12th September 2003


The Jerusalem Post called today for the execution of Arafat. 

If the Israelis want to execute Arafat, then perhaps they should put him up for trial.  If they claim that he started the Infitada, then surely he can be charged with something like conspiracy to murder?  He does not even need to submit to arrest.  The trial can be held "in absentia" if Arafat does not attend.  If Arafat does not provide a defense, then a state defender would be provided.  If found guilty, restrictive procedures would be more readily acceptable to the uncommitted world.

Such a procedure might not be available for terrorists in stealth mode, however it should be possible to subject any public terrorists to adjudication.

The Jerusalem Post is, however, correct in stating that Arafat provides a safe haven figurehead, and as such his pronouncements must be regulated to remove any incitation to violence.


Back circa 1993 President Kim of North Korea signed an agreement with Bill Clinton et al that he would not develop nuclear technology if the US, Japan & South Korea would provide alternative energy. (Oil & a small reactor that could not be used to produce plutonium).  Unfortunately Clinton (not noted for delivering on promises) failed to deliver, so, not unexpectedly, Kim did not feel bound to his obligations.

Regardless, Kim should perhaps be conciliatory.  After seeing the US military at war I suspect that North Korea might manage to hold out against a US assault for between two weeks & two months.  President Bush seems to have a low tolerance for those who openly challenge US interests, and once he commits to conquest, he does not appear willing to lose face by retreat.  The threat of nuclear ICBMs is unlikely to cause the USA to fold.  Bluffing and calling is an integral part of the US psyche, exemplified in Bush.


The meme of Muslim government (religious oligarchy) has the potential to refute the Representative Democracy (elected dictatorship) meme.

The Muslims have found and developed a war strategy that exploits a crucial weakness in the representative government system.  The governing elite of representative democracy are vulnerable to suicidal assassination, and there are sufficient Muslim fundamentalists in a population of one billion to provide an unending stream of volunteers.

Fundamentalism seems to be a property of Judaism and it's derivatives, Christianity and Muslimism.  Typically, fundamentalists refer to the source writings of their religious stream, and adhere to the virtues of that era.  Moses delivered the law, and was the leader of pacific refugees.  Since then, fundamentalist Jews have mostly been refugees.  Christian fundamentalists tend to follow Jesus' command to "Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", and follow his example of preaching to masses, avoiding organized religion & government. 
  Mohommed employed a policy of assassination of political opponents, so it is perhaps not surprising that the 1% - 5% of Muslims who are fundamentalists seem to subscribe to that strategy.

The Muslim strategy seems to be succeeding.  The trend is that incidents increase in intensity and frequency.  Worldwide this is causing a disproportionate responses by the ruling elite.  As these attacks do not appear to be centrally organized, there is no political or military structure with which to negotiate or bribe.

Historically, the only effective controls on rampant Muslim fundamentalism have been the procedures that have managed fundamentalists since around 800AD.  Those controls are the very stable religious dictatorships (aka Caliphates) that rule most Muslim countries, and which ruled Iraq until Bush intervened.  The Turkish empire was a prime example.

Elected dictatorship (aka Representative democracy) is broken.  The cost of suppressing Muslim terrorists, both political and in dollar terms, is such that a reaction will be produced.  Eventually the general population will sympathize with and side with the terrorists.

With the aid of the internet our government could be reconstructed to bring about a devolution of legislative power to the total population.  That modification would make it much less susceptible to manipulation by the threat of assassination.   The reconstructed political model could follow the design of the internet, which is not hierarchical.


Pauline was jailed for three years for fraud.

Politicians and supporters expressed outrage.  As well they might.  The money obtained went as a refund for the campaign expenses of the elected members.  I thought that it was a principal of Australian justice that, to be found guilty, the miscreant had to show a guilty intent.  Where is the guilty intent?  Where was the profit to Pauline?

Prime minister John Howard has explained her political weakness succinctly.  She is genuine, but has no policies.

Your Diarist suggests that she should retire to her cell and write her memoirs, and set forth her policies.  She should choose a catchy title, something along the lines of "MY STRUGGLE".

Newspapers were rife with stories of disruptive elements terrorizing attendees of her political meetings.  Can I suggest a solution?  She should organize some sort of volunteer militia to keep order.  I believe that she would get many volunteers if she provided smart uniforms and utilized catchy music at her rallys.

Sound familiar?

The corrupt politicos in Germany tried the same aggressive suppressive techniques eight decades ago.  It didn't work then.