And the Truth shall see you fired

First of all, unless I name somebody specifically I am talking in generalities about groups of people. Groups of people are stupid, and anything I say about them may not apply to individual members of those groups.

Secondly, I will not deny "inconvenient" truth and I will admit when I have been PROVEN wrong. I will not roll over to group think or political correctness, but the real world has ways of putting the screws to you to at least shut you up. With that intro I will wade into this "Wired" article about elements of the US armed forces and Islam.

FACT: "Islam" means "submission", in this case to the will of Allah as promulgated by a certain Mohammad in the 6th Century AD.

FACT: "People of the Book" e.g. Christians and Jews (ha!) have limited rights in Islamic society, such as being subject to the jizya, or poll tax and a proscription on building or even repairing churches or synagogues. All of these restrictions are calculated to make it more attractive for you to convert. If you're a straight-out "pagan" it's simply conversion, slavery or death.

It's in the book, I'm not making it up. If all of this sounds like how you'd like to live, feel free to move to some Muslim country and enjoy. You might want to look into the local interpretation of Sharia before you move though...

Another fact before I jump into the deep end here: most major religions contain all sorts of barbaric old-school ideas which have no place in a modern educated and advanced society. What sets Islam apart is the "mission from God" to make the entire world Submit to it. Again, in the book(s).

Old news of course and a well-trod path here at AotF. However there is an institutional policy in many Western governments to suppress the facts as they relate to Islam and its' (and by extension its' followers) intentions.

A threat can be defined by both intention and capability. If someone intends you harm but is a quadriplegic with no influence, they are not a threat. Intention with capability is always a threat, and 1.4 billion or so self-identified people who to some extent or another think that everyone else is wrong and should convert or else could indeed be considered a threat to, well, everyone else.

Of course, most people are not particularly hard-core about what they believe and Muslims are no exception. For this reason I consider that some of the tactics discussed are a bit extreme under present conditions, e.g. using Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as historical precedents for dealing with Mecca and Medina.

This was of course within the context of an exercise specifically designed to get people talking about what's really out there instead of the "see-no-Islam" policy of the US government. It's not the first time I've seen the idea of nuking Mecca and it won't be the last. It's a fantastically bad idea under anything less than an apocalyptic Jihad-Gotterdammerung against everyone else, where you'd better be prepared to kill over 1 billion people to neutralize that threat.

The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance, and some simple immigration policy changes could defend SUPERIOR Western civilization (yes, I said it) against creeping Islamicization of our Protestant Work-Ethic-derived societies. It doesn't mean accept nobody from Muslim countries, just screen them effectively for their willingness and ability to adapt to the way we do things. For the record this precept applies to everyone else too; what we need to screen out are ALL of the extremists.

Islam as a religion, even more so as an ideology, is a threat to human progress. Hell, organized religion in general is, but nothing else is so violent about it these days. People don't critique Islam because idiots threaten to kill them for "heresy" (and these are not mere threats), or less lethally they can be fired or demoted by panicky PC types. I read through the .pdf I linked to and nothing there is untrue, as inflammatory as some of it may be. If your only defence against an idea is to suppress it, guess what; you're in the wrong, not the people stirring things up.

The only way to deal with "true believers" of any stripe is to kill them. Avoidably killing a lot of other people while doing it though is both morally unacceptable and counter-productive. Accordingly the current assassination-by-drone-and-Spec Ops squaddies is the best maintenance policy, keeping the leadership off-balance and surgically removing the most pressing problem children. No nukes required, and even bringing that up undermines your message, allowing you to be written off as a crank. On the other hand if it ever comes to that, well, at least somebody is thinking about how to do it.

The enemy of the friend of my enemy is my friend, right?

Right at the top of this blog is my rationale for its' existence, and here is a classic case of refusing to learn from history:

On his campaign website, Romney criticizes Obama for reaching out to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the past but stops short of calling for any direct action to force Assad from power such as directly arming the opposition, as his surrogates like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are demanding, or establishing "safe zones" for the Syrian opposition, as many of his campaign's foreign policy advisors are calling for.

Romney's official position (or lack thereof) makes more sense to me than McCain's idea since we've been down this road before and McCain should know better. I have yet to see any realistic assessment of what may come out of Syria's "civil war" that will be a distinct improvement for the USA or anyone else whose interests jive with mine. I am reminded of a similar situation in the 1980s when it was decided (in concert with the Saudis) to arm people resisting someone we didn't like, and that has been biting the West in the ass ever since.

Yes, Afghanistan. Syria is a train wreck mishmash of people who don't get along, and a lot of them don't like "us" either. The CIA is involved again, oh happy day, "vetting" who they give weapons to. Assad is using attack helicopters now; will the CIA decide to hand out some Stingers again to help the rebels?

More recent and likely more analogous is Iraq. The Yanks didn't like Saddam (not much to like, for sure) so they regime-changed his ass. Let's look at how that worked out: nearly 40,000 Coalition (mostly American) casualties (Blood) and somewhere around $2 Trillion in financial cost (Treasure). This makes no mention of Iraqi casualties, the "cleansing" of the few remaining Christians in Baghdad, internal and external displacement of Sunnis and widespread destruction of infrastructure. All of that got the Americans none of the oil revenue (enter: China) that might have underwritten giving the Iraqis a "better" government.

Yes, it would be nice to put a stick in the spokes of Iran and by extension Hezbollah by removing Bashar & Co. but would it be worth it in the long term? Doing things half-arsed gives you Libya as it is post-NATO intervention, the full monty gives you Iraq or Afghanistan.

In the bigger picture it's not much of the Americans' concern, as there are plenty of regional powers (esp. Turkey) capable of setting up the "safe areas" or putting the coup de grace to the Assad dynasty. Supporting America's friends at this time is a better use of resources than fighting on behalf of someone who has a better-than-average chance of turning on you later on.

There are plenty of capable friendly-ish countries (Turkey, Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi and Jordan) with skin in this game. Playing this one cagey is appropriate, but Romney needs to be as clear as the circumstances permit about what he is prepared to do about it. After that be prepared to be flexible 'cause things can always change...

Guns don't murder people, a**holes murder people.

There's a lot going on this week, but one of the big international stories is the "Dark Knight" shooting rampage in Aurora Colorado last week. North of the border there was another gang-banger shooting in Scarborough albeit with a smaller body count, but there are important differences between the two ( i.e. lone maniac vs. sloppy and reckless thugs). I'll look at the common element, guns, availability and use thereof.

Gun control comes up as predictably as the sun every time there's a mass shooting, and I see no reason that will change. There are of course many other ways to kill someone besides a gun, and explosives do a very effective job of it either in concert with or without firearms. As a thought experiment I'll come up with a simple way to recreate the Aurora attack (I will not help immortalize that murderer's name) if guns weren't available to him.

The 'perp's apartment was rigged with explosives, so a remote-detonated car bomb was the least risky way to kill and maim a bunch of people. Want something more personal? He could have made a bunch of pipe bombs and gone into the theatres lobbing them into the middle of the crowd. Neither of these scenarios require access to any specialized or highly controlled items or substances and could have done as much or more damage.

My point? You can't ban enough stuff to keep lunatics from flipping out and going on a spree. Likewise, even in places where it is most certainly illegal to be carrying a weapon around nothing can stop someone who has one (legally owned or otherwise) from doing so. It is a matter of near certainty that all of the gang shootings in Toronto (home of very restrictive handgun laws) were perpetrated with illegal firearms.

My answer? Mandatory concealed carry for everyone with a clean record (capable of handling a pistol) might help to cut these things short when they happen. Otherwise, accept that bad things happen and try to minimize the occurrences and/or your exposure. After that, it's all luck to not be in the path of the rare but inevitable acts of entropic violence that will erupt no matter what the "authorities" try to do to prevent it.

Allies of Inconvenience

I read yesterday about the Tuareg in northern Mali splitting with the al-Queda shitheads who have hijacked their independence campaign, but I can't find the article online so you'll have to take my word for it. It should be easy to verify if you take the time, but in any event events with the Caliphate Clowns are following their now historical pattern.

They come in, ban everything even remotely fun, smash anything that looks like someone put some effort into making it (idolatry!) and piss everyone off. This was done in Afghanistan (Taliban) Iraq (al Queda) and to some extent wherever the Islamic hardcases reach critical mass (Saudi does a reasonable approximation). The program doesn't stop with that however.

In comes the "pissing everyone off" part, and the Tuareg have now realized what sort of tiger they were riding. The Tuareg are too tough to be "eaten" by the likes of al-Queda (much better men have tried), and the refugees streaming away from the jihadis are also doing their approval polls with their feet. Conditions are being set for the one thing that weakens any sort of insurgency: it gets too strong and concentrated for its' own good.

If you lose your ability to "swim as a fish in the sea of the people" (Mao) the big guns can take you out. The Tuareg rapprochement with the international community and the southern Malians vis a vis their autonomy expectations ("like Quebec" seems to be the new version) sets the stage for somebody (USA?) to come in and kick some al-Queda ass.

The tag "unintended consequences" alludes to the position the Tuareg now find themselves in, but more so to the less proximate cause of the current Mali shenanigans, the West's regime change in Libya. The Tuareg are bandits and have been completely outgunned by the jihads loading up in Libya and rolling over the border to set up another "Islamic Republic". If we now need to go in there and kill the latter we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The Libyan Army's arsenal has scattered to the four winds, mostly ending up moving through North Africa to various Salafist organizations. Mali, Egypt, and Gaza, possibly Tunisia and Algeria too will have a lot more guns and bombs, maybe even missiles. I know what needs to be done here and I'm sure I'm not alone, but we'll see who steps in.

It's good to have a King

I opened this up yesterday realizing that I'd written nothing here in the better part of a month, but was at a complete loss for topics. This has happened before of course, but is happening more often the last year or so as I realize i don't have much to say which is new. Well, who does anyway; it's a post-scarcity world for ideas too. With that in mind, here's what I think about what David Brooks thinks about our modern elites.

Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else. This attitude prevails in the Ivy League, in the corporate boardrooms and even at television studios where hosts from Harvard, Stanford and Brown rail against the establishment.

As a result, today’s elite lacks the self-conscious leadership ethos that the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys’ network did possess. If you went to Groton a century ago, you knew you were privileged. You were taught how morally precarious privilege was and how much responsibility it entailed. You were housed in a spartan 6-foot-by-9-foot cubicle to prepare you for the rigors of leadership.

The best of the WASP elites had a stewardship mentality, that they were temporary caretakers of institutions that would span generations. They cruelly ostracized people who did not live up to their codes of gentlemanly conduct and scrupulosity. They were insular and struggled with intimacy, but they did believe in restraint, reticence and service.

This is very much my argument in favour of continuing with our (Commonwealth) constitutional monarchy. The Royal Family is raised like this (and it even takes, sometimes), providing some institutional continuity much pooh-poohed by "progressive" republican elements in our society. To wit:

Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous). Wall Street firms, for example, now hire on the basis of youth and brains, not experience and character. Most of their problems can be traced to this.

When things are ALL about results it can be efficient, however ruthless efficiency is no way to live. It's also no way to run a business, i.e. for "shareholder value", but this is the trap that publicly owned companies run into. It is almost universally true that short-term solutions are not good in the long run. The corollary is that long-term things have no solutions, just management.

"Nothing ever ends", Watchmen fans. If I could, I'd be setting things up for my kids and great-grand kids, and it once was that the rich (elites) had estates, Duchies, Earldoms, etc. that were handed down. You can look at this as outmoded feudalism, or you can look at it as a multi-generational company providing some certainty for the tenants.

Yes, it's de riguer to be against "the Establishment", but please somebody explain to me what that is these days? The banks? Publicly-traded companies; if you want stop the ridiculous bonuses that executives get, buy up enough stock to vote them down. Unless you'd rather just smash things because life is insufficiently handed to you. Political elites? Don't make me laugh; they are merely opportunistic and know they have a limited shelf life.

Of course there is some shadowy world-wide oligarchical elite and with enough money there is a whole lot you can influence and get done. After that though we're in Yertle the Turtle territory and if the plebes have a real problem things can go seriously sideways in the planning cycle. That's Entropy, and a multi-generational elite will account for it. They would not, for example invade Iraq and have nothing to show for it but a lot of dead and injured troops and worn-out equipment.

We have something to the best of my immediate knowledge fairly unique in history: the USA as incipient Empire which is controlled by the new meritocratic elite. Accordingly it is REALLY bad at the Empire stuff, since that requires a long-term goal and the personal investment of the planners. The latter you will most certainly not get with a "democracy", so expect more schizo foreign policy behaviour from whatever passes for "America" these days.

The Road to Hell is paved by the good intentions of the new intellectual elites in academia (who make their way into politics; hello, Obamas) and the media. The problem of course is the Marxist/socialist cant that people are prefectable, they just need to be shown the way. The old-school view is that most people are fucked and it was your Duty to lead them by example. You will rarely if ever hear a social progressive talking about Duty, as it's viewed as archaic and patriarchal or something. Not surprising, because serving as an example severely circumscribes your freedom to do what you want. The mechanical difference between the approaches is that Example leadership pulls, the Nanny State pushes.

Different elite paradigms, different problems. There is theoretical upward mobility today, but in the old days there was in the Feudal system too (William the Conqueror, anyone?). All systems bloat and ossify over time, and the newer meritocratic version has merely done so more quickly and by different mechanisms. The much railed-against credentialism of today is the prime means of keeping the riff-raff in their place. As each generation gets positions, they increase the qualifications required beyond what they needed to get there. Forty years ago you could get in pretty much anywhere with High School (admittedly they actually taught something useful back then), but that generation turned that into a BA, and in many cases they now want post-grad and experience.

That's enough from me on that (for now) but the more I think about it the more real opportunity there was under the ancien regime vs. the current system. I'll close with an axiom to keep in mind when people talk about "equality": free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.