20th August 2006
What is "objective analysis"?



Last week about midnight as I drove home from the cinema a woman and a man stepped onto the road
and attempted to wave me to a stop (It was in Randwick near Centennial park).  My first impression had been that they needed help.  After second thoughts I confess to my shame that I drove past them without stopping to inquire.   I was afraid.  Stories are rife about criminal violence in similar circumstances.  I do not know whether my response is normal.  I suspect that it is not uncommon.

If there were queues for two aeroplanes, and one queue contained people of "middle eastern appearance", I would join the other queue.  I try not to be conscious of race, I know intellectually that most people of middle eastern appearance are probably as sane and rational as myself(?!).  I do not have control of my fears.  Similar incidents are occurring around the world.

For tens of thousands of years mankind has struggled to establish civilization.  History teaches us that civilization has been a constant struggle between centripetal and centrifugal social forces.  On the one hand peaceful individuals collect in villages and, by hard work, accumulate wealth.  On the other hand, violent individuals seek a short cut to wealth and power, and use force and terror to enslave their industrious neighbors and rob them of their wealth. 

What is the schism that is being produced in our civilization?  On one side we have those who we identify as "seeking to expand revolutionary social change through violence", on the other are those who "seek gradual, individual and consensual social change".  Factor analysis will reduce the vectors in human society (i.e. individuals) to no more than four.  I choose the following in order of importance.
  1. Religious.   Unlike any other major religion, the Muslim Religion is fundamentally hegemonistic and intrinsically fascist.  So fundamentalist Muslims will be in revolution against the existing order.
  2. Economic.  The economically disadvantaged are more likely to be revolutionary, the economically advantaged prefer stability.
  3. Racial.  Semites (Arabs) excluding Jews are growing to consider themselves to be part of a wider "Arab nation" and side with their revolutionary brothers.  In Australia, most people of European heritage are against the Arabs, and quite a few are also anti-Jews (i.e. just plain anti-semitic).  Africans seem to be drawn to the terrorists.  Indians are suffering because of Kashmir, and not revolutionary.  Chinese are currently neutral, however are unlikely to side with Arab revolutionaries.
  4. Cultural dynamic.  By this I mean the structure of the society.  Has the society a liberal democratic legislative structure, or a strict and immutable legislative structure.
Humans are a very one-dimensional species.  This is particularly obvious in politics, where most states have only two political choices.  So in the West, we identify one threat, (Muslim Fundamentalists) and that is the paradigm.  Muslims see only one enemy, and that is the historic enemy of Mohommed, the Jews.  So, e.g. if the US (or anybody else) contests with a Muslim country, the Muslims blame (that attitude of the USA) on "the Jews".

It can already be seen that the acts of terror that Muslims commit are causing a movement in the attitude of the rest of the world.  That response is slow to build, but once moved will be very hard to reverse.  Muslims are becoming the pariah states of the world, and (despite their near monopoly of oil resources) will find themselves isolated from civilization.

What are the possible outcomes?

At one extreme, the Arabs could over-run Israel, exterminating (as did Mohommed in Medina) every male Jew in the region, and taking the females as concubines.  I believe that they would then set similar plans for every Jew in the world, and continue with their (previously halted at Poitiers 732AD) holy ambition of spreading Islamo-fascism over the world, (which history teaches means economic slavery for everyone not a Muslim, and prevention of conversion to Islam by the enslaved Infidel).

At the other extreme, the Jews would advance so far technologically, (e.g. surveillance technology married with personal recognition database, small, ultra mobile, remote controlled weapons platforms etc) that every terrorist act would be countered by the bringing to justice of the possibly hundreds of people who were demonstrably involved in the terrorist act.  That extreme could result in a technological nightmare scenario that would make enslavement of most (99.999%) of mankind a virtual certainty.

I hope that we can find a middle way.

28th August.   A ceasefire with Hizb'allah has been in force for some days.  It is clear that Hizb'allah has suffered (by having it's supporters bombed), and that Israel has not won (it's soldiers have not been rescued.)  The Israelis are now paying the price for having exchanged prisoners in the past.  It is a hard calculus, but a hostage must be considered to already be dead, to prevent just such adventures.

2nd September 2006


I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but must say that the jail escape by ex-army officer Alfredo Reinado
(The man who led the revolt that resulted in the recent resignation of the Timor PM) does raise my suspicions.

In the Westminster system, politicians rely on permanent staff in the various government departments for advice, especially in such departments as foreign affairs.  This gives continuity in dealing with foreign governments, and obviously has desirable aspects.

Back when Indonesia conquered East Timor, it was with the approval of Australian government, and much of the responsibility for government policy was based on the advice of the public servant Richard Woollcott.  As a good public servant should, Richard had Australian interests in mind.  Particularly that potentially rich flow of money from the E.Timor hydrocarbon wells.  (Which happen to be located on the Australian continental shelf, but are closer to East Timor, which means according to international law that they belong to East Timor).

Although Richard seems to have left public office, there is a possibility that the policies continue.

Ousted Timor PM Alkatiri recently complained on the ABC "Four Corners" program that he was rolled.  He raised as possible cause the tough deal he was negotiating with Australia over the Hydrocarbons treaty.  The new Horta government has apparently, within days of taking power, signed a more favorable deal for Australia....

Alkatiri's complaint would have focused attention on the trial of Alfredo Reinado.  Questions would have been raised at his trial.  I would imagine that publicity might not have been found appealing to those who organized the change of government.  I suspect that Reinado and his gang will eventually be given new identities and retire in a nice villa somewhere in Australia....

- ABM -

Drudge today reports:
U.S. Interceptor Missile Hits Target...
Knocked Out Over Pacific...[PDF]
U.S. now sees 'good chance' to hit N. Korea missiles...

Back in July 2000 I strongly recommended that the USA pursue the ABM option.  I am glad to see that they followed my advice.

My advice now is that at least two corporations should build competing rockets, another three or four corporations should provide different computers, and lots of individual software suppliers be contracted to provide proprietary intelligent software algorithms.

It is a near hopeless proposition to try to keep the ABM software secret.  So the military should resign themselves to the inevitable.  The historic balance*of megaweapons has again tilted towards the defender.  A wise strategist should make sure that any group of ABM's has several different rockets, each with a different defense algorithm.  It might be possible to subvert or defeat one or two algorithms, but each extra unique ABM exponentially reduces the chance of such failure.

In fact, I suggest that the US start selling ABM's on the open market.  It's an efficient way to stop nuclear proliferation.

* The historic balance has always existed between defensive military science & offensive military science.  e.g. at one time a castle was the ultimate defense, and until the invention of gunpowder & the cannon, so it remained.  During WWI the soldier in a trench provided the ultimate defensive system.  By WWII the aeroplanes and Tank had changed the balance so that offensive systems prevailed.