.

But I dislike horse riding, so try to work out a money making compromise. And I can't, the loss in life to terrorism is too small and minor to justify destroying the House of Saud and all its wealth.

Wahhabism / Salafism / we are the pure ones

2005-09-05T00:13:00.000+12:45

This Article in the "Russian Journal" does as good as any job explaining what is Wahhabism.

This is the expanding religion of our time.

Hat Tip to Elmers Bro

Al Qaeda - Primary Enemy

2005-08-25T23:29:00.000+12:45

Al Qaeda is a militant offshoot of the salafist school of supremacist Islam that is sponsored through wahhabist madrassas and immans. Invoking unstoppable "Perfect Storm" and incurable "Cancer" analogies overstates the invincibility of the Al Qaeda threat. And the notion that it is in alliance with our political foes on the left just like the old school Commies, tries to almost normalise it as a part of the everyday world . It is neither unstoppable or normal.

Al Qaeda grows as the militant subset of those schooled in salafism. Salafism is branch of Islam that bestows superiority on its believers over all others. It is a supremacist branch of Islam and requires strict adherance to a set of practices. Normally its followers are few as the rules of the sect make it difficult to follow and very difficult to make money in its practice. So in normal practice it would be a destitute religion.

Unfortunately one sect of salafism is wahhabism, this is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. Due to an abundance of oil the Sauds have no need to be nice to other people to make money, they can and do enforce the practice of wahhabist salafism. They also fund free schools in wahhabism worldwide and send out immans to preach wannabism worldwide. So there are many more salafists than ever before and with more salafists we get more militant salafists. And these militant salafists have money enough to mount an inetrnational campaign.

Al Qaeda is a root and branch affair - wahhabist root, salafist trunk and Al Qaeda branch. If the world ever wants to get rid of Al Qaeda all it needs to do is get rid of the Saudi wahhabist root and watch the tree wither and die.

Why do the Sauds spread this salafism?

Wahhabism as a religion teaches respect and comraderie (umma) between the wahhabist rulers and their wahhabist subjects. It extolls the virtue of correct wahhabist practice above all else and denigrates all other beliefs. The comradeship allows the Sauds to misrule Arabia as comrades of the people and the denigration makes it possible to direct rebellion against outsiders and not the regime. Al Qaeda when it operates in the Kingdom is not a classic rebellion, it does not target any of the princes or any of the vital oil infrastructure by which the princes rule - rather Al Qaeda attacks foreign workers.

The Sauds also benefit by Al Qaeda caused instability driving up the price of oil. (Hat Tip: wretchard & doug at Belmont Club.)

Why does the world let them?

The world does not, the House of Saud is protected by the USA and the UK alone. Probably for oil - as oil is very, very, very important. They can of course, openly justify protection for the Sauds by ties of honour and friendship dating back to the WW2 and the Cold War.

And there are other enemies.

This is my interpretation of the Al Qaeda phenomena. It was born out of a reply I posted in the Belmont Club .

Winning Iraq - Mark I

2005-08-13T20:50:00.000+12:45

This is going to be an ongoing thing and any modifications will be gladly accepted.

Lessons learned from the loss in South East Asia and the win in Central America - the enemy needs to be isolated from funding and support and then the enemy needs to be forced to give up.

The Easy Problem

The enemy in Iraq consists mainly of the Sunni tribes of Iraq. Their loyalty is tribal and if they can gain a good deal for their tribe they can be placated through the political process. This political process needs alot of attention.

In addition to the Sunni tribes there are also Kurdish and Shia tribes. These have benefited so far from the presence of American and allied trrops. These groups have been forming the new Iraqi security forces and as such constitute a real threat to the Sunni tribes. These growing non-Sunni Iraqi security forces are a way to pressurise the Sunni towards a deal.

The tribes are a solvable problem because they can be convinced with threats and concessions that can be made effective on the tribe. Screw ups like the debaathification process have made it more difficult, but the tribes are in the process of bargaining for a future within Iraq.

The Harder Problem

The Baathists were the empowered senior Sunni from the old regime. They were dumped on by the Americans at the start of the occupation (blanket deBaathification) and have probably accounted for 70% of the American casualties in response. They are getting support from the Syrian Baathist state and form the most effective anti-occupation forces in country. However they are all local tribal people and as long as the political negotiations continue they could well be accomodated.

The Big As Insolvable Under the Current Strategy Problem

The global jihad for a caliphate (al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, et al.) is in Iraq, it is also active in Europe, SE Asia, Africa, southern Russia and probably America. Iraq is the hottest, most visible part of the jihad. The jihad has a strong root in the fundamentalist wahhabist sect of Islam, this teaches that the Islam is about purity of actions and beliefs (Sunni Islamic supremacists). This sect is the state supported religion of Saudi Arabia and is strongly followed in Yemen. The House of Saud has spent billions providing free schooling in wahhabism (also reading & writing) throughout the Muslim world. The House of Saud has spent billions as grants to immams through out the world to preach this purity of Islam. The House of Saud has spent billions providing charitable care and welfare to the sick and needy throughout the Muslim world. Wahhabism's teachings are quite well known and many Muslims of fighting age are sympathetic to it's message.

The jihad was not tolerated under Saddam and has had to establish itself in Iraq during the occupation. The jihad has become more effective as time has passed, they have an almost endless supply of recruits which they are now bringing to bear on the Iraqi conflict. As supremacists they are enemies of everyone who is not Sunni, this means 80% of Iraq are targets to them.

They have worked with the local Baathists, worked with the Sunni tribes, but they are not part of the tribes. No pressure applied to the tribes, no carrot offered to the tribes will stop the jihad. They are motivated in the belief that they are acting in Gods will, their motivation cannot be destroyed (IMHO).

The only effective way to hurt jihad will be to hurt members of the wahhabist sect. This would reduce the funding for the hospitals, schools and mosques that promote jihad.

The hardest way to do this would be to introduce democracy across the Middle East (the Bush plan). Democracy is not acceptable to the practice of wahhabism. Wahhabism preaches loyalty to/umma with the leaders of the people, democratic societies view their leaders as an unfortunate neccessity and not to be trusted. A democratic Middle East would leave the Arabs to rule themselves, which they may even like. Unfortunately wahhabism is quite popular and it could well win any election.

The easier way would to enforce leaders on the wahhabist countries who are not sympathetic to wahhabism. A secular military dictatorship might work, a modernising king with a distrust for the clergy or whatever is available. A dictator such as this would need to purge out any unsympathetic elements within the clergy, 10,000 or so dead would be a likely result. But once the purging is done wahhabism and its followers would have to endure as the pure sons of Islam without billions of dollars of discretionary spending.

Even though it is the harder and more risky thing to do I think democracy would be a better plan, more stable in the long term. But if a dictator could be found to hold the reins for 50 years (until the oil runs out)...perhaps this new king will be useful or perhaps the next one or the next one after that.

Success - the greatest American victory since WW2

2005-08-09T09:42:00.000+12:45

The Nicaraguan War is an important conflict and the only major win for the USA since beating Japan.

The Nicaraguan war was a guerilla conflict. It was fought through massacres and bombings and land clearances and collective punishment. It was a war fought between the USSR and the USA by way of local proxys. Firstly the Somoza regime v. Sandinista rebels, then the Somoza regime was overthrown and the war became Sandinista regime vs Contra rebels. At the end of the war a democracy was established and pro-American government was installed. There was no good, ethical, morally virtuous side. This is a good summary of the conflict.

Why did the Americans win?

Because the war ended in 1990 as the Soviet Union collapsed. The Soviets stopped funding the Sandinistas. At the point where they lost the Sandinistas were in control of almost all of the territory and had a significant numerical superiority. However they were forced to gamble on an election victory because they needed a popular mandate, until 1989 they could rely on funding from USSR/Cuba and the support (or otherwise) of the Nicuraguan people was irrelevant. Unsurprisingly in the election the cash strapped communist regime that had ridden the country into the ground, failed to beat an opposition supported with some of the best electioneering talent money can buy.

The American victory was due to its willingness to spend for longer than the Soviet Union.

Iraq - America is again engaged in a guerilla war against an ideologically opposed force.

Good news - the government of Iraq is allied to America, holds almost all of the territory and has numerical superiority.

Bad news - the enemy will never agree to elections; the enemy has funding largely derived from oil revenue expected to cease in 2060 - 2070; the enemy does not confine the war to Iraq; America tries to confine the war to Iraq.

Summary - if America maintains the current strategy it can expect victory in 2060 or so.

Iraq is Vietnam lite

2005-08-03T22:18:00.000+12:45

Being popular and right does not win wars. Wars are fought to enforce the rule of the victor on the conquered.

Today there is significant opposition to the rule of the communists in Vietnam. At the time of the Vietnam War, there may have been large pockets of resentment in N. Vietnam (people who are sacrificing millions of their children to feed the ambitions of a dictator may have welcomed a change in leadership). In S. Vietnam there certainly was a lot of distrust of Ho Chi Minh, especially after the Hue massacres.

However all resentment in N. Vietnam was made null and void, because the America high command (Presidents plural) chose not to let S. Vietnam liberate this resentment. N. Vietnam never had enough men and material to enforce its will on S. Vietnam whilst the Americans were there. S. Vietnam was never allowed to attempt to impose its will on N. Vietnam whilst the Americans were there. When eventually the Americans left and the real war started, S. Vietnam had been so degraded and fought over and depleted that it lost the War with the North.

Similar applies in Iraq their is a will for democracy and capitalism throughout the Artab world, Iraq is an Arab and partially Sunni country. Sunni Arab fundamentalists who form the basis of the insurgency in Iraq view it as part of their greater caliphate. America constraints its conduct so that it does not upset certain of its Sunni Arab allies in prosecuting the war against the fundamentalists. It is from these same Sunni Arab countries that men and material flow, the flow is small and will not defeat Iraq whilst America stays, but when America leaves (next Democrat President or even next Republican President) it will fall upon Iraq to defend itself at the same time as fending off an internal Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd vs. Turkman civil war. This is a legacy America does not need to leave to the Iraqis as it within America’s power to stop this flow, but that will mean threatening longtime allies.

In Vietnam the commander of American focres had good reason (not wanting Soviet involvement and possible WW3 is a good enough reason) not to let the S. Vietnamese prosecute the war past the 17th parallel. In Iraq there is no good reason not to threaten longtime allies enough that they will stop the flow of support to the fundamentalists.