‘morning Mal,

Many might agree that society is becoming polarized around a range of social issues, gay rights, human rights, immigration policy, social engineering, border protection and more prominent recently, the issues of Islam. All of which are divisive and vexatious.

Your article is Euro-centric but to the extent that it points the way to where Australia might end up, it may offer some lessons. Personally I think Europe is goosed in terms of economics, energy security and social problems.

I guess this begs the question what can Australia do to avoid such loss of social cohesion?

Whilst I am as frustrated as many others at the pace, or lack thereof, in confronting some of our social issues, I remain convinced that TA is a strategist and not primarily a populist tactician. All we need to look for is “evidence” of his strategy. A strategy by its very nature is often obscure.

I thought long and hard about TA’s “Team Australia” comments but until recently there was not much evidence to indicate where this is going, now there is. IMHO this comment is designed to “invite” the Muslim community into the tent rather than marginalize them further. By creating this space, those Muslims who recognize the threat from extremists to their own communities, need the opportunity and a means to make real changes from within.

As evidence of this, the Attorney General has now announced the formation of, and funding for, nominee’s from community groups to register for participation in Counter Terror Groups. They will be vetted for track records in fundamentals such as mentoring, education, job support case management and counseling as well as national security clearance.

In an encouraging commentary, Tranveer Ahmed had this to say. “doing nothing can take the shape of stripping away freedom of speech for fear of upsetting Muslims”, and that we risk “breeding further complacency and falling into the same trap as the Left, whose primary response to terrorism is to do nothing, but in a variety of guises”. Tick!

Sounds like TA’s “Team Australia” tent is filling up quite nicely.

spindoc, now you have me intrigued. You attacked me very strongly for posts which in my view fit quite well with

"“invite” the Muslim community into the tent rather than marginalize them further. By creating this space, those Muslims who recognize the threat from extremists to their own communities, need the opportunity and a means to make real changes from within. " and yet you appear to endorse it in that last post.

What's that about?

R0bert

“We have more and more people living in smaller spaces who feel that they have less and less in common with each other.” It’s called Solipsism.

“It's harder for us to feel that we actually belong together in our communities, that we're all part of the same essential narrative, or share a common history.” YEP!

Zadie Smith's London - 37
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Hammurubai/theodore_dalrymple_essays_and_articles__2013/

THEODORE DALRYMPLE
Modernists in Medieval Clothing
Kenan Malik traces Islamic terror to twentieth-century influences.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0716td.html

“We must do more to tackle anti-semitism and other forms of religious bias, at home as abroad. We must also do more to root out the promoters of violent militancy and boost opportunities for those who are legitimately marginalised.” - Yep, problem solved if we get rid of Islam.

“However, too much polarisation results in a shrinking middle ground and the growth of alienation, bitterness and recrimination.” Thanks to the Marxists/Leftists.

“The vast majority of young people from the same background as the Charlie Hebdo killers have already decided to get on with life, using whatever opportunities come their way, or finding more constructive means to bring about change.” You mean opportunities to undermine the West, don’t you?

‘morning R0bert,

Perhaps you could provide the link to my comments in question, if a mea culpa is required you will get one.

For context, TA can do nothing right, he is picked and poked by a relentless media, ALP, Unions, humanities academia, NGO’s, statutory bodies like the AHRC, human rights activists and global warmers in all their forms. Add to this the hostile obfuscation of Senate independents blocking many of the measures we so readily blame Abbott for.

He cannot beat this, he must go around it. That requires a carefully structured strategy and timely execution. Whilst I am just as frustrated at the lack of progress as many, I see salvation only in such strategies and to feel more reassured, I need to see evidence of a strategy.

We have seen evidence this week with the steps being taken to flesh out the meaning and proposed actions behind Team Australia. It’s an actionable start.

I don’t care much about the actual strategy, I just need to know there is one.

Abbott has to negotiate carefully between the Senate and the left who, as Tranveer Ahmed suggests, will continually push their PC do nothing.

Which way do you think the PC left will jump if Abbott gets serious “buy-in” from Islamic community leaders for “Team Australia”?

Abbott has moved people into the ABC, FWA, AHRC, TURC and no doubt many other bodies. So what is he going to do next? I hope to God he has a strategy

Spindoc http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17006#300150

Given you would not elaborate on just what you disagreed with in my post perhaps it was some other part.

I do hope there is a strategy, I'm not an Abbott fan, I don't trust him but I do largely agree with the points you have made in those recent posts. Navigating the minefield of misrepresentation which seems to be the norm in Australian politics would be a nightmare that would drive me nuts.

I've never understood to my own satisfaction what drives much of the left. To often what they claim to support stands in stark contrast to what they actually do but I don't think they all hae evil intent.

R0bert

‘morning R0bert,

Thanks for the link and yes my response was “belligerent” as Poirot puts it. I apologize to you for being so caustic.

To be fair I did say in my post that you were starting at the bottom rather than the top and I did point you to an example of such processes in Kepner Trego.

My comments were specifically directed at your “big picture” assertion, so let me clarify.

All complex issues need a process for analysis and the starting point must be at the top.

Think of complex issues as a pyramid, at the very top are less than five key entities. As you progress down the layers of the pyramid each layer increases in content exponentially, the further down you go, the greater the number of issues, the more complex each issue becomes and the greater the interrelationship between issues.

Many commentators in trying to understand something, are doing so from the middle of the massive pool of content within the pyramid and that’s all they can ever see, content without context or relevance.

Conversely, if you work upwards until you have boiled everything up to its indivisible parts (lowest common denominators), you will have a starting point and a roadmap by which you can interrogate “relevant” content.

On the issue of Islam there are only three entities, Islam, Western PC and the fearful public.

So when some get passionate about content from the middle, without acknowledging the three main players and their interaction, they end up in mental paralysis or “death by creeping excellence”. Roughly translated, going absolutely nowhere thinking they have an intellectual grasp on the issues, but they don’t.

So if the three key issues in this vexatious debate are “Islam, Western PC and the fearful public”. All we actually need to discuss is what is going to give?

Any guesses