The New Republic has a gloomy but, I think, accurate piece by Spencer Ackerman, focusing on
the disturbing prospect that future attacks against the West will be carried out by those who have gained a wealth of experience fighting U.S. forces in Iraq’s western, Sunni-dominated Anbar province–the premier location for on-the-job terrorist training on the planet. The CIA calls this the “class of ’05 problem.” Such future attacks may very well make yesterday’s carnage seem amateurish in scale.
At this point, I think there’s very little chance that we [in Australia and elsewhere] will escape the attentions of the Class of ’05 indefinitely, whatever policy decisions are taken now with respect to Iraq.
I think the best option is to announce, and adhere to, a timetable for withdrawal of US? Coalition troops from Iraq, and hope that the Iraqis can reach some sort of solution among themselves. But the inevitable short-term consequence of that is that Anbar and other places will be a fairly safe haven for foreign jihadists, until they become more of a liability than an asset for the Sunni nationalists who still appear to dominate the insurgency. The hope is that they won’t get many new recruits, in the absence of US forces to fight.
The alternative is for the US to “stay the course”, and fight the jihadists in Iraq. So far, any successes on this front have been more than offset by the boost to Al Qaeda recruiting provided by the US occupation, and by the stimulus to the domestic insurgency created in part by the mere fact of foreign occupation, and in part by civilian casualties, arbitrary arrests and detention and so on. There’s no reason to think that holding on longer will make things any better – even if the insurgency winds down eventually, the Class of 05 will just disperse aroudn the world.
Either way, there’s every reason to expect more and worse terror attacks. We will endure them, as we must, and we will pursue and bring to justice those responsible. But we have created a rod for own backs in Anbar, as the Russians did in Afghanistan.
John Quiggin 
One thing we do need to be completely clear about is the insidious and ongoing threat of Wahabbist Islam to all of us here
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15929214-23109,00.html
Within our own society we have allowed the Hilalis and Omrans to hide behind some esoteric multicultural ideal, but we have done this at our peril. Not only that but in allowing their infiltration, we have threatened the wellbeing of moderate Muslim immigrants. If push comes to shove, in a clash of civilisations between Wahabbist/Jihadist Islam and the West, moderate Muslims may well become the meat in a nasty sandwich. That’s something idyllic multiculturalists have to consider very carefully and heed the urgent need to screen all immigration for positive social ends. Jack has a telling point here and he has suggested some more rigorous screening. Personally I think a stringent English oral and written test would be the best place to start in such a process. This testing would have kept out Hilali and his ilk.(How you can have an Australian spiritual leader who cannot converse with a congregation in English is beyond me) Humanitarian invitees on temporary protection visas would be exempt immediately for obvious reasons, but before they could gain full citizenship they would have to pass the test. High literacy standard testing would allow middle class Muslim immigration largely from moderate Asian neighbourhoods(Jason Soon’s folks), but largely preclude Wahabbist types. We also need to enact strong laws to expel fanatic Muslim clerics and the like now. As well, moderate Muslims in Australia need to demonstrate unequivocally that they are more chaste than Caesar’s wife. Preferably they need to organise a hierarchical church in Australia, where theological direction and edicts are crystal clear to all. A national march of outrage at Wahabbist Islam might be a damn good place to start. I am personally concerned that they don’t sense the danger of a ‘she’ll be right mate’ attitude here. It’s time to scream louder than the bombers.
Katz, the point I was addressing wasn’t whether they had improved (see Burke on the American rebels for his take on the improvements with the Welsh, for instance). Rather, I was addressing the much tougher goal you addressed, integration. We could only ever be brought as close as that syncretistic approach that was invented for the purpose: the United Kingdom, with “British”. And not all even bought into that.
Any changes in method merely reflect the current availability of non-violent means of maintaining a distinct identity, either within or without Britishness.
PML,
We need to define what we mean by “goal” of integration.
The centuries of ethnic cleansing meted out by the English on various of the celtic fringe was integration with extreme prejudice.
The integraton attempted by English authorities on Catholic Irish that took the form of coercion into the Protestant religion was another form of unilateral integration.
However, since the end of the nineteenth century, especially since toleration of Catholicism and state support for Catholic schools and colleges, this integration has been more subtle and less total in intent.
And all the meantime, Catholic Irish “leaked” out of their religion and joined the great, secular majority of Britain.
So, over time, integration has become less violent and more mutual. At least one of the “goals” of the apostate Irish was to escape the stern dictates of a punitive god.
Katz Says: July 14th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Thankyou.
No. My philosophy of history, FWIW, is not mono-causal multiculturalist (or presentist). I am a (multicausalist) evolutionary pluralist who does not make any dogmatic seperation or privileging of economic, cultural or biological causes.
Katz is being deluded by an observer-dependent effect, based on his biased selection of my comments. I tend to comment more extensively, and contradict more intensively, on the subject of political culture and ethnicity. This is because:
a. I have a certain amount of home-grown knowledge on this.
b. So much rubbish is spoken on this, esp on this blog.
c. It inter alia has been the underlying themes of so many recent events and blogs (GWOT, Culture Wars, Red State V Blue State).
In short I am staying OT.
I agree with a fair amount of what observa and some others say. My dad was a migrant here and much as i enjoy visiting i certainly dont want to live permanently in his country. Amongst a lot of good things, he retains to this day a lot of his conservative attitudes which are a hallmark of his background not of mine.
Islam (and its illegitimate islamist child) is irrelevant to australian society, it is nothing more than the pursuit of a tiny minority group and good on them, anyone here may worship any idols they like but they shouldn’t also expect special treatment just a fair go. I will say g’day to anyone i meet on the street and look them in the eyes as an equal and as a friend i haven’t met yet, that is part of the beauty of australia.
the desire of some ethnic/religious people to hide away and not integrate (the hilali example is spot on – he has always offended me for not speaking english and yet purporting to be a ‘leader’ in australia). With language acquistion comes a great deal of cultural acquisition and if you live here you have to make an effort, even my dad managed it despite personally believing his foreign language was ‘superior’.
I think Islamism is neo-colonialism that directly threatens the safety and freedom of women, as well as children and men. It is the anthithesis of personal liberty and the enemy of good behaviour as we know it here. We may have an imperfect society but it is not for hideous miscreants to tell us how to make it better – that’s like taking advice from the Nazis. Islamists would only end up with the prize of being able to proclaim “We built a new colony of forced belief on the bones of others”. They are the arch examplars of ends justifying the means.
From the pub to the paddock there is no place here for ghettoes of violent belief. Religious psychopaths all over the world can all go and get stuffed – they should consider their own ways before judging others.
Since as someone else observed that observa recently “came over all churchill” …this one’s for you..(taken from the arab blog nadz)
“Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.”
– Sir Winston Churchill
“Katz is being deluded by an observer-dependent effect, based on his biased selection of my comments. I tend to comment more extensively, and contradict more intensively, on the subject of political culture and ethnicity. . ”
You don’t have to be very acute to notice the contradiction between the above two sentences.
“deluded” means arriving at a conclusion in the face of evidence.
Jack, in case it still needs to be pointed out to you;
As you yourself admit in the second sentence, however, you ” tend to comment more extensively, and contradict more intensively, on the subject of political culture and ethnicity.” So, as you have admitted yourself (and I think that you would agree with me that we have never met or had anything to do with each other besides our correspondence on this blog, the only evidence I have of you are is your “extensive” and “intensive” interest in a fairly narrow range of human affairs.
BTW, as one who hopes and prays for the end of your much-despised “Reign of Error”, the humane, intelligent, cautious and tolerant responses of the people of Britain must be a bit of a disappointment for you.
You don’t think this response can be explained by the giant upsurge of drunkenness and public self-indulgence you mentioned in an earlier post, do you? “Just letting people carry on with their “alternative lifestylesâ€? is no longer an option if a state wants to preserve a decent way of life for all.’
Jack comes across as a fascinating and disturbing mixture of Praise-God Barebone and Captain Queeg of the Cain Mutiny.
What did I say? ID cards coming to a country near you soon-
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9685
Our pollies are very, very worried on our behalf. The threat of WMD being used on their civilians is a major concern for them now. They are in the know with our intelligence organisations about the threat and that’s why the language of Beazley and Howard has converged so completely of late. Bipartisan support for SAS troops to Afghanistan now. Whatever happened to troops home by Xmas eh? We all need to be very vigilant now, about who comes into this country and why.
Katz Says: July 15th, 2005 at 11:17 am
On the contrary, as this discussion has proceeded I can feel some quiet satisfaction as the turn of events has vindicated my position.# I was right – as Katz conceded – on the proximate causes (Wet culturalsim and Hawk nationalism) of the London terrorist strike. And it appears that Western governments accross the board are coming around to the Cultural Dry point of view on the proposed solutions to the problem.
Most reports show that the initial policy is basically headed in direction of a more prudent conservative (as opposed to idiotic constructive) cultural policies. Tim Blair has a good round up of the moderate Dry response of Western governments to this new form of threat.
The aim of the Dry cultural and counter-terrorist policy is to ensure the social integration of moderates and political repression of militants. This is a “humane, intelligent, cautious and tolerant response” alright, so count me as pleased. The Wets “Reign of Error” is finally coming to an end.
I have never advocated – as Katz seems to be implying – totalitarian political control (Big Brother) or sectarian cultural reprisals (pogroms). What I have advocated is tighter border protection, more pro-active policing of potential trouble makers and an integrative, rather than segregative, alien settlement policy.
#And as a bonus I forced Katz to backdown on his charge that I believed Muslims are hard-wired. It just keeps on getting better, although I am still waiting for a retraction of his false, unsubstantiated and malicious claim that I am a “Powellite/Hansonite”.
On re-reading this I realized just how inept Katz is at basic comprehension. He here explicitly states that I am some kind of monomanical obsessive who believes the Wests social problems are due to the malovolent influence of the Wets (multi-cultis, pee-cees, identity-pols etc) on cultural integration.
The Wets, especially New Left, are a pest to be sure. But my approach to this – admittedly complex – problem has been from the outset essentially pluralistic, not monistic. I have repeatedly stressed the confluence of bad policies and nasty politics emanating from several different agencies – Economic Dries, Cultural Wets and National Hawks – that have brought us to this current unfortunate pass. And I have taken care to conceptually identify, theoretically analyse and empirically measure these agencies. (*see below for elaboration).
Katz, to cruelly caricaturize, implies that “its all too complex to understand and if only people would just be nice to each other it would all work out well in the end”. This is the position of the typical muddle-headed and ineffectual Wet and a diagnostic of why they are on the political decline.
*Specifically, two broad problem areas are under consideration: the state of domestic cultural integration and the state of foreign political aggression. In the domestic sphere I held the class-divisive Economic Dries (Thatcherists) and clan-conflicting Cultural Wets (Theophanoids) responsible for current forms of social disintegration. I presented evidence on the upsurge in British crime, ethnic sectarianism and general public boorishness to support my thesis.
In the foreign sphere I held that the confluence of (seperatist) Cultural Wets and (militiarist) National Hawks was responsible for the the recent incidence of terror bombings in Europe. And I presented evidence on the causes of terrorism, including links to A Leiken on poorly settled ethnic sectarianism and Pape on the provocative effects of our foreign militarism.
Katz makes no useful conceptual distinctions, has only the vaguest theoretical grasp of the problem and provides no evidence, links or illuminating quotes. The only time he paraphrases me he characteristicly gets it completely wrong. A more concentrated example of intellectual diability would be hard to imagine.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248
“Concerns over Islamic extremism, extensive in the West even before this month’s terrorist attacks in London, are shared to a considerable degree by the publics in several predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. Nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries. At the same time, most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam.”
Of course, a concerted joint effort by Al Qaeda sympathisers in the West and advocates of collective punishment and guilt by assocation such as Jack Strocchi might head off this alarming development.
Ian Gould Says: July 15th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
This report is consistent with, indeed precisely predicted by, my basic model of the GWOT. I have repeated ad inifinitum that the War on Terrorism is a Clash within Civilizations between secular moderates and sectarian militants of the same faith. The sectarian militants on both sides (“Jihadists” and “Crusaders”) use policy errors (excessive Hawkishness) and social pathologies (excessive Wettishness) to whip this conflict up into a Clash between Islamic and Christian Civilizations. So it is nice of Ian Gould to substantiate this with evidence from the Pew Centre that Islamic secular moderates are getting sick of the sectarian militants within their civilization.
Followers of this thread will recall that Ian Gould was initially wrong about the source of the terrorism. He foolishly jumped on the Juan Cole “its foreign terrorists” bandwagon which was totally derailed by the finding that the terrorists were home-grown – festered in multicultural ghettos. This was as the Wets feared and as I predicted.
After being discredited on causes Ian Gould now wants to cover his tracks by spreading lies about my suggested policy response. But he provides no links or quotes to my alleged pogrom incitement. One can only assume that his summary of my policy views is as worthless as his analysis of the proximate source of the terrorists.
What a pathetic case of intellectual disability and moral degeneracy.
Actually Jack I did make an error – I referred to you in my last post when I I should have referred to Observa.
As to the statement from Juan Cole – it referred specifically to the author of the message claiming responsiblity – who is almsot defintiely the same person being sought by the police as the mastermind of the bombings – who is described as an Egypt-born Arab. So my error lies in reporting that the likely mastermind of the attacks was an arab, most likely from Egypt – as oppsoed to his actual identity as … an arab from Egypt.
I am quite willing ot admit that you, unlike Observa, have not advocated mass deportation and forced religious conversion.
however the point is somewhat moto since after abuse such as that contained in your final paragrpah I see no point in engaging in further discussion with you.
Ian Gould Says: July 15th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Right. So Ian Gould is happy enough to recklessly and falsely accuse the writer of inciting racial vilification in a fraught political atmosphere – thats perfectly good debating manners. Then, after copping a well-deserved serve in return, he suddenly develops a very brittle glass jaw and the wounded soul can do no better than stammer out a stiffly-worded snub.
He can dish it out, but he cant take it.
This sounds like a reasonable angle, but let’s be fair here: Islamic sectarian militants aren’t really trying to expend sharia into the Christian civilization, while the crusaders do openly admit that their goal is to install capitalist economy and western-style representative democracy in the domain of Islam. So, the picture is not really symmetrical, Jack: one side is aggressive, the other defensive.
Now, this doesn’t mean that if the Islamic nuts had the recourses they wouldn’t try to force their beliefs upon the West, but they don’t have the power and the West does, so, again, this is not as symmetrical as you make it sound.
The Western nuts are much more powerful and therefore much more dangerous; they, obviously, kill many more people, destroy much more property and so on.
Praise God Strocchi
In addition to
“The Wets, especially New Left, are a pest to be sure. But my approach to this – admittedly complex – problem has been from the outset essentially pluralistic, not monistic. I have repeatedly stressed the confluence of bad policies and nasty politics emanating from several different agencies – Economic Dries, Cultural Wets and National Hawks – that have brought us to this current unfortunate pass. And I have taken care to conceptually identify, theoretically analyse and empirically measure these agencies.”
You forgot to append the dire effects of hedonism
““Just letting people carry on with their “alternative lifestylesâ€? is no longer an option if a state wants to preserve a decent way of life for all.’”
Regardless of how anyone tries to argue that Iraq was a stable place before 1958 (which requires a very optimistic defintion of the word “stable”), the fact remains that it was violently unstable for quite a few years after that then just violent with the application of a lot of force since then. At the very least I can argue that there is no longer any such thing as “British prestige” that is capable of giving Iraq’s head of state immunity from assassination. Iraq’s head of state may have been safe in the 1930s (with resentment slowly building) but Iraq has moved on since then (for better or worse).
abb1 Says: July 15th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
I agree that the picture is not symmetrical but neither is it totally one-sided. Islamists negative goal is to expel Westerners from Islamic lands, esp key states such as Palestine, Saudi and Pakistani (lands of God, Oil and the Bomb). The Islamists positive goal is reactionary: the establishment of the Caliphate throughout Third World SW Asia. This is a utopia but they can do much damage in the attempt, as revolutionary Communists inflicted on the Second World.
The West is not trying to Christianize Islamic lands, but to the Islamist the appearance of the infidel, whether secular or sacral, amounts to the same thing. There is a certain basal level of irrationality in Islamist political modes, which is what makes dealing with them such a tricky and risky business.
Sectarian Islamic immigrants would like to establish islands of sharia within Kaffir society, esp Europe. Some native political activists would be happy to accomodate them, in order to reinvigorate morbid apparats. Given their demographic vitality (and correspondent demographic morbidity of secular Occidental females) this does not bode well for the future of civil society within the homeland of the West.
Thus Western policy makers need to take firm steps to integrate Islamic immigrants aiming to make their socio-economic profile isomorphic to the Christian/Caucasian norm. This means abandoning spurious and idiotic goals of “multicultural diversity” which is just making “a rod for our own backs” alright. (If multi-culti is so great then what possible objection can a Wet make to Sharia law? Or purdah? Or cannibalism? They are all traditional ethnic practices and undoubtedly different to our own.)
We should also remove Western military forces from contested Islamic lands (Palestine, Saudi, Iraq, Chechyna). This should take the sting out of jihadis recruiting. Hopefully we can assist secular moderates within those societies through off-shore balancing (bribes if possible, bombs if necessary).
I don’t think integration and multiculturalism are the opposites necessarily. You can’t do cannibalism, obviously, but a guy can wear kipa and maintain kosher kitchen while working as a corporate lawyer or something. It doesn’t seem to be destroying the fabric of Western civilization. It all depends on the precise meaning of ‘integration’ and ‘multiculturalism’; I think it’s not impossible to have both.
abb1 Says: July 16th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
That is correct. Unfortunately the term multiculturalism is used precisely because of its inherent ambiguity. It is sold to the populus in its “soft” form as a policy to encourage integrative multiracial tolerance, diversity, niceness etc It is too often practised b political elites and their clients in its hard form to enable segregative sectarian, sexism, racism.
In any case ithe inherent Relativist implications of multiculturalism make it difficult to reconcile with the more Abosutist ideology of the Enlightenment. Its way past time that Western intellectuals paid more respect to their own civilizational heritage, which Charles Murray reports, is responsible for most innovation over the past few thousand years. That is why the term multiculturalism should be dropped from official and intellectual usage.
I haven’t read any Murray’s books except the Bell Curve. A ‘few thousand years’ seems like an odd claim; should probably be ‘a few hundred years of technological innovations’ or something.
Again, it’s not my impression that even the silliest ‘Kumbaya’ folks promote sectarianism; I think in its most radical form Western multiculturalism amounts to ‘stick it to the man’ sort of anti-establishment protest; it may be irritating but it’s hardly racism.
Nothing like a good uplifting read on a cold winter’s night
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=55604
Probably mandatory multicultural reading for a Yr12 syllabus near you soon. Whatever happened to Rabbit Proof Fences some of you might well ask?
don’t you believe in free speech, observa? all this stuff is readily available on the web anyway if you know where to look. i don’t think it makes much of a difference if it’s also being sold in bookshops. a liberal society worthy of its name can weather Mein Kampf and this stuff being sold in bookshops
abb1 Says: July 18th, 2005 at 12:06 am
Murray estimates that Dead White Males have produced, since the Dawn of Civilization, 97 percent of all innovations in the Arts-Craft and Sci-Tech field. This sounds a little high, esp when the Oriental contribution is taken into account.
But if you include Graeco-Romans into the tally then it is perhaps not so unlikely. The Ancient Greeks started cranking Western civilization out, including the Olympic Games, about 3,000 years ago. Hero of Alexander invented the steam piston around 200 BC and the West hasnt looked back since.
Western multiculturalists, whether of the New Left or New Right variety, do not really promote any specific kind of ethnic culture – that is a cover story to sucker the well-meaning populus. The main aim of Western multi-cultis is recruitment of cheap ethnic labour: to staff moribund political apparats and sweat shops.
Of course recruiting cheap labour, and taking steps to culturally segregate it, will eventually turn out products that would make the “Kumbaya” crowd hang their heads in shame eg suicide bombers. That is why the multicultis and their vicious frauds must be relentlessly exposed.
“don’t you believe in free speech, observa?”
Well this old Kaafir of Commerce does Jason, but as such he is more concerned about the followers of Mein Kampf in his midst, as well as being aware he is not allowed by law to profit from many things, for the good of his fellow citizens. Just ask those Kaafirs of Commerce over at James Hardie, but perhaps you should direct your comment to Steve Bracks, as I’m sure some fined gentlemen from Catch the Fire Ministries would be interested in his answers here. Of course there may be other kinds of Prophets to be concerned about http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=20214 Nice to know you’re doing the right thing as long as others are shouldering the load. Then you can say- Yes we know they’re not good guys BUT……
Don’t listen to an old bone-head like me. Try the bare bones here(link compliments of Slatts)
http://theage.com.au/news/pamela-bone/time-to-set-some-limits/2005/07/17/1121538863185.html
Now I wonder why some of the girls are having a sea-change?
A small point: I was aware that Hero of Alexandria invented a reaction steam engine and an “impulse” steam turbine, neither of which has anything I would call a piston. Perhaps Jack Strocchi would care to enlighten.
Chris O’neill is correct. Hero’s invention was a steam turbine rather than the more efficient steam piston.