[Keith_McClary]

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has it all figured out:
How Do You Know When Something is Working?

...
Someday I expect that the United States and its allies in the fight against ISIS will agree to wall off the new caliphate and cut communications to the outside world. From that point on, any new terror suspects will be thrown over the wall into ISIS territory to keep the threat in one place. And with no outside contact, the society inside the walls will not advance technologically to become a larger threat. Meanwhile, our abilities to guard and defend the wall with technology will grow daily. In the long run, I predict that a prison-caliphate is the only solution. Israel showed that walls can keep danger out. I think we can show that walls can keep danger in as well. And I think we’re heading in that direction. The systems approach ends up there.

You might worry that turning the caliphate into a huge jail would infuriate Muslims outside the caliphate. But keep in mind that no reporters will be allowed into the territory and no news will come out. So allies against ISIS will manufacture some happy-sounding news about how the caliphate is working just great and the people on the inside could not be more pleased with it. And for all we know, that might actually be the case.
...

[SeaGypsy]

I like those ideas a lot Keith.

[Subjectivist]

Sounds like he has been reading the Robert Heinlein stories about Coventry, the section of the USA that was walled off to hold all the Amish/Constitutionalists/anti-government protestors. If you didn't get with the program you got sent to Coventry which was like a giant reservation with a high wall patrolled by armed guards willing to shoot on sight. Kind of a Berlin Wall in reverse.

[davep]

Sounds like he has been reading the Robert Heinlein stories about Coventry, the section of the USA that was walled off to hold all the Amish/Constitutionalists/anti-government protestors. If you didn't get with the program you got sent to Coventry which was like a giant reservation with a high wall patrolled by armed guards willing to shoot on sight. Kind of a Berlin Wall in reverse.

I have no idea if being "sent to Coventry" is an idiom in use in America, but it is in England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry

[Subjectivist]

Sounds like he has been reading the Robert Heinlein stories about Coventry, the section of the USA that was walled off to hold all the Amish/Constitutionalists/anti-government protestors. If you didn't get with the program you got sent to Coventry which was like a giant reservation with a high wall patrolled by armed guards willing to shoot on sight. Kind of a Berlin Wall in reverse.

I have no idea if being "sent to Coventry" is an idiom in use in America, but it is in England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry

Interesting, might be where Heinlein got the idea. He was educated by the U.S. Naval Acadamy early in the 20th century when broad and deep knowledge of the UK was required as they were the main competition for the U.S. Navy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_(short_story)

I remember reading the story as a teen and thinking it would be a hard choice to live with, choosing to go to Coventry.

[evilgenius]

@evilgenius

Whilst globalisation is in the up phase (and the BRIC economies integration will ensure that) overreaction to any perceived threat is unlikely. The dynamics at play render this largely surplus. Of course we will get instances of high subjectivity in this otherwise objective process but the thrust towards globalisation remains the core driver. If Islam is to be counted as an entry on the debit side, it is in the cost equation and its effects on accumulation which although marginal, could more efficiently have been managed had Kissinger sought a better option to confronting the Soviets than Bronze Age ideas.

Capitalisms greatest immediate threat remains the climate.

Yeah, you are probably right. There probably won't be any kind of organized anti-Muslim actions, not on the levels that my post was introducing as a potential worry. It has happened in the past, toward other groups, and we all know that. The truth is that we are more grown up now, and it is not nearly as likely in today's world. I think I can see immigration reform of some kind in Western Europe, though. The constituencies are fairly agitated there. In most countries the voters across all major parties are thinking like that.

In terms of the labor pool, and dialectical thinking, this would probably come with severe benefit reform as well. You can't cut down on the potential sources of labor like that and not tell those who have been successfully mothballed for generations(hear me UK) that they will be able to continue slacking. Cameron has already made a lot of noise about this. Now he can lump the slack-hearted nature of many wannabe terrorist types into the equation saying, we won't support them while they are planning their attacks. Add that to the equation against the current benefit order and it may push it to a tipping point.

[Keith_McClary]

Adams wrote in the comments:

But you remind me that not everyone knows how this blog works. I will start including my disclaimer for this sort of post going forward.

He has blogged other interesting ideas:
The Temporary Dictator System
Posted December 1st, 2014 @ 8:53am in #General Nonsense

I propose a constitutional amendment to allow Bill Gates to become dictator of the United States for one year. The only exception to his power would be control of the military. The civilian president along with Congress would still control military actions and policies. That should prevent any temporary dictators from consolidating power and becoming permanent.

During Bill Gates’ one year run as dictator he could create any laws he wished, change national priorities any way he liked, and generally fix things without a lot of political friction. He could even tweak the Constitution while he’s in power.

At the end of Gates’ one-year reign, the returning civilian government could - if they want - reverse any of his laws, but doing so would be politically perilous because Bill is likely to have good reasons for what he did. We can depend on political timidity and inertia to keep most of our dictator’s laws on the books after he leaves.

I picked Bill Gates for this example because I’m not entirely sure he has a political leaning. He’s probably a robot from the future. And at this point I think he has removed all doubt about whether his motives are pure. These days he obviously isn’t in it for the money. And we would expect him to bring a high degree of rational thought to any decision. What more do we want?
...

(Point being, Adams' comments on ISIS were "tongue in cheek".)

[SeaGypsy]

Well, back in ordinary reality here in Indonesia. Just met one of my close Muslim friend's fiance. From Libya. I won't retell the whole story, but among the mixed origin Muslims present, it was amazing to have two Libyan's there, to be able to discuss the Arab Spring, which it was apparent is infinitely more significant to these people than remote isolated terror attacks. Was a really interesting evening.

BTW nothing personal intended it was absolutely evident that the Libyans felt like the USA & NATO have deliberately destroyed their country.

[SeaGypsy]

AD the smàrt arse comment about not recommending i try to understand islam proves you dont. Islam is by a very long way the easiest so callez religion to grok.
However, reading that book you haven't is unfortunately mandatory.

[Quinny]

Back in France and talking about the Je suis Charlie phenomena got me thinking.

As an atheist, I think Sea Gypsy's analysis is pretty spot on as although Judaism and Christianity has a pretty violent history they do not advocate violence against non-believers in the religious texts. The main difference seems to be that Jesus was a pacifist kind of guy whereas Muhammed was a warrior.

Maybe a solution would be the new discovery of letters from Muhammed denouncing violence and recommending peace under all circumstances.

[americandream]

AD the smàrt arse comment about not recommending i try to understand islam proves you dont. Islam is by a very long way the easiest so callez religion to grok.
However, reading that book you haven't is unfortunately mandatory.

Actually, that wasnt a smart arse comment but me merely reiterating my earller point being that Islam MUST undergo its own Reformation given the forces of objective materialism, ie secular Islam. Which is rather tragically comic given the ideological certitude of the religious warrior.

Religions are all opiates on the road to economic privilege. That includes Islam. However, they are capable of negotiating terms with capitalists.

[ralfy]

It is possible that the main drivers of conflict during the previous and present century involve realpolitik, ethnic strife, nationalism, etc., with religion used for what are essentially secular ends.

[SeaGypsy]

I think that is a quite astute observation Ralphy.

[americandream]

It is possible that the main drivers of conflict during the previous and present century involve realpolitik, ethnic strife, nationalism, etc., with religion used for what are essentially secular ends.

Ultimately, the drivers are always access to resources. Obviously, the more subjective the conflict, the more profound the quest for resource dominance. But religion as a whole tends to be the travelling companion of class based struggle with the odd burst of deep subjectivity as we see during colonial phases at tribal borders.

The current conflicts at the borders of the Arab Empire and capitalism are purely economic with two multiracial systems in competition. Obviously capitalism will be the victor for being more economically robust.

[davep]

It is possible that the main drivers of conflict during the previous and present century involve realpolitik, ethnic strife, nationalism, etc., with religion used for what are essentially secular ends.

Ultimately, the drivers are always access to resources. Obviously, the more subjective the conflict, the more profound the quest for resource dominance. But religion as a whole tends to be the travelling companion of class based struggle with the odd burst of deep subjectivity as we see during colonial phases at tribal borders.

The current conflicts at the borders of the Arab Empire and capitalism are purely economic with two multiracial systems in competition. Obviously capitalism will be the victor for being more economically robust.

Muslims don't necessarily think in those terms. Some see it as being more efficient than our religion and therefore bound to dominate. And capitalism as it exists now relies on growth, which isn't exactly a robust model for the future.

[americandream]

It is possible that the main drivers of conflict during the previous and present century involve realpolitik, ethnic strife, nationalism, etc., with religion used for what are essentially secular ends.

Ultimately, the drivers are always access to resources. Obviously, the more subjective the conflict, the more profound the quest for resource dominance. But religion as a whole tends to be the travelling companion of class based struggle with the odd burst of deep subjectivity as we see during colonial phases at tribal borders.

The current conflicts at the borders of the Arab Empire and capitalism are purely economic with two multiracial systems in competition. Obviously capitalism will be the victor for being more economically robust.

Muslims don't necessarily think in those terms. Some see it as being more efficient than our religion and therefore bound to dominate. And capitalism as it exists now relies on growth, which isn't exactly a robust model for the future.

Which is why I always stress the importance of being objective.

In harnessing technology, capitalism is a formidable adversary. Were the conflict to require decisive resolution, capitalism could just as easily wipe the Arabic Empire off the face of the earth with the flick of a switch.

Islam on the other hands depends on the senses and cannot match the defence profile of capitalism which incidentally includes all nations not within the borders of the Islamic imperial order.

The tools of Reason are fearsome which is why we need a new order of man to manage them. But as for the muslim, he is on a hiding to nowhere and needs to up his game in terms of political awareness if he is to matter in the challenges ahead.

[Quinny]

Post peak I believe the struggle will be between Islam and Communism!

It is possible that the main drivers of conflict during the previous and present century involve realpolitik, ethnic strife, nationalism, etc., with religion used for what are essentially secular ends.

Ultimately, the drivers are always access to resources. Obviously, the more subjective the conflict, the more profound the quest for resource dominance. But religion as a whole tends to be the travelling companion of class based struggle with the odd burst of deep subjectivity as we see during colonial phases at tribal borders.

The current conflicts at the borders of the Arab Empire and capitalism are purely economic with two multiracial systems in competition. Obviously capitalism will be the victor for being more economically robust.

Muslims don't necessarily think in those terms. Some see it as being more efficient than our religion and therefore bound to dominate. And capitalism as it exists now relies on growth, which isn't exactly a robust model for the future.

[evilgenius]

It is possible that the main drivers of conflict during the previous and present century involve realpolitik, ethnic strife, nationalism, etc., with religion used for what are essentially secular ends.

Ultimately, the drivers are always access to resources. Obviously, the more subjective the conflict, the more profound the quest for resource dominance. But religion as a whole tends to be the travelling companion of class based struggle with the odd burst of deep subjectivity as we see during colonial phases at tribal borders.

The current conflicts at the borders of the Arab Empire and capitalism are purely economic with two multiracial systems in competition. Obviously capitalism will be the victor for being more economically robust.

Muslims don't necessarily think in those terms. Some see it as being more efficient than our religion and therefore bound to dominate. And capitalism as it exists now relies on growth, which isn't exactly a robust model for the future.

I think it can become a kind of mythology that capitalism relies on growth. Discovery of wages and prices doesn't need growth for it to take place. It needs open markets.

This "war on terror" and the "new conflict with Russia" are both related to the process under way in the West, wherein the importance of open markets is gaining notoriety. Perhaps this is more obvious in dealing with the Russians than Islam because it can be observed in the Western military push that has occurred over the last decade and more, where the endgame seems to be about encompassing, ultimately, the Russian oil producing regions along with the Islamic controlled oil producing regions. Everything going on in the Ukraine is related to this, for instance. That is to say, the potential endgame, really, because it's only the threatened outcome of non-compliance with open discovery of market dynamics.

Yes, this does mean that changes do have to take place within Western Democracies and Western Economies as well. Old man deflation is going about attempting some of that change right now, in fact. Positions entrenched in lore over economic science are falling. Whether they are falling hard or easy, or at all, will be up to history.

[davep]

I think it can become a kind of mythology that capitalism relies on growth.

It would be mythology if we had a sane monetary system. But we currently have a system where money creation is tied to credit, so growth is needed to pay off the interest element just to stand still.

[evilgenius]

I think it can become a kind of mythology that capitalism relies on growth.

It would be mythology if we had a sane monetary system. But we currently have a system where money creation is tied to credit, so growth is needed to pay off the interest element just to stand still.

You're falling into that thinking trap where you look at yesterday's dollars in the same way as today's, or tomorrow's. Of course money creation is tied to debt/credit. Fiat money is perhaps the greatest creation of the Twentieth Century. You could argue that it really got its start in the Nineteenth, but that's kind of a stretch when it comes to usefulness as a yardstick.

I once watched an episode of Little House on the Prairie as a kid. In it the Ingalls children went to the store to buy school supplies. I was amazed as a kid to see them order up all the things they needed, for a penny! At the time I watched that episode the same stuff might have cost, what, five bucks. Today maybe it would cost twenty. Some inflation is natural. It doesn't point out an inordinate reliance upon growth. It's simply the effect time has upon money. It's math and not conspiracy. Under a fiat system this actually empowers your average man. What you don't seem to understand is that going to some gold standard or other means of slavish understanding of valuing money not only doesn't empower your average man, but enslaves him.