Cowardice Is Not A Policy

Sir Wellington Boot, 8/12.  Henry... As I always expected! Our Army is controlled by cowards in the Cabinet. This desperate American request for the Australian soldiers in Iraq to start fighting has been rejected by the 'White Feathers' in our Cabinet. Our soldiers will not be embedded with the Iraqi soldiers just as John Howard refused to be personally embedded with Australian troops in Vietnam. What a shameful decision; how humiliating for our Army.

Click here for full article

Poison From The Imams

Sir Wellington Boot, 7/12.  Henry...I have to give you this story from the 'Australian' because the Mecca Morning Herald here in Sydney refuses to run any story on an Islamic matter if the muzzies appear in a bad light. This is what pases for journalism with the Fairfax Organisation these days; I assume that Al Age in Melbourne runs by the same Koranic publication ethos.

Click here for full article

Another Warning For Bizoids.

Sir Wellington Boot, 6/12.  Henry...as a careful reader you will recognise that I warn your bizoid friends often. I urge them to keep a clear eye on the international security field, because it certainly affects their business plans. Given the quality of security analysis available from 'Your Hero JWH' the bizoids must now be nervous.

Click here for full article.

Western Civilisation

Sir Wellington Boot, 4/12.  Henry...you and I have had the immeasurable advantage of being educated in proper schools where where we were imbued with a notion of belonging to something greater than our our paltry selves; something which has made the society in which we live; something which immensely preceded us and will need to flow on long after we are gone: WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Click here for full article.

Poor Fella My (Mother) Country

Sir Wellington Boot, 4/12.  Henry...this bracing article comes from an oft quoted source, 'DHIMMI WATCH'. I recommend this site as a daily reading habit. The situation in Britain continues to decline steadily. Poor Olde Blighty is now blighted with the most egregiously dreadful government in Europe. Blair is indescrible in polite company. I strongly suspect (and fervently hope) that the Tories will win the next election in Britain in a landslide IF (and only IF) they stand up for Britain. Under the rebarbative Blair Britain is well on the way to becoming Al Bion, an outpost of Sunni Wahhabi Islam.

Click here for full article

From Sir Wellington Boot

Dear Mr. Curley,
 
The problem of the muzzies in Australia is a vexed one. We do not wish to debase ourselves with improper behaviour, but we also cannot allow our society to be undermined by Islamist imperialism. My oft enunciated 3 point plan holds a lot of promise I think:

Click here for full article

A Pot Boiling Furiously

Sir Wellington Boot, 1/12.  Henry...the following six snippets are from today's Debka page. One day of developments! Clearly this sort of pressure cannot build up without some eventual and mighty explosion. I thought that I should bring this to the attention of your bizoid readers lest they think that their next three year business plans are now all set and ready to go. Once again I will urge folks to pay attention to the snake pit in the deserty East...the fangs and venom can reach us here in Paradise. Stay on your toes, chaps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush postpones summit with Iraqi PM Maliki from Wednesday night to Thursday

November 29, 2006, 9:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

The White House denied that the postponement was a snub or related to the leak of a memo by national security adviser Stephen Hadley questioning the prime minister’s capacity to control sectarian violence in Iraq. Nouri Maliki arrived in Amman for the talks early Wednesday. Bush landed in the Jordanian capital after nightfall. In the interim, five ministers belonging to the radical Shiite Moqtada Sadr’s faction suspended their membership of Maliki government in protest over his meeting with Bush. They were joined by 30 lawmakers of the Sadr faction substantially weakening the Iraqi government.

US ponders withdrawing US troops from embattled Anbar province as Bush arrives in Amman Wednesday night, Nov. 29, for key talks on Iraq.

November 29, 2006, 9:21 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ahead of the US president’s talks with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and Arab rulers, the Washington Post quotes a classified Marine Corps intelligence report, which finds that the US military is no longer able to defeat the bloody insurgency in the western Iraqi province or counter al-Qaeda’s dominant influence over its 1.25 m mostly Sunni population. Most are concentrated in Fallujah, Haditha, Hit, Qaim and Ramadi.

Lebanon’s pro-Syrian factions threaten mass street action within 48 hours to topple the pro-Western Siniora government

November 29, 2006, 4:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

This was agreed upon by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri -- both Shi'ite Muslims -- and Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun Wednesday, Nov. 29. DEBKAfile adds: the mass anti-government demonstration is scheduled to coincide with US President George Bush’s key talks on Iraq and other Middle East crises in Amman over the next two days, or immediately after he leaves the region.

Saudi Arabia will intervene to save Sunni Muslims once US begins Iraq pullout – report

November 29, 2006, 4:01 PM (GMT+02:00)

A former government spokesman, Nawaf Obaid, said Riyadh will use money, weapons or oil power to prevent Iraqi Sunnis from being massacred by Iranian-backed Shiite militias – even at the risk of a regional war. Obaid says his views do not represent those of the Saudi government. DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources note that he appears to speak for a group of very influential Saudis in Washington, including ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal.

Pakistan test-fires new version of nuclear-capable missile

November 29, 2006, 12:50 PM (GMT+02:00)

The medium-range Hatf IV (Shaheen-1), whose range is 700 km, was launched Wednesday, Nov. 29, the day after India carried out its first successful test interception of a ballistic missile. The Defense Ministry in New Delhi said a second missile was used to shoot down an incoming rockeDEBKAfile reports: Russia sells Iran sophisticated missile systems capable of repelling US or Israeli air or missile assaults

November 27, 2006, 12:44 PM (GMT+02:00)

The first of 29 Tor-M1 systems in the $700m deal have been delivered to Iran by Moscow despite US opposition to their sale of a weapon widely regarded as the most advanced of its kind in the world. Some Iranian and Russian air defense experts say its full deployment at Iran’s nuclear installations will make them virtually invulnerable to American or Israeli attack in the foreseeable future. Therefore, no more than six months remain, until the Russian Tor-M1 systems are in place, for any attempt to knock out Iran’s nuclear weapons industry.

DEBKAfile reports: Russia sells Iran sophisticated missile systems capable of repelling US or Israeli air or missile assaults

November 27, 2006, 12:44 PM (GMT+02:00)

The first of 29 Tor-M1 systems in the $700m deal have been delivered to Iran by Moscow despite US opposition to their sale of a weapon widely regarded as the most advanced of its kind in the world. Some Iranian and Russian air defense experts say its full deployment at Iran’s nuclear installations will make them virtually invulnerable to American or Israeli attack in the foreseeable future. Therefore, no more than six months remain, until the Russian Tor-M1 systems are in place, for any attempt to knock out Iran’s nuclear weapons industry.

The Imams Are The Source Of The Problem

Sir Wellington Boot, 30/11.  Henry...this story from today's Australian newspaper is a sad indication that the Government of JWH does not yet 'get it'. They persist in dealing with the muzzie imams and treating them like the other clergy that they know...Archbishop Jensen, Cardinal Pell and such like. Wrong! All wrong! The muslim imam serves the same purpose in the muslim community as the Nazi gauleiter served in the Third Reich : dragoon the faithful to obedience and support of the aims of the masters. Our Pollyanna ministers fall into the trap, under the advice of public servants. Helpfully we now know the real level of intelligence in the ranks of the senior public servants in Canberra, thanks to the Cole Enquiry.

I will repeat the needed policy, for the benefit of the dullards in Canberra...

1. Deal only with the problems of individual muzzies as they strive to join in the Australian main stream, over the fanatic opposition of the imams. Give no assistance to Islamic Establishments or their leaders. None. Not an invitation. Not a meeting. Not a penny. Create actual impediments to the establishment of any muzzie organisation not controlled by Canberra via a suitable muzzie Judas. Canberra has an unlimited supply of pieces of silver...far more than thirty. Squeeze current muzzie groups out of existence if they cannot be taken over and run by government agents. This is how Turkey was run by Kemal Ataturk ..may he look upon the face of God forever. Integration is the only prospect available for muzzies in Australia.

2. Stop allowing any imams to enter Australia. Ditto for all other 'lecturers' and such like political officers of the 'Islamintern'. Do not extend the visas of the imams here, show them the door. Don't allow them to gain citizenship...their committment is not to Australia. The struggle is between the government and the imams for control of the destiny of muzzies in Australia: the government must squeeze the muzzies into the Australian mainstream; the imams want a seperate muzziedom planted in Australia as part of the long term policy of the Wahhabi Islamintern. Unfortunately the geniuses in Canberra do not seem to know that this struggle is taking place. That is why the imams are winning this struggle, so far.

3. Conduct a cultural onslaught against muzzie exceptionalism and separation. Integration is the only option. Hammer this in and be serious about it. We cannot leave all the Muzzie Question to ASIO. They will do a good job on the policing aspects but they can't win the War. Only culture can win the War. Islam is a dead end culture but still grabs the poor muzzies because Westerners think it is 'religion' and therefore shouldn't be touched. We need a full scale culture war against all the rubbish that passes for thought and action in Islam. How else will the millions of enslaved muzzies be freed of this darkness?

If the muzzie slaves, themselves, cannot produce an Ibrahim Lincoln...we must help them. It is our Christian duty, Henry.

May I remind you Henry that it was the culture war against Communism which destroyed it, not soldiers shooting guns. Freedom trumps repression; free economics trumps Sharia mercantilism; individual lives trump lumpenproletariat 'umma. This can all be done in Australia, if we can find some sensible politicians and public servants who can see the situation for what it actually is and who have stopped grovelling to the demands of imams.

Until the real political agenda of the imams and Islam in general are recognised our governments will continue making mistakes. Being well meaning, like Andrew Robb, is not a reason to stay blind. The Australian people want to have Australia protected from the backwardness of Islam. This means, pre-eminently, taking action against the political officers of Islam...the imams. Currently there is no action being taken against these poisoners of our national well. Until such action occurs we will continue down a path laid out for us by the Islamintern and its agents in Australia...the imams.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imam body to bridge culture gulf
Richard Kerbaj

November 30, 2006

A NEW national imams board will redefine the role of the mufti, crack down on radicals and push for more sermons to be delivered in English under a plan by Muslim leaders to reshape the image of the religion in Australia.
The board's mainstream clerics from around the country will elect a mufti and clarify the role of Islam's most senior spiritual leader - now held by the controversial Sydney sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, who is not guaranteed to retain the role.

The Australian National Imams Council was set up earlier this month and will hold its first conference in January to thrash out whether the mufti should be purely a spiritual figure or also have a political role. Members include Melbourne cleric Fehmi Naji El-Imam and Sydney-based Yahya Safi and Ibrahim Abu Mohammed.

Lakemba cleric Shady Suleiman told The Australian yesterday the board's 78 spiritual leaders - 95 per cent of whom speak "proper English" - will warn other clerics against making inflammatory remarks and encourage "more awareness in their (preaching) style".

Sheik Shady, deputy spiritual head under Sheik Hilali of Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southwest, said the board would aim to set up institutes to graduate Australian-born imams.

Sydney-based Indonesian cleric and council member Amin Hady said it was crucial for imams to develop their English skills so their messages were understood by young Muslims and the mainstream community.

"Acquisition of the knowledge of English by those imams is very crucial and very important," the head of the Zetland mosque said.

"If they want to deliver a speech in their native language, they must still deliver it also in English after that."

The council was registered as an organisation this month following the uproar over Sheik Hilali, when The Australian revealed that in a Ramadan sermon he had likened revealingly dressed women to "uncovered meat" inviting sexual assault.

The national body is a significant development. An immigration department-backed national conference of Muslim clerics in September has yet to produce a national board, and the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - the umbrella body now in administration - also failed to deliver on its promise to set one up earlier this year.

Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs Andrew Robb last night welcomed the formation of the council as a constructive initiative.

"This will help the imams to help the Muslim community to take responsibility for the difficult issues confronting it," he said. "It will provide some much needed co-ordination and leadership among the highly fragmented groups of Muslims in Australia."

Sheik Shady said the board was set up without government assistance to improve the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. "If the Government is willing to support, they're more than welcome," he said.

He said the council would elect a mufti in January "in a free and fair election". There were a "handful" of imams who were qualified for the job.

Sheik Shady, a 29-year-old who helps bring troubled young Muslim in Sydney back into the fold, said the council would approach hardline clerics to advise them against inciting hate.

Sheik Hady, a former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board, said some of the differences that divided sections of the Muslim community would "always be there", but the council would work to minimise them through dialogue and understanding.

Islam = Repression = Poverty

Sir Wellington Boot, 30/11. Henry...I am a big fan of Egypt. Been there plenty of times, by air and by land. Bloody marvellous, to coin a phrase. This very sad article from the German site, 'signandsight.com' rings very true. It is now becoming increasingly obvious that Islam itself is the root cause of the poverty of the muzzies. The sharia law insanities concerning economics are bad enough, but the real problem is the relentless development of an existential hopelessness that crushes the soul in every muslim boy and girl as they grow up.

Click here for full article

Ali Baba and the Forty Syrians

Sir Wellington Boot, 28/11.  Henry...the upcoming talks in Jordan between George Bush and all sorts of Arabs appear to be pointless. The idea (if the Bush Administration can be credited with an 'idea') seems to be to do everything except get out of Iraq. Getting out from under this catastrophe is the ONLY serious and intractable problem faced by the American government in the Middle East, so it is understandable that Bush wants to do everything but that. Dementia in action.

Careful readers will be aware of the broader scale of this entire involvement of the West with Islamist Imperialism. Poor George Bush doesn't appear to know any of this; at least he never says anything which would lead a careful reader to surmise that the Presidential Brain has these electrical impulses.

One of the main gambits in the game plan for this meeting in Jordan seems to be to lure Syria away from Iran. The Syrian price for this perfidy will be very steep: return of the Golan heights from Israel and a free hand in Lebanon. This is a very large price to pay for...what, precisely?

I am sure the Americans will agree to pay this. Bush does not have to go to the polls again and a Democrat Congress which baulks at this price can be branded as 'opposing peace' in the Middle East. The Israelis will scream about the Golan, but the Olmert government is surely too weak to be able to resist Washington's demands. Israel can itself demand that a returned Golan goes back to a Syria which signs a peace treaty, a la Egypt, with Israel. I am not confident that Israel could get this reasonable caveat from a Washington which is extremely badly lead and frantic for some achievement in foreign affairs. Without such a caveat, Israel can say, Syria leaves itself open to Israeli stirrings of the possum among Syria's enemies in Lebanon and among the 85% of Syrians who are excluded from the government of their country. The 15% of Syrians who are Alawites (a Shiite sect) run the whole show. Surely a wily Hebrew can make some mischief there. Surely a sensible Syrian can imagine the sort of mischief of which a wily Hebrew is capable.Surely.

Of course, after all this, Syria will not actually do the nasty on the Iranians but will still get the American payments (Golan and Lebanon) in exchange for words, words, words.

Mr. President, meet Ali Baba and the Forty Syrians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBKAfile: Bush to pursue US policy reversal on Israel in bid for Arab help on Iraq – in his Amman talks Thursday. Brent Scowcroft is new administration policy guru

November 27, 2006, 2:26 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hamas was quick to pick up the new tune emanating from Washington. Its leaders and Mahmoud Abbas declared a hurried ceasefire Sunday to take advantage of the US president’s willingness to broaden his Amman talks from his planned meetings with Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki to an effort to convene an international conference on the Palestinian issue. Israel’s prime minister Ehud Olmert accepted the ceasefire against military advice to capture high ground. Abdullah chipped in by saying that Palestine “is the core” of all Middle East violence.

No seasoned observer expects the truce to outlast Bush’s departure.

Who Let The Dogs Out?

Sir Wellington Boot, 27/11.  Henry...this posting from the usually unreliable New York Times is further bad news. As any bizoid knows, once a company has a solid source of finance it is in business in a fair dinkum way. Well, Muzzie Insurgency (International) Pty Ltd (Offices in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Bali) is now open for business. I think that a big round of applause should go to those real experts on foreign affairs, Bush/Blair/Howard, for this most successful IPO. A few more victories like this and we will all be ruined.

Now what do we do?

This problem is with us now for God knows how many years. We will need a completely new style of armed forces with which to fight it; new international laws to make our fighting legal; a new and more vigorous diplomatic front (there can be no 'safe go' areas for the insurgents); in Australia we will need to have a bi-partisan agreement on the reality and conduct of this Cold War II...above all, we will need to decide at the beginning whether we are engaged in fighting crime or conducting a war.

As we are actually in this war, let us be sensible for once (and stop clinging to undergraduate views of the world; Bono concerts and the like) and declare openly that Australia is in a state of war with ....We can fill in the names of the insurgent groups as they come to our attention. Instead of having 450 diggers working as baggage handlers at Saddam International Airport in Baghdad, we would be better of having these lads in 45 counter-insurgent groups scattered all about South East Asia and other areas of interest, paying late night night visits to people on their list. Let the lads grow their hair longer and they will have no difficulty blending in as yet more yob Aussies boozing their way around the region. Two can play this game, Henry.

The Americans give some indication of making advances toward growing their Fourth Generation warfare capacity to meet this challenge. Our diggers are not slouches in this war game, so we should put the foot to the pedal and get moving. To my knowledge there is no indication that JWH sees the need for any bi-partisan approach to this central problem. No bruvver that I know has had any talks with any of the real world experts in foreign affairs who are so numerous in the Liberal Party in Canberra.

This is not a problem that can be dealt with in the same way that JWH dealt with his support for the Vietnam War.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 — The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.

As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid for hundreds of kidnap victims, the report says. It estimates that unnamed foreign governments — previously identified by American officials as including France and Italy — paid $30 million in ransom last year.

A copy of the seven-page report was made available to The Times by American officials who said the findings could improve understanding of the challenges the United States faces in Iraq.

The report offers little hope that much can be done, at least soon, to choke off insurgent revenues. For one thing, it acknowledges how little the American authorities in Iraq know — three and a half years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein — about crucial aspects of insurgent operations. For another, it paints an almost despairing picture of the Iraqi government’s ability, or willingness, to take steps to tamp down the insurgency’s financing.

“If accurate,” the report says, its estimates indicate that these “sources of terrorist and insurgent finance within Iraq — independent of foreign sources — are currently sufficient to sustain the groups’ existence and operation.” To this, it adds what may be its most surprising conclusion: “In fact, if recent revenue and expense estimates are correct, terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq.”

Some terrorism experts outside the government who were given an outline of the report by The Times criticized it as imprecise and speculative. Completed in June, the report was compiled by an interagency working group investigating the financing of militant groups in Iraq.

A Bush administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the group’s existence. He said it was led by Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, and was made up of about a dozen people, drawn from the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Treasury Department and the United States Central Command.

The group’s estimate of the financing for the insurgency, even taking the higher figure of $200 million, underscores the David and Goliath nature of the war. American, Iraqi and other coalition forces are fighting an array of shadowy Sunni and Shiite groups that can draw on huge armories left over from Mr. Hussein’s days, and benefit from the willingness of many insurgents to fight with little or no pay. If the $200 million a year estimate is close to the mark, it amounts to less than what it costs the Pentagon, with an $8 billion monthly budget for Iraq, to sustain the American war effort here for a single day.

But other estimates suggest the sums involved could be far higher. The oil ministry in Baghdad, for example, estimated earlier this year that 10 percent to 30 percent of the $4 billion to $5 billion in fuel imported for public consumption in 2005 was smuggled back out of the country for resale. At that time, the finance minister estimated that close to half of all smuggling profits was going to insurgents. If true, that would be $200 million or more from fuel smuggling alone.

For Washington, the report’s most dismaying finding may be that the insurgency now survives off money generated from activities inside Iraq, and no longer depends on sums Mr. Hussein and his associates seized as his government collapsed. American officials said that as American troops entered Baghdad, Mr. Hussein’s oldest son, Qusay, took more than $1 billion in cash from the Central Bank of Iraq and stashed it in steel trunks aboard a flatbed truck. Large sums of cash were found in Mr. Hussein’s briefcase when he was captured in December 2003.

But the report says Mr. Hussein’s loyalists “are no longer a major source of funding for terrorist or insurgent groups in Iraq.” Part of the reason, the report says, is that an American-led international effort has frozen $3.6 billion in “former regime assets.” Another reason, it says, is that Mr. Hussein’s erstwhile loyalists, realizing that “it is increasingly obvious that a Baathist regime will not regain power in Iraq,” have turned increasingly to spending the money on their own living expenses. The trail to these assets “has grown cold,” the report adds.

John Howard V.C.

Sir Wellington Boot, 27/11.  Henry...I know that you sup with our current masters in Canberra, so I won't put you or your site on the spot about this business of JWH and Vietnam. Just the same old question : as he was 25 in 1965 and unmarried; as he fully supported the catastrophic calculations that underpinned the war; why didn't he volunteer for miltary service? Instead of going as a tourist to Long Tan why wasn't he returning as an old soldier?

I am not a miltarist, I do not think war is the solution to all problems (although it is a solution to some serious problems...vide A. Hitler and certain muzzie pains in the neck). However, if one spruiks one's mouth of about the 'rightness' of a particular war , but assiduously avoided actually going oneself....well, what are we to make of the moral value of such trumpetings of support? How are we to calculate the moral worth of such a fellow? With 520 dead and 2398 wounded this is not an academic exercise in political point scoring.

I invite any fan of JWH who is a reader to answer my simple and valid question...

What did you do during the War, John?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 24, 2006

John Howard exposed what he's made of on the Long Tan battlefield, writes Peter Hartcher.

MARTIN Luther King jnr described the Vietnam War as "a war that mutilates the conscience". It damaged the consciences of many of the men who supported the war, advocated the war and fought the war.

One of the war's architects, Robert McNamara, the defence secretary to US presidents Kennedy and Johnson, has made it the project of his later life to expiate his guilt by explaining how and why the war was "wrong, terribly wrong".

In Australia, Malcolm Fraser and Peter Cosgrove are among those who have regretted the war that Australia joined at the cost of 520 dead and 2398 wounded.

Vietnam was the war that marked Australia as America's uniquely reliable ally; it was the one major American war of the last half-century that even the British refused to join.

The Prime Minster, John Howard, this week made his first visit to Vietnam in any capacity. The war still weighs heavily on the country. It is not only the quarter of a million South Vietnamese troops who died, the 1.1 million North Vietnamese forces who died, the2 million civilians who were killed, and the families and memories they have left behind.

Howard seemed to be conscious of the suffering on all sides. He laid a wreath at a war cemetery for the Vietnamese forces. He became the first Australian prime minister to visit the cross that marks the site of the storied Battle of Long Tan, where more Australians died than in any other single engagement of the war.

The Vietcong had been preparing to attack a major Australian base with strategic intent: to inflict so heavy a loss that the Australian government would be obliged to withdraw altogether, leaving the US politically and militarily isolated.

But an Australian patrol found them first and, in an intense three-hour firefight in a heavy tropical downpour, held fast until they were relieved by a larger Australian contingent.

Eighteen Australians died. The North Vietnamese death toll is not known but, on the morning after the battle, after the Vietcong had spent the night recovering their dead and injured, the Australians found 245 enemy dead.

Howard laid another wreath here and greeted a small band of Australian veterans who had worked into the night to scrub and repaint the cross and its tile-and-concrete surrounds.

The recognition of the sacrifice of Australia's fighters in Vietnam was "some recompense" for the shabby treatment the troops received from both sides of Australian politics when they returned from Vietnam, Howard told the veterans.

"We won't make that mistake again," he said.

It was not until the final moments of Howard's visit that a reporter thought to ask him his view of the war. It is not a war that many people in politics, even conservatives, will defend.

As the official historian of Australia in the war, Peter Edwards, summarised it: "The prevailing view in Australia, in the middle and on the left, is that the war was a mistake. Conservatives will sometimes tend to shuffle their feet and look at the floor."

John Elliott, one-time president of the Liberal Party, once remarked that the Vietnam War had cost the party the votes of an entire generation.

But not John Howard. "I supported our involvement at the time and I don't intend to recant that," he said. "I believe that in public life you are accountable for the decisions that you take. I mean, I didn't hold any position of authority then but I supported the reasons for Australia's involvement and nothing has altered my view that, at the time, on the assessments that were made then, I took that view and I took that view properly."

Unprovoked, he went on to expand this view into a whole philosophy of political positioning: "And I don't intend to indulge this preoccupation that many have in recanting everything that they supported when they were in positions of authority. I think in public life you take a position and I think particularly of the positions I've taken in the time I've been Prime Minister. I have to live with the consequences of those both now and into the future."

And then he took his position beyond political resolve into a realm of almost superhuman recalcitrance: "And if I ever develop reservations, well, I hope I would have the grace to keep them to myself because I think you take a position and you've got to live by that and be judged by it, and that's my position."

He delivered this with enough force and feeling to suggest he had someone in mind. Fraser, perhaps? Or could it be another leader on another war. He was speaking only shortly after Tony Blair had let slip that the invasion of Iraq had been "a disaster".

Asked earlier about Blair's remark, Howard replied that the struggle in Iraq was heroic, not disastrous. Of course, these are not inconsistent. Heroes are not made on calm seas in sunny weather but in the midst of disasters. It is simply a matter of political judgement which element you choose to emphasise.

When you think of many of Howard's positions over the years, his comments do seem to explain his steely resolve on matters such as industrial relations reform and saying sorry to Aboriginal Australia. Now he is the world's staunchest defender of the invasion of Iraq, indeed a "man of steel".

Unless, of course, you consider his many reversals over the years. He was opposed to Medicare before he was in favour of it; he was opposed to the GST before he was in favour of it; he was a sceptic of global warming until he became a convert.

Howard's great commitment to holding his ground is absolute. Until he thinks it's going to cost him power. A man of steel perhaps, but a very malleable alloy.

Vital Information

Sir Wellington Boot, 27/11.  Henry...this small posting comes from that doughty fighter for our side, Melanie Phillips. This tough gal is London based and gives the Islamic Jihadists 'whatfor' at every opportunity, of which there are many.

The point she makes is an important one: the ordinary folk who are on our side in this life and death struggle with Islamic Jihadism are subjected to serious censorship of information in regard to the realities of Islamic Jihadism; censorship by our own people. The western media (including Australia's media) is run, generally, by faithless and chattering luvvies who are still addicted to the remnants of the failed world view of the mult/culti priesthood. The current realities of life are either denied outright by many in the media or dissolved in the confusion of the 'nice muslim couple across the street' irrelevancy. As well, the insidious anti-Americanism of much of the Australian media is at work: muslims are fighting Americans, therefore the muslim cause must be good.

Of course, I can appreciate that many muslims, especially in Australia are not supporters of any reactionary Islamic Jihadist agenda; they just want a quiet life as Australians. I know this and welcome them among us; however, we must not blind ourself to the terrible realities of the Jihadists activities simply to avoid making the calm muslims unhappy.

Our side is engaged in Cold War II against these Islamic warriors. To carry this war to a successful conclusion, as we did against the Soviets, the people on our side need to be properly informed about the activities of our enemies. These activities are real, are dangerous to us, and are directly targetted to us. We are not tangential victims of some war to help the Palestinians or Chechnyians. We are the real targets of this Islamic war.

Readers who can exercise influence on media folk should never falter in getting the truth out to our side. I certainly never miss an opportunity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 25, 2006

A small light shines in CNN

On CNN Headline News, Glenn Beck has transmitted a notable hour-long show which broadcasts images of violent jihadism which the mainstream media have never revealed to the public. This show does two very important things. Like the film Obsesssion (see earlier post) which is essential viewing, it reveals the utterly shocking and sickening nature and extent of what we are up against. It is much harder, having seen this footage, to maintain the fiction that Islamic terrorism is caused by geopolitical grievances such as Iraq or Palestine; it is clear from this footage that it is driven instead by pathological delusions of bigotry, paranoia and demented hatred that have indoctrinated millions of people in the Arab and Muslim world. Second, it reveals what Glenn Beck himself refers to at the beginning of the show: that the mainstream media has simply failed or refused to make this information known, thus ensuring that the west is crippled in its response to the threat that it faces because the media has ensured that it does not even understand what it is. All credit therefore to CNN, of all stations, for transmitting this show — can you imagine the BBC doing such a thing? — and maybe one might dare hope that the high ratings which it appears to have had will switch a lightbulb on for CNN’s hierarchy, so that this is not merely a one-off aberration in the cause of journalistic objectivity and a return to sanity.

Roskam's Good Advice

Sir Wellington Boot, 27/11.  Henry… our dear friend John Roskam advises giving the voters what they want. This is usually a good move so let me advise Bomber to adopt it.

The whole nuclear/global warming question has been getting a very good run in recent months with more promised. Even my ancient Mother now has views on these matters. So why doesn’t Bomber steal a march on JWH (Kim’s got to steal something, and quickly) by proposing a three question plebiscite. This is not a referendum involving our beloved constitution, but merely an application of Roskam’s good advice. Therefore the winning answers would be on the total national votes; not broken up by state results. The advantage of this proposal would be to get answers on this matter so governments and business could know the ground rules and parameters set by the voters.

Click here for full article

A big more good news

Sir Wellington Boot, 22/11.  Henry...God bless the Danes for standing up for their own culture and social norms. They have had enough of bludging muzzies who use the Danish 'social safety net' as a hammock. More power to them. They are spot on the money when they identify the totalitarian nature of contemporary Islamism. The Danes have a track record of resisting the German version of nazism, it is no wonder they are bucking against the current muzzie version.

Click here for full article

Silence Not Always Golden

Sir Wellington Boot, 20/11.  Henry...this short aticle from the New York Post shows a problem which exists here in Australia as well: the silencing of pro peace voices in the muslim communities by anti peace muslims. Until we have a bi-partisan policy to lure the muzzies out from their closed communities into the wider Australian community we will have these problems continuing. The current situation is pretty good; many muzzies here have jumped straight into the mainstream (my local railway Station Master is a case in point) but there are still many thousands of muzzies in the grip of Wahhabi muslim thugs who use a variety of methods (including threats of violence) to fight off integration.

Our various governments are dead wrong to leave these poor people in the grip of Wahhabi thugs simply because the word 'religion' is used. Clearly the current crop of Canberra decision makers does not include any people who have a serious understanding of 'religion' in the modern world. It is thousands of muzzies who pay the price for our uselessness in this important matter.

Money and resources are needed urgently, as well as a clearly thought out, PC free, bi-partisan policy promoting muzzie integration into the Australian mainstream; all muzzies.

It cannot be left entirely to ASIO to deal with these Wahhabi promoters of terrorism who freely swan about Australia (thanks Amanda) poisoning Australian muzzies. I do not believe that there will be a 'Clash of Civilizations' but we are obviously at the start of 'Cold War II'. We won the first one against Sovietism. (Recent High Court judgements are aberrations). We can win the second against Islamism by similar methods...better ideas, more humanist culture and universal prosperity, not just police forces and defence budgets. Surely this preparation for 'Cold WarII' is a worthy matter for both sides in Australia to get their heads together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISSENT CRUSHED

WHY MUSLIMS RARELY SPEAK OUT, EVEN IN U.S.

November 19, 2006 -- MUSLIMS are often accused of not speaking out sufficiently against terrorism. Nonie Darwish knows one reason why: Their fellow Muslims won't let them.

Darwish, who comes from Egypt and was born and raised a Muslim, was set to tell students at Brown University about the twisted hatred and radicalism she grew to despise in her own culture. A campus Jewish group, Hillel, had contacted her to speak there Thursday.

But the event was just called off.

Muslim students had complained that Darwish was "too controversial." They insisted she be denied a platform at Brown, and after contentious debate Hillel agreed.

Weird: No one had said boo about such Brown events as a patently anti-Israel "Palestinian Solidarity Week." But Hillel said her "offensive" statements about Islam "alarmed" the Muslim Student Association, and Hillel didn't want to upset its "beautiful relationship" with the Muslim community.

Plus, Brown's women's center backed out of co-sponsoring the event, even though it shares Darwish's concerns about the treatment of women. Reportedly, part of the problem was that Darwish had no plans to condemn Israel for shooting Arab women used by terrorists as human shields, or for insufficiently protecting Israeli Arab wives from their husbands.

In plugging their ears to Darwish, Brown's Muslim students proved her very point: Muslims who attempt constructive self-criticism are quickly and soundly squelched - by other Muslims.

"Speaking out for human rights, women's rights, equality or even peace with Israel is a taboo that can have serious consequences" in the Arab world, Darwish says. In part to drive home that point, she wrote a book, just out. Its title says it all: "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror."

Darwish argues that her own community - in the Middle East and in America - is hostile to criticism, even from Muslims. After 9/11, she says, many in Egypt refused to believe that Muslims were responsible. Instead, they blamed "the Zionist conspiracy."

From her childhood in the '50s, she's seen seething animosity toward Jews, Israel, America and non-believers generally pervert her culture. "I asked myself, as a Muslim Arab child, was I ever taught peace? The answer is no. We learned just the opposite: honor and pride can only come from jihad and martyrdom."

In elementary schools in Gaza, where she lived until age 8, Darwish learned "vengeance and retaliation. Peace," she says, "was considered a sign of defeat and weakness."

An event in 1996 inflamed her longstanding frustration with her community. Her brother suffered a stroke while in Gaza, and his Egyptian friends and relatives all agreed: To save his life, he needed to go to Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, not to Cairo. Even though they had spent their lives demeaning Israelis - and boasting of Arab supremacy.

Hadassah saved her brother's life; understandably, her appreciation for Jews and Israelis grew. Today Darwish preaches not only the almost embarrassing lengths to which Jews go to seek dialogue and peace, but also their cultural, political, scientific and economic contributions.

Such notions from anyone in the Arab Muslim world are indeed rare. But Darwish isn't just anyone: Her father was killed by Israelis. Yet she doesn't blame the Jewish state - for her father was Lt. Col. Mustafa Hafaz, an Egyptian who headed one of the modern world's first terrorist groups, the anti-Israel fedayeen in Gaza.

Hafaz's terrorists killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of Israelis in cross-border attacks. Of course the Israelis fought back. Darwish realized that Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdul Nasser, who controlled Gaza, had sent her father to a certain death.

Hafaz became a shahid - a martyr for jihad - and that bought Darwish's family great status. She'd rather have had her father alive.

Darwish's message is invaluable for our age. Too few Arabs and Muslims share her desire for peace with Israel, equality and cultural reform; too few speak - in their living rooms or mosques - about the need to root out radicals from among them. When one Muslim voice does raise such sentiments, it deserves to be heard. Too bad the young Muslims (and their Jewish enablers) at Brown won't hear it.

And if those values can't be espoused in America - land of tolerance and free speech - well, what hope is there for meaningful cultural change?

Auf Weidesehn Shatsi...

Sir Wellington Boot, 20/11.  Henry...how stupid the Germans have become. Maybe God is really nice and took back all the Jews that the Germans sent in the 1940s and replaced them with Turkish Muslims..how kind God is. This sad story from Jihad Watch should be read in Australia as a precautionary tale...if we don't absorb them, they will absorb us. Germany has made the wrong choice; they have been doing that since 1933.

I notice that the flow of Nobel Prizes to Germany has halted since the days when Germany had 1% Jewish population. But at least there are plenty of kebab joints.

Presumably Australia should wake up and market itself in Europe as the proper refuge for the remnant Germans who do not want to live in a European Lebanon a few decades hence. One Lebanon is enough and is a good place to visit and live. I suspect that unless the Europeans snap out of it and take action to prevent this conquest by cultural aliens they will actually go under. This growth of muzzie numbers is not benign for European culture and no multi/culti hymn singing will make it so.

The only good thing about this islamisation of European nations is that at the appropriate moment all the current libertarian arrangements concerning censorship, sexual matters, education, economics etc, will be swept aside and Sharia will be introduced. The big losers will be those currently who think that islamisation is a real good idea because 'diversity' is nice. The imams will give you 'nice' Fritz.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany "well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050"
If demographic trends continue. "German Population Plunge 'Irreversible,' Federal Stats Office Admits: Expected that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025," by Gudrun Schultz for LifeSiteNews, with thanks to David:

BERLIN, Germany, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Germany’s downward spiral in population is no longer reversible, the country’s federal statistics office said Tuesday. The birthrate has dropped so low that immigration numbers cannot compensate.

“The fall in the population can no longer be stopped,” vice-president Walter Rademacher with the Federal Statistics Office said, reported Agence France-Presse.

Germany has the lowest birthrate in Europe, with an average of 1.36 children per woman. Despite government incentives to encourage larger families, the population is dropping rapidly and that trend will continue, with an expected loss of as much as 12 million by 2050. That would mean about a 15 percent drop from the country’s current population of 82.4 million, the German news source Deutsche Welle reported today.

The low birthrate will cause the German population to age dramatically over the next 40 years--last year there were 144,000 more deaths than births, and that number could increase to 600,000 by 2050, the FSO forecast stated.

With a 22 percent reduction in the workforce and increasing costs for senior assistance and medical care, the drop in population is expected to have a radical impact on the nation’s economy, along with the welfare budget....

Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.

The Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today--that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.

Common Sense at Last

Sir Wellington Boot, 20/11.  Henry...this story from al Jazerra concerning the ban on the burqa has nothing to do with items of clothing or masking up in public, a la Zorro. The 'security' excuse is itself a veil. This ban is a statement by the Dutch leadership that the muzzies in Holland must integrate. The argument that there are not many muzzie sheilas wearing a burqa is irrelevant; there are not many murderers either, but there are still laws against murder. The Dutch have taken the lead in the coming wave which will roll across Europe. Clearly the sensible Dutch have decided that 'Lebanon on the North Sea' will not be their fate. This is their right.

Click here for full article.

Howard's Gift

Sir Wellington Boot, 17/11.  Henry...it is amazing what doors are opened to you when you win election to the US Senate. The Wall Street Journal is not usually an advocate of anything but 'red meat capitalism'; however, they have run this article on a developing socio-economic problem which questions globalisation. The problems with the distributional aspects of the last 30 years of globalisation are getting worse. The few statistics that Senator-Elect Webb uses are quite unnnerving. One could reasonably assume similar proportions here in Paradise.

Click here for full article

There is a war going on.

Sir Wellington Boot, 17/11.  Henry...have you noticed that there is a war going on? I don't mean Iraq. I mean all those bits and pieces places where Islamic Jihadists are working like beavers to promote their agenda. Our side meanwhile is lumbering around, equipped to fight World War 3 in Europe. To get technical, we are equipped to fight Third Generation warfare while the Jihadists are brilliantly executing their Fourth Generation warfare victories. This story about Somalia from Debka involves our old friend Iran and uranium. That alone should cause heartburn in our tents. I don't see any ripple of concern from our side about this evil development unfolding on the shores of the Indian Ocean.

Click here for full article.

Paddy Gets It Right.

Sir Wellington Boot, 16/11.  Henry...now will you believe me that JWH is a disaster? The article by Paddy shows everyone what I have always known:JWH is not a sensible conservative, he is a mad radical who thinks ten minutes ahead and is not remotely interested in the Australia which will follow him. In economics, a good government governs as lightly as possible. This allows the natural genius of mankind to flourish and find ever newer ways to make a quid or build a better mousetrap. Now, thanks to the mad radicalism of JWH, the High Court has opened the door to Soviet style economic powers for Canberra. I won't waste time on Howard's denials.

All your bizoid friends are now going to be set up in a row waiting for the arrival of a Bruvvers government. No one will be able to protect them from a future Mark Latham or worse. The Libs won't govern forever, but Howard doesn't care. He has got what he wants and that is the name of the only game he has ever played. Sensible Bruvvers like Beattie of Brisbane and Rann of Adelaide are already yelling for Constitutional conference and Referendum. They are 100% correct.

It is an outrage that the High Court could simply dismiss airily the referendum results of the past on these issues. I suggest that the bizoid community get its head screwed on properly on this disaster and rally behind the Premiers. Demand a referendum on this issue. It is your friends' businesses, Henry, which are in danger. Howard's denials are lies as is to be expected. Do you really believe that Canberra public servants will leave an immense new power alone? Let it sit in their legal armoury untouched? Not likely, young fella.

The sensible business folk should send a delegation to see all the premiers and demand that they pressure the GG to order a referendum. He can do that under the Constitution even without the Government's support for the vote. Our Federation has served us very well. This decision is a terrible assault on it and the bizoids will be the real victims when we elect a government that sees the true Soviet economic level potential unlocked by this judicial mistake.

I've been telling you for yonks...Howard is no good for Australia and now you can see this for yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.P. McGuinness: Judges' blow for socialism
Yesterday's High Court decision could come back to haunt free-market conservatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 15, 2006

THE two real conservatives of the High Court showed their true colours yesterday. So did the supposed conservatives, most of them appointed by the Howard Government.
The two were the minority who felt that the structure of federal government should not be overthrown, namely Michael Kirby and Ian Callinan. The rest, headed by Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, have conclusively destroyed our federal system of government. They did this by in effect abolishing any logical or sensible limitation of the powers of the commonwealth expressed in our 1901 Constitution, as amended by popular referendums.

The majority decided that subsectionxx of section 51 of the Constitution, the corporations power, in practice overrules virtually any other section of the Constitution: in the present case, subsectionxxxv, the industrial relations power. They have thrown a century of legislation and litigation, including countless hours of the High Court's time, out the window.

Although a great deal of this deserves to be trashed and forgotten, it remains that the court has perpetrated a revolutionary act. (The judges have also conclusively destroyed much of the intellectual capital of the huge legal and academic industry devoted to industrial relations; most of those employed in it are largely now unqualified. No bad thing in itself.)

Pity the poor Whitlam government! If only it had known that a generation later the court would consider the referendum on the prices and incomes powers unnecessary, as the powers existed already under section 51(xx).

That the people of Australia time and time again have voted to disallow amendments to one or other of these provisions is, according to the majority of the court, of no significance: "The failure of successive referendums to alter s51(xx) and s51(xxxv) provides no assistance in the resolution of the present matters" (para 135). In other words, the people have no power to alter or insist on the maintenance of their Constitution: that is the power of the almighty High Court.

Of course this will be treated as a great victory for the Howard Government and a huge defeat for the union movement. And in the short term that is the case. The structure of the conciliation and arbitration system (with its quasi-fascist corporatist ideological underpinnings, informed by late 19th-century Catholic social thinking) has no more than historical relevance. The special privileges of the trade unions under it are finished.

But do not be deceived into thinking that this is a triumph for market forces and for competitive capitalism, or even for economic freedom. It simply substitutes another elaborate system of regulation of economic matters, which in essence is just as statist as that it replaces, but differs only by dramatically diminishing the powers of the states (and partially self-governing territories). And the elevation of section 51(xx) into a source of overweening power, not confined to economic conditions, is comparable only to the absurd exaggeration of the importance of section92 (freedom of trade and intercourse between the states) in past years.

The greatest modern Australian historian, Geoffrey Blainey, has warned that the pendulum of history and ideology swings back and forth, and that socialism (not to mention its concomitant totalitarianism) will revive at some time in the future. Pity the poor Chifley government! For present doctrine would have made it possible for it to make over the Australian economy in the late 1940s, as it wished. Interstate truck transport would have been prevented to protect union rorts in state railways, and so on.

Not that that would have produced an economy much more overregulated than the British economy of the post-war Labour government. But it would have incurred much the same excessive costs of adjustment as had finally to be imposed on Britain by the Thatcher government.

It has taken Britain years to fight its way out of its period of socialism, much of it spared Australia because of the former interpretations of our Constitution. Those and the popular referendums persuaded the Labor Party, first under Bill Hayden, then under Bob Hawke and his disloyal assistant Paul Keating, to abandon socialism in favour of economic growth and general welfare growth.

It is too much to expect that the unions will be philosophical about this latest decision, however. It means that in the short term they will be relegated to insignificance and therefore even their power in the Labor Party will shrivel. The political landscape will change.

Thanks to the spectacular demonstration by most state Labor governments that corruption is not dead, the culture of the cover-up thrives and family cliques, by descent or marriage, are living off the body politic like maggots in a wound, the electorate will be inclined to give the Howard Government another term of office. So retribution will be delayed. But it will come. One day the Labor Party will return to federal power, armed with immense new powers thanks to the High Court's extraordinary majority decision.

This will be the Howard Government's Mabo case, with incalculable costs and repercussions.

1938 Revisited?

Sir Wellington Boot, 16/11.  Henry...this is a terribly unsettling article. The catastrophe of Iraq has now brought to the fore a change in American policy (apparently) which will make the situation worse. Israel was never going to get anything but the shortest shrift from James Baker and George Bush Senior. Both these gentlemen are far too immersed in the deep Well of Gratitude that overflows from Wahhabist Saudi Arabia. Bush and Baker run the Carlyle Group of business investors which is prodigiously well fed and watered by Arabia. It is unlikely that they have anytime for anything but dividends.

Click here for full article.

Why We Fight!

Sir Wellington Boot, 16/11.  Henry...during the BIG ONE in the 1940s the US Army put out a great propaganda movie called 'Why We Fight!' Careful readers will notice that no similar movie has been put for this war. Pity. These films are necessary to crystalise for the folks at home what the fuss is all about. I will step into this breach for your readers with this section from a long article taken from AsiaTimes Online. The whole article is about the devilish activity called 'asymmetric warfare'. Warfare today doesn't only involve guns.

Readers who take some time over this article will be rewarded. They will learn how vulnerable we are to the designs of those who do not wish us well; they will learn how we are ruining ourselves by transferring so much of our wealth to these same people in exchange for bits and pieces we could easily make for ourselves; they will learn that our defence budgets are absurd fantasies vulnerable to the actions of committed peasants with $500 weapons; worst of all, they will learn that our uncomprehending 'leaders' continue to rush, like the Gardarene Swine, toward the cliff. We are all being dragged along behind them.

In an earlier article I mentioned that for the USA oil is an existential issue. This excerpt below shows, in chapter and verse, how this works itself out in the real world. Bush and Cheney don't know much of any great usefulness in military and political matters, but they do know the oil business. This excerpt shows why Bush and Cheney did what they did in Iraq. Maybe they had no choice... I am sure that they would argue this. However, what ever you consider that you have to do, it must be done successfully and in this requirement Bush and Cheney are abject failures. Their failure is very bad for our side.

Despite this failure the facts and figures below are still driving America forward. Even the catastrophe that is defeat in Iraq doesn't change any fact or figure in this article. America's existential crisis with oil will continue until the USA gets a proper government which can see its way forward to solving this situation. The next twenty years will be rivetting. Australia will be totally unprepared, as usual, for the coming events. It's a good thing that we are unimportant. Henry, I wouldn't miss this for quids.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colossal US vulnerability over energy. Russia and the rising East are establishing a new durable, exclusive circle of international energy security based on policies and principles that flow against the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil market order.

The rising East has no say in the governing institutions of that liberal order, such as the IEA (International Energy Agency) and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and from their viewpoint they have little or no stake either in those institutions or in the liberal market order itself.

They, along with the vast bulk of the world's oil and gas exporting regimes, have already taken away from the West's oil majors control over 80% to 90% of global reserves. They are reviving the rigid bilateral long-term supply contract and locking up ever larger portions of global resources, making these less and less accessible to the current liberal global energy market order.

The rising East is establishing global control over such resources, opening the real possibility that the US could be left outside the circle of international energy security. Increasingly, the portion of global resources still accessible through the US-led liberal market order is becoming subject to the goodwill of Russia, the rising economies of the East and the East-friendly energy exporting regimes around the globe.

That development is one of enormous consequence for the deeply foreign-energy-dependent West because the rising East thereby increasingly controls that key lever over all the industrialized West. This has come about by the rising East's adroit exercising of its asymmetrical energy-based economic leverage against the US colossus.

All these spheres match the precise key strategic vulnerabilities of the US colossus. The reader must decide for himself or herself whether the development by the rising East of these very potent, virtually undefeatable leverages exactly matching all the key vulnerabilities of the US colossus is a result of random chance or of a significant measure of strategic forethought and planning.

Especially in the sphere of control of global energy resources, the rising East is increasing its global leverage far more quickly than most experts predicted, and the profound political effects across the globe are only now being recognized.

For example, in The Washington Times of October 29, David R Sands writes in his article entitled "Fueling US Adversaries" that America's most determined adversaries are being powerfully bolstered by exploiting the tight global supply situation and sustained high prices. He quotes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who admits she previously underestimated the ways the "energy question" has distorted international relations. On the potent worldwide political effects being wrought by energy, Rice stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April: "I can tell you that nothing has taken me aback more as secretary of state than the way the politics of energy is - I will use the word 'warping' - diplomacy around the world."

The Council on Foreign Relations released a report entitled, "National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency" in October. In it the authors lament the fact that few in the West understand the full dimensions of growing US vulnerability with respect to the energy weapon. The report expresses alarm at the multi-pronged, potent global changes being wrought by the increasing energy-based political, economic and diplomatic leverage of Russia and the East and the corresponding collapse of US leverage in the same spheres. The report is an alarming, but certainly not an alarmist, wake up call for the US and for the wider West.

To illustrate how quickly the West is losing its grip on global oil resources, The Observer of October 29 carried the article entitled "Big Oil May Have to Get Even Bigger to Survive". The author notes that the West's international oil majors are in real trouble as respects the collapsing of their control over global energy reserves and are facing a global wave of nationalization, forced renegotiation of existing agreements, inability to get access to new exploration and production acreage and rising taxes - a caustic mix that is dissolving the glue that holds together the US-backed liberal oil market order.

While the current production levels of the international oil majors are still high, their reserve position is dramatically shrinking - they now control much less than 20% of global reserves, while the rest is already under the control of the rising East and the East-friendly producing regimes around the globe.

Unless the oil majors can adequately replace their reserves on an ongoing basis as they produce oil for the market, they risk becoming niche players in that global market. According to Morgan Stanley, the oil majors replaced 140% of their reserves in 1997, but in 2005 they were able to replace only 75% - they are rapidly shrinking, while state-owned companies around the globe are growing by leaps and bounds.

That trend threatens to cut ever more deeply into the reserve position of the oil majors. It also has the real prospect of affecting current production by the West's oil majors, leading to the potential of seeing a situation where shipments of oil to the West could be negatively affected - not in the next decade or two, but within this very decade. Behind the facade of current high production levels and unprecedented profits by the West's oil majors lurks the specter of a precipitous collapse of their market leverage and ability to serve the energy security interests of the West.

The wide array of reckless strategies and foreign-policy blunders conducted by the US itself adds significant cover for the rising East as it completes the development and putting in place of its asymmetric leverages. This is because the argument is often put forth that global realignment away from the US and toward the East is not occurring as a result of any strategy conceived and executed in the East, but simply as a result of a string of US strategic blunders.

For those not accustomed to looking beyond the mere surface, such an argument makes sense. However, it completely misses the facts with regard to how the Russia-China axis has so cleverly, quickly and triumphantly capitalized on every one of those US blunders, acting like an irresistible magnet pole to draw the world's key states into a new alignment facing East instead of West, and specifically employing key and compelling ideological, energy-based, economic and security strategies with which to do so.

Very soon the "coming out" for the neo-Cold War will demonstrate to all observers what the true, fundamental global situation and condition is between East and West. That true condition of East-West relations has been hiding just below the surface, behind the facade, as it were, but the "coming out" will soon bring it into full view above the surface to be clearly recognized as the neo-Cold War.

A Banned Book

Sir Wellington Boot, 15/11.  Henry...there are a few new books on sale about Mohammad of Mecca and Islam. Some of them are shamelessly hagiographical, but this book is shamelessly critical. It is therefore banned, effectively, by the PC luvvies who infest the print media in Australia. You won't see a review of it in the Age or SMH; you won't easily find it in the expected quality bookshops (if at all); you certainly won't find it on uni or school reading lists. I am offering this review by the well known English social commentator and psychiatrist, Theodore Dalrymple.

It is important to grasp Islam realistically. It is most important to realise the ONE BIG TRUTH about this whole situation: there are moderate muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. The issue is not muslims, per se. The issue is Islam and its ambitions in the hands of men like Abu Bakr Bashir and armies of nameless Wahhabis who are working relentlessly to further their agenda. Purchase and reading of this book (the most exquisite Christmas gift for those with an ironical glint in the eye) is the least we can do, given that our enemies have been so kind as to publish their intentions toward us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marxism's Successor
 
By Theodore Dalrymple

FrontPageMagazine.com | November 13, 2006

The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion
By Robert Spencer,
Regnery, $27.95

For the second time in living memory, we find ourselves obliged by historical circumstances to examine doctrinal philosophies that, from the abstract intellectual point of view, are not worth examining. They belong, rather, to the history of human folly and credulity: which is itself, of course, an inexhaustibly interesting and important subject.

The first doctrinal philosophy, now more or less defunct except in certain corners of the academy, was Marxism; the second is Islamism.  Which of us would have guessed thirty years ago that an inflamed and inflammatory Islamic doctrine would soon replace Marxism as the greatest challenger to liberal democracy?  Not many, I venture to suggest; but it almost seems that, in the twentieth and twenty-first century, the vacuum left by the collapse of one totalitarian doctrine is soon filled by another. I suspect that the demise of the Soviet Union was a necessary precondition of the rise of Islamism as we now see it.

Diseases of acute onset are apt to be cured quickly: if, that is, they do not kill first. And in historical terms, our preoccupation with the threat of Islamism is very acute. There is hope, therefore, that Islamism will pass from the world stage as quickly as it arrived on it. In the meantime, however, it can cause a great deal of havoc, and will not disappear spontaneously, without opposition, much of which must be conducted on the intellectual plane.

Personally, I believe that all forms of Islam are very vulnerable in the modern world to rational criticism, which is why the Islamists are so ferocious in trying to suppress such criticism. They have instinctively understood that Islam itself, while strong, is exceedingly brittle, as communism once was. They understand that, at the present time in human history, it is all or nothing. They are thus more clear-sighted than moderate Moslems.

The relation of Islamism to Islam is, of course, a contested matter. Some point to the peaceful nature of most Moslems, who simply go about their daily lives in a normal fashion. But Robert Spencer (who lives in hiding, an indication of how dangerous he is considered by Islamists) is uncompromising in his view. The problem with Islam is deeply rooted in its doctrines, its history and ultimately its founder, Mohammed himself. For him, Islam is like the germ of tuberculosis: it can lie dormant for a very long time, only to emerge in a drastic form when resistance is low (the metaphor is mine, not his).

It is important to understand that this book is not a biography of Mohammed. It doesn’t matter to Spencer even if there never was such a person. What he is examining is the orthodox belief about Mohammed, as derived from the Koran itself and from the hadith, the stories about him that are accepted by Moslems as authentic. Since Mohammed is believed to be a near-paragon of human virtue, a divinely-inspired example to be followed wherever possible, it is sociologically important to understand what qualities he is believed to have had, whether or not he actually had them.

To those of us who do not believe that Mohammed was divinely-inspired, the picture is not a pretty one. Of course, Spencer concentrates on the most discreditable aspects Mohammed’s ‘biography,’ demonstrating that, from our modern point of view, he connived at armed robbery, mass murder and the abduction of women. Of course, autres temps, autres moeurs: he was behaving in a way that one would expect of his time and place, and it may be that, on the whole, he sometimes behaved better than his peers. But that is not the point: it is nothing short of a moral, intellectual and indeed political disaster if his conduct is taken as a model for all time. Needless to say, Mohammed must have had many qualities out of the ordinary, some of them positive, as any earth-shaking leader must have: but a supposed paragon must be judged not by his best, but by his worst, qualities.

Among his less attractive qualities was a tendency to receive supposedly divine guidance that suited his political interests of the moment. He was, indeed, a political genius of the first water: he understood what motivated men, and he developed a system of belief and practice, of social pressure and ideological terror, that meant that islamisation once established was irreversible, at least until the present day. Leonid Brezhnev’s doctrine was that a country, once communist, could not become non-communist; how puny, historically, was the communist achievement beside that of Islam!

Spencer does not deal in this book with the attractive qualities of Islamic civilisation, or rather civilisations. A recent exhibition of Ottoman art in London, for example, demonstrated just how exquisite, at least at its summit, the Ottoman civilisation was, and how in the decorative arts at least it was Western Europe’s superior for entire centuries. But in my view Spencer is right not to drag in such a red herring: many and various have been the exquisite civilisations of the world, but the quality of a civilisation does not establish the truth of the doctrines current in it, nor the suitability of those doctrines for living in the modern world.

The author doesn’t deal quite adequately, however, with the question of the famous Islamic tolerance, which in my view is both a myth and an historical reality, and which is frequently brought into any discussion about Islam and Islamism.

The reality is that for several centuries Islamic polities were a good deal more religiously-tolerant than those of Christendom. For example, many Jews expelled from Spain fled to North Africa, where they helped to repel invasions by Charles V, and in Istanbul it is only now that Ladino, a form of mediaeval Spanish written in Hebrew script, is dying out – half a millennium after the original expulsion from Spain. This is surely very significant. The Islamic record with regard to Jews is much better, until very recently, than that of the west.

But it is very far from exemplary. Jews (and Christians) were always second-class citizens, and always vulnerable to changes of the ruler’s heart, or to the wrathful prejudice of the people by whom they were surrounded. Human nature being what it is, friendships could develop across confessional boundaries; but not merely were these friendships doctrinally unsanctioned in Islam, they were doctrinally frowned upon. At no time has Islam seen non-Moslems as the juridical equals of Moslems, and indeed is incapable of doing so without de-naturing itself completely, for inequality is written into the very fabric of its doctrine and, just as importantly, its law. Spencer is quite clear about this, and the conclusions that must follow from it.

Judged by the abysmal standards of fifteenth century Europe, then, Islam looks quite tolerant; but judged from the modern, post-Enlightenment perspective, it looks primitive and grossly intolerant. As for its attitude toward polytheists and atheists, it is and has always been doctrinally abominable. In other words, Islam has nothing whatever to say to the modern world, and as yet has no doctrinal means of dealing constructively with the inevitable diversity of human religion and philosophy, beyond the violent imposition of uniformity or second-class citizenship.

Spencer is scathing of western intellectuals’ failure to examine Islam and its founder in the same light as they would examine any other religious doctrine of comparable importance. The task of politicians, on the other hand, is more delicate than he suggests; they do not move in a world of abstractions but of concrete realities, and truth is only one of the things they must try to conserve. The responsibility of intellectuals is thus in some ways greater than that of politicians.

Spencer asks whether Moslems of moderate temperament can find some way of reconciling their faith with the exigencies of the modern world. The problem is that this reconciliation cannot be a mere modus vivendi; it has to be intellectually coherent and satisfying to last. Personally, I am not optimistic in this regard. Islamism is a last gasp, not a renaissance, of the religion; but, as anyone who has watched a person die will attest, last gasps can last a surprisingly long time.

Try this idea

Sir Wellington Boot, 15/11.  Henry...nothing is working in Gaza, that much is clear. A 'Time Out' is definitely in order for everyone involved. This article is the latest editorial from Ha'Aretz, Israel's leading newspaper. A time limited (12 months) deployment of serious troops from serious countries should be put into Gaza, at the invitation of the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Arab League. Australia could contribute the 450 diggers who are currently handling baggage at Saddam International Airport in Baghdad. This gets us off this Titanic without any lose of face to ourselves or the Americans...we can arrange for the Iraqi Parliament to pass a Resolution of Thanks for all our help. Everyone benefits from such a move. JWH can tell us, with a straight face, that this was his plan all along.

Israel has never allowed this sort of development before except in Lebanon and Sinai. In those cases the troops weren't serious and neither was anyone else. Today the situation is so bad that it is time for seriousness. I have always advocated that Australia get involved in the middle east( that means soldiers) because we are the only Western country that is both serious and able to get along with both sides, politicians and ordinary folk. We don't have to ALWAYS be a water boy for someone else.

Is there a better idea on offer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Force for Gaza.
 
By Haaretz Editorial
 
The situation in the Gaza Strip cries out for the world's help. After hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and hundreds of Qassam rockets have landed in Israel, and lacking any exchange between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, the two sides once again cannot extricate themselves from the miserable situation into which they have deteriorated. In light of the situation, the world is called on to intervene directly, as is the norm in other areas of conflict.

There is no need here to detail the danger to peace in the region and indirectly to world peace, as a result of the deterioration in the Gaza Strip. Israel's actions harm innocent civilians, and images of the killing broadcast round the world intensify hatred of Israel: At the same time, Israel cannot reconcile itself with constant rocket fire on its towns. An international force deployed in Gaza, primarily in the areas that border Israel and Egypt, could calm the situation. Both Israel and the Palestinians should be interested in this.

Israel has been deterred in the past from "internationalizing the conflict." It traditionally opposed any international intervention on the assumption that deploying foreign soldiers would limit the Israel Defense Forces and make it difficult for the military to protect Israel.
 
However, the recent war in Lebanon changed the approach. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was the first to suggest an increased involvement of a UNIFIL force. The prime minister had reservations, but after two weeks he also began to support the solution that is now in force in Lebanon.

This is not a perfect solution. But after having tried everything, and after it became clear that the use of force alone does not solve the problem, there is no other option.

True, an international force did not calm every conflict situation, but there are also positive examples: In Kosovo, for instance, an international force managed to end the acts of terror between the quarreling sides.

Israel left the Gaza Strip, so the presence of an international force would not threaten either Israel's sovereignty or security. The Palestinians have said they are interested in such a force, which could act as their shield against Israeli attacks.

An international force could bring about the end of the Qassam fire, and that is supposed to bring about the end of Israeli military operations. Along with the establishment of a Palestinian unity government, which Hamas will not lead, and which will include mostly experts, this combination of measures could bring new hope. And maybe it would even constitute the basis for the renewal of talks between the sides.

Israel must initiate the move and thus appear interested in calming the situation. The world, for its part, should volunteer for the mission. The prime minister, who has left for political talks in Washington, could bring this idea with him, which has never been tried between Israel and the Palestinians and, in doing so, advance a new reality.