|
May 31, 2007
Defeated By Pornography
I have been hinting around about what our Grand Strategy should be in the War On Islamic Fascism. Some of the hints can be found at: Islam vs American Morality and In The Long Run Their Struggle Will Be Hopeless and The New Middle East. So what should our strategy be in plainer terms? We should be undermining Islamic fascist culture. How? There in lies a tail. Let us start with the BBC. Up to 70% of files exchanged between Saudi teenagers' mobile phones contain pornography, according to a study in the ultra-conservative Muslim kingdom.So who is winning the battle of mobiles? "The flash memory of mobile phones taken from teenagers showed 69.7% of 1,470 files saved in them were pornographic and 8.6% were related to violence," said report author Professor Abdullah al-Rasheed.So sex is more popular than violence by a factor of better than 8 to 1. Excellent. The Opinion Journal has some early news from the battle for Iraq. In the giddy spirit of the day, nothing could quite top the wish list bellowed out by one man in the throng of people greeting American troops from the 101st Airborne Division who marched into town today.That was a definite vote of confidence for my proposed strategy. Ralph Peters takes a look at strategy in information warfare. For the world masses, devastated by information they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is "nasty, brutish . . . and short-circuited." The general pace of change is overwhelming, and information is both the motor and signifier of change. Those humans, in every country and region, who cannot understand the new world, or who cannot profit from its uncertainties, or who cannot reconcile themselves to its dynamics, will become the violent enemies of their inadequate governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and ultimately of the United States. We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.We can already see who the victims are. They are the people whose information on every subject has been restricted. The people who have no immunity to the torrent. The contemporary expansion of available information is immeasurable, uncontainable, and destructive to individuals and entire cultures unable to master it. The radical fundamentalists--the bomber in Jerusalem or Oklahoma City, the moral terrorist on the right or the dictatorial multiculturalist on the left--are all brothers and sisters, all threatened by change, terrified of the future, and alienated by information they cannot reconcile with their lives or ambitions. They ache to return to a golden age that never existed, or to create a paradise of their own restrictive design. They no longer understand the world, and their fear is volatile.I think that is one of the real keys. Our victims volunteer. My original idea was to have our government print up a bunch of pornoraphy and distribute it in the Middle East. I thought that there was no way this could become a government program. Too many Americans with loud voices would object. Fortunately with the advent of computers and mobile phones we do not have to print anything. Nor does our government have to have its fingerprints on the job. There is more than enough free porno on line to satisfy the immediate demand. In other words Open Source Pornography to the rescue. Secular and religious revolutionaries in our century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the world or the faithful just can't wait to go home at night to study Marx or the Koran. Well, Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather "Baywatch." America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not undermine. There is no "peer competitor" in the cultural (or military) department. Our cultural empire has the addicted--men and women everywhere--clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment.We are addicted to their oil, it is the engine of our prosperity. They are addicted to our culture, the engine of their defeat. Strategy Page looks at the turmoil our communication technology is causing among the Arab/Persian masses: May 3, 2007: One reason for Islamic terrorism is there are too many Moslems. At least in the sense that the economies of Islamic countries cannot create enough jobs for all the young people coming of age. Consider that for the last fifty years, the population of all Moslem countries has tripled. That's population growth that is more than double the rate of the world as a whole, and about ten times the rate of Europe. It's about five times the rate in the United States.That is the wind up. How about the pitch? While Islamic countries tend to have very low levels of education, especially for women, the introduction of satellite television and DVDs has enabled even illiterate women to learn that there are other options. Ignorance is an excellent form of control, but when the ignorance is lost, so is the control.Yep. I think the Saudi statistics bear that out. Matthew Parris discusses the end of the End of the American Empire. He says that it is premature to blow taps for America. Writing in The Spectator two weeks ago ('Why there will be no future Pax Americana'), the distinguished essayist, author and thinker had sniffed the wind and concluded that it is all up for what he calls the US 'imperium'. Islam has been Washington's undoing, he believes, and after six short decades as top dog of the world, America is already stumbling and set to lose her predominance.So does Islam really have the appeal its adherents claim? I don't think so and neither does Mr. Parris. Have we not noticed how incompetent are Islamic governments and organisations the world over? Has it not occurred to us that if al-Qa'eda really were as wily and resourceful as we tell ourselves they are, and if their tentacles really did extend as wide and deep as some say, they would be on the advance -- not battled into a stalemate by Western security and intelligence? If I were an al-Qa'eda activist I could have blown up Parliament or shot at least one of a range of prime ministers by now. Al-Qa'eda's failure to infiltrate or penetrate Western structures has been complete.Which is not to say that Islam can't cause a lot of trouble. It can, but is it something with appeal to the Western World? I don't think so. Islam prescribes the most minute details of a person's life. The West says: tear down the Walls. Minimize the restrictions. Enlarge the limits. Which will ultimately be more popular? Wretchard at the Belmont Club takes a look at the issue and our secret weapon: We are making them desire and pay for the liquifaction of their culture. Every dollar we pay for oil, not only buys physical weapons to be used against us but aso buys them our best weapon to be used against themselves and our weapons have better targeting and a negative cost for delivery. We profit from their desires. How much more American than that can you get? It tuns out much more.And that, come right down to it, is why some Muslims believe in the power of Allah. Allah strengthens the will of his adherents past any breaking point. They are willing to go past death itself. And they say to us: with our rifle and our belief in Allah we can defeat you with your laser guided weaponry and your belief in Harry Reid. Come to prayer. Come to Islam.We have a secret weapon. Come to Brittany. This is a weapon more fearsome than any 20 divisions of soldiers backed up by 10 CBGs. Memri TV has a video clip from the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International about Saudi women stripping for Web Cams. They also have a transcript of the show. Reporter: Behind closed doors and far from any supervising eyes, they remove their shame and turn their backs on all customs and traditions. Girls display their bodies in chat rooms on the Internet, in most cases, free of charge. As soon as one of these girls places the camera in front of her, she begins to strip, displaying her seductive charms to more than 300 young men of different ages. Some believe that the phenomenon of stripping over the Internet may be understood within the framework of social hypocrisy, especially since they believe that our religious and educational discourse does not attribute importance to the strengthening of self-restraint, and prefers the appearance over the essence. This drives some people to play several roles and wear several masks.The liquifaction is well underway. Reporter: On the other hand, many believe that web stripping has not reached the proportions of a phenomenon, and that these are merely isolated cases. They emphasize that the vast majority of our girls protect their modesty and respect the customs, and traditions. These people believe that web cams can be useful tools. They can be used to maintain family ties, and can have educational applications, in lectures and conferences, for example.As one of my favorite bands has said, "On with the show". Yep it is just a few isolated incidents and outside agitators causing all the trouble. Sure it is. The subject is well known and yet no one knows who is involved. I believe that. Sure I do. Hasn't any one explained that when family members surf the 'net supervision is required? I'm going to let Dr. Sanity have the last word. If there was ever in history a better example of the paranoid fear of female sexuality, I can't think of it. You don't have to be much of an expert on Islam or Muslim culture to be able to observe that it has evolved into a societal structure whose primary purpose is to contain and manage female sexuality.It is unhealthy. However, in an information resticted society such obsession is inevitable. It looks to me that their defeat by pornagraphy is inevitable. I might also add that I have been doing some field research for this article (yeah, right) and it appears that pornography by Arabs are increasingly frequent on the free amateur pornography sites. A sub theme in all this is that American music is popular as background on about half the videos that have any music. It is not just sex. Democracy, whiskey, sexy is more popular than Islam. Which means that what ever military action we take is just a holding action while our culture does a number on them. H/T Little Green Footballs, and Instapundit, and The Daily Brief, and Instapundit again. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 05.31.07 at 08:45 AM
Comments
And the Saudis tried to *ban* picturephones! Heh. They forgot that smuggling routes are *two way* venues. This is the socially liquidating factor of cheap technology against authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately it is just that: nothing else gets put in its place, but the ability of the regime to enforce thoughts and ideas gets circumvented. Now the question is: what will the end result of formless non-adhering to any social order *do* to rigid societies? That is the 4 billion person question. ajacksonian · May 31, 2007 04:38 PM ajacksonian, I think what happens is we go back to old style tyranny. You can think anything you want as long as you do what we say. M. Simon · June 1, 2007 12:32 AM How can you say the oil supply has peaked. They keep finding more of it and better ways to get oil out of old fields. davod · June 1, 2007 03:14 AM Simon - After getting a deeper refreshment of the documents in and around the founding of the Nation, from those giving warnings about the overly limited democracy that was being proposed to the startling reading of the Federalists and some of their basic outlooks and what is necessary to do when government becomes inherently hostile to democracy. For those systems that have *no* current freedom nor any idea of how to form it, I do think you are right on the outcome leading to tyranny after a period of chaos. The question is: how far will that chaos go? We have multiple groups ready to exploit it with a goal to expanding it, both at home and abroad, and that structureless anarchy on the road to tyranny is worrying because so many now *want* that and rule by an Elite. The warnings of 1787 and around the founding are clear and we have seen throughout history what happens when regimes collapse into chaos, time and again. The rule of revolutions is: how they organize and come to power is how they shall rule. From chaos we normally see strongman rule and tyranny, and at no time has 'spontaneous order' erupted from such times. ajacksonian · June 1, 2007 10:32 AM But what if other people in the world don't like this Kulturkampf? What if they don't want to choose between radical Islam and Britney Spears showing her crotch to the Internet? And what does it mean to have cellphones and cable and denim jeans? Russia and China have those in spade, and neither their governments nor their peoples truly desire Jeffersonian democracy or to "be like" Americans in some meaningful way. I think you underestimate the values of Islam, of traditional Chinese civilization, the indigenous cultures of the world. You overestimate how superficial the embrace of American culture is -- how being modern doesn't necessarily mean you are Western. In short, you don't appreciate the Classical Values of other peoples. This is not to our credit, or our benefit. DU The Mechanical Eye · June 1, 2007 11:32 AM The Mechanical Eye, Blue Jeans defeated the Soviet Union. Yet it was not about blue jeans. It was about the right to be yourself and not have to become the New Soviet Man/Woman. The same is true of this pornography story. It is far from the whole truth and yet in a way emblimatic. It is about your right to not have to live up to any particular ideal. The Soviets were vulnerable to material goods and jazz. For our Islamic friends it is sex and hip-hop. Plus Nike. Aphrodite and Nike. What a pair. M. Simon · June 1, 2007 11:47 AM http://dieoff.org/page224.htm will explain about peak oil. Basically, per capita less oil has been produced since the year 1979. Since the world's population continues to rise fairly steeply, less oil is available for individual consumption. Take the Burgan oilfield in Kuwait for an example. Pre-2005 it was maintaining an output of 2 mbpd (million barrels per day). Now it's down to 1.7 mbpd, DESPITE the best efforts of modern technology to prevent the decline. No one can tell how fast it will continue to go downhill. That's one of the most productive fields in the world, and it's lost 15% of its daily capacity. Iraq's oil production remains below pre-war levels as insurgent attacks continue to damage refineries, pipelines, and port facilities. Iran's oil industry is burdened by old technology and their profits are invested in supporting organizations like Hezbollah instead of maintaining the crucial infrastructure required to continue output. Their current production of 4 million barrels a day is 50% less than than the 6 mbpd they reached in the 1970s. Split all the hairs you want, but it comes down to this: there is less oil per capita and much oil that could be available is unavailable for production because of political reasons. Why do you think President Bush is so gung-ho to bring Iran to task? Nuclear might be a concern, yes, but the restoration of oil capacity is an equally crucial problem. Let's face it: except for our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the U.S. military can't do a thing without oil. Since even carrier jets need fuel, even that aspect is limited. Military forces on deployment are using up far more oil resources than just sitting around U.S. bases worldwide, further putting pressure on the market as refineries in the American South are recovering after Katrina (to cite just one example of non-political outcomes affecting oil supply). More oil being produced does not necessarily mean more oil is available for use. As use rises based on political concerns and economic infrastructure worldwide continues to demand more energy sources, the supply will continue to become more costly to obtain. Better start putting solar panels on your roof, and wind turbines in the back yard. Aaron · June 1, 2007 12:40 PM Solar cells and wind turbines will not affect oil consumption materially. Supply and demand meet at a price. In the oil business there are long lags.in time higher prices will call forth more supplies. If you can tolerate the lags. If you can't? I have nothing to offer. M. Simon · June 1, 2007 12:57 PM Color me with Mechanical Eye. The Soviet Union fell apart because of a weak leader (Gorby) coupled with Saudi efforts to deliberately drive oil prices low to hurt the ability of the Soviets to pay their troops and their surrogates in Eastern Europe. Absent those two factors it would still be lumbering along, zombie like. And you are missing the obvious (and so does Dr. Sanity): Muslim men will continue jihad. Because Islam hoards women (polygamy insures a few men "win" and all others "lose"). Der Spiegel reports Eastern German women move west to seek wealthier and higher status mates, while East German men are stuck there (Westerners don't want any more male competition). Thus they turn to neo-Nazi groups. Jihad is not going to go away any time soon. Muslim men's use of pornography is horribly disturbing, because men in a relationship with children don't use that much. Men with families and children don't go on Jihad much. The promised 72 virgins have no appeal against their own wives and pleasures of family life. Men with no hope ever of wives and families except psychic mutilation -- destroying every part of themselves to become "Western" and having tremendous brainpower and willpower to succeed in the Knowledge economy plus of course good luck -- will of course find jihad quite welcome. The amount of Muslim men who can mutilate themselves psychically and realistically achieve success to attract a western woman is quite small. No more than a handful in the entire Muslim world. So Jihad and the appetite for Jihad will not go away, it will only increase. The use of cellphone porno videos is only the leading indicator of how bad things are. Muslim societies are inherently unstable because of polygamy, now they are focused on an external enemy. Us. This will not go away until terrible things happen. Jim Rockford · June 2, 2007 01:31 AM Simon, you're forgetting that higher prices also make the energy market more competitive for alternative energy sources. The problem has always been that industry (and in particular car manufacturers) have fought to prevent energy diversification. Regardless of their agenda, oil is indeed a finite resource. When oil becomes too expensive to pump in some parts of the world (Denmark's a great example) new energy will be obtained from alternative sources. However, if American industry continues to block the introduction of new, more efficient technologies, the transition will be far more abrupt and painful when petroleum is finally exhausted. The sudden transition will also focus the shock on oil production economies and the resulting economic backlash will magnify the current unemployment rates I've already listed above in my first posting. Delaying the shift away from oil only undermines a necessary economic shift if many Middle Eastern nations are going to co-exist peaceably with the West over the next 200 years. Aaron · June 2, 2007 03:08 AM Aaron, We are not going to wake up one year and discover we are out of oil. Oil shales can be brought on line for about $10 to $15 a bbl. There is lots of that stuff around. Surface mining will work. I'm all for alternatives when they are cost competitive on a $ per BTU basis. Alcohol is not there yet. M. Simon · June 2, 2007 07:57 AM Once again, you're missing my main point: oil shale and sands are not located in major oil producing regions currently. Shale is largely in the US and sands in Canada. I'm talking about the social implications of an economic collapse IN THE MIDDLE EAST. We may still have our oil production, all well and good, but when their unemployment rate kicks off they're going to be furious regardless of OUR economic security. Unless you have alternate employment for this fast-growing, young population??? Aaron · June 2, 2007 11:14 AM Aaron, I agree. Due to Koranic education they are not fit for productive work. BTW we are already feeling the effects of economic collapse in the ME. Saudi per capita income is down by around a factor of four from 30 or 50 years ago. I'm all for accelerating the trend. A fast fire vs a slow burn. Let them starve if they don't want to play nice. Or as a commenter posted elsewhere on the topic: let them beat themselves. Har. Their culture is dying. I propose doing what any good military operation finishes with - pursuit. Or as I prefer it: kick them while they are down. M. Simon · June 2, 2007 12:52 PM Military occupation just gives the extremists exactly what they want, Simon. Why do you think each new "terror plot" in the US post-9/11 gets nabbed in the planning stages? Not all the credit belongs to Homeland Security. The domestic Muslim community is by and large eager to maintain good relations with wider American society and won't tolerate religious extremists who rock the boat in all the wrong ways. HOWEVER, now people in Iraq and Afghanistan can lay blame for their situation on the US instead of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. (We deserve a good deal of it, anyway, since we declared food and medicine as embargoed items, prohibiting Iraq from importing them since 1991.) Bottom line: we can win on our own turf because everyone has a more equal standing on American soil. I'm not going to stand up and thump my chest saying everyone's created equal here because that just isn't the case. Despite this problem, however, immigrants assimilate into American society much more effectively than in France, for example, where xenophobia and racial prejudice are at all time highs. We can (and should) hold the line here in the United States by strengthening ties with our own peaceful community of hardworking Muslim-Americans. At the same time, however, our military campaigns will never work. Afghanistan was working until we siphoned off thousands of troops for a pointless invasion of Iraq. That gave the Taliban time to regroup, and with the massive increase in poppy cultivation they'll have enough funding from the American addict population to fight until the end of time. America's commitment to Karzai will run out long before then. Iraq's a far worse case. Yes, Saddam was a dictator and bloodthirsty maniac; however, he was also an avowed secularist who feared radical Sunnis and Shiites alike as a threat to his rule. Bush's actions undermined a relatively stable government and allowed al-Qaida and related groups to radicalize the Sunni troops fired from the army by Paul Bremer while Iran helped the Shiite militias. I want it noted that both sides already had great excuses to hate the US: the Sunnis were allied with the US during the Iran-Iraq War until Saddam turned against Kuwait shortly afterward; we deliberately deceived Saddam's government about our battle strategy and intentions. Here's a FACT for you to chew on: after we repeatedly said we would not enter Iraqi soil the coalition troops launched a massive attack across the Saudi Arabian desert into Iraq (NOT Kuwait) before turning south-east to cut off Saddam's forces in Kuwait. The poor Shiites and Kurds thought the US suddenly decided for regime change (after all, the US press and military both disavowed any foray into Iraqi soil up to the very date of invasion) and both rose in revolt. Not only did the US abandon these spontaneous uprisings to wither on the vine, but we also signed a cease-fire with Saddam that explicitly excluded helicopters from the no-fly zones established in the north and south. While US troops withdrew to celebrate the liberation of Kuwait, Saddam launched all-out attacks to pacify those regions at the cost of thousands of lives from his helicopter gunships. Face it: the US systematically alienated every element of Iraqi society back in 1991, and they all well remember our sins 16 years ago. Sunni, Shiite and Kurd all have excellent reasons to hate the US government and to express that anger by inflicting casualties on our highly vulnerable troops who have been forced into the role of hostile occupation forces. If France couldn't maintain control of Algeria in the 1960s with 800,000 men and the loyalty of some of a population of only 8 million, what in blazes kind of chance do you think 160,000 American soldiers stand in Iraq (24 million citizens strong) where they're all marked targets by SEVERAL armed groups that all hate them? You can argue superior technology all you want, but guerilla forces are never going to engage in conventional battles where that technology can tilt the balance decisively. Why do you think are aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf are trying to intimidate Iran? They can't do a bloody thing to help in Iraq, that's why. They are trying to intimidate another conventional military power (which overlooks the fact that Iran has a long history of non-traditional combat strategies). Another brilliant Bush plan. I cannot fathom why you see armed confrontation with Islamic fundamentalists on their own turf as a good thing. Ho Chi Minh said it best: "We will move through the people like fish through the sea." The US strategy then was to try to drain the sea of popular support, but they only succeeded in alienating every element of the population. Don't worry, we can't lose any ethnic or religious group in Iraq because they all have excellent reasons to hate us already. Your gung-ho attitude is just like that of our dear beloved President. Wash your hands all you want, Simon. They will remain stained with the blood of tens of thousands of innocent casualties who wanted nothing to do with Saddam or Bush, and with thousands of American troops who only wanted to serve and protect this nation which so blindly sent them to fight an impossible battle. If people like you had looked at the history of America's involvement with Iraq and acknowledged that victory was impossible before March 2003, many lives could have been saved. I don't know how you sleep at night. Aaron · June 3, 2007 12:50 PM Aaron makes a few points: Military occupation just gives the extremists exactly what they want Maybe. It appears to be giving us what we want. National unity in Iraq against the terrorists. As to fish in the sea. Evidently the Iraqi people are not as fond of sharks as you are. M. Simon · June 3, 2007 01:23 PM Before getting sidetracked into the Iraq War, Aaron and M. Simon seemed to agree that Middle Eastern oil had peaked and that was worse for them than it was for us. Declining ME oil production is a HUGE boon for the United States - it allows us to simply quarantine the area. We cannot now because we need the oil and overly sensitive nitwits will complain about profiling. As production declines, the need of their oil will decline (and it's an open market, once they are no longer THE supplier, we can try buying from elsewhere and letting other people deal with the ME). As their society implodes, as both Aaron and M. Simon seem to think it will, with various acts of terrorism against the West, the nitwits will see reason in denying all visas from any ME country. It will be seen as a reasonable compromise between "can't we all just get along" and the "bomb them back to the stone-age" groups. All better. Just let that part of the world go to hell in a hand-basket. Nation building is doomed - but we had no real choice but to try. We let China stew in its own juices for 50 years and that is coming along nicely (buying our debt, sending us cheap trinkets, and committing demographic suicide). Let's repeat the experiment. mrsizer · June 3, 2007 02:58 PM Mr Sizer, I like your attitude. M. Simon · June 3, 2007 04:08 PM Sigh. If only the Arabs would be smart and keep a low profile. Encourage everyone to gorge themselves on cheap oil - while using the piles of money acquired to buy up property and resources, held by citizens of the countries where the assets are located. Then, when oil runs out - be set to exploit whatever technology that replaces that energy source. But NO! They have to cut off their nose to spite their face. LIE to themselves and then blame everyone else - the USA, the Jews, etc. on why they were suckered - by their own lies. Californio · June 5, 2007 03:17 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2007
May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A call for debate
The slow twitch of my imaginary handlebar mustache.... For The Birds Just say no! Building a better climate consensus? Freeman Dyson: Getting Warmed Up The Price Of Safety "featured in the Inquirer" (But who'd have known?) Coco does Bartok Electron Circulation in Cubic Polywell
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that America's winning the culture war. In fact, I admit that I cannot contest a single detail listed above, but I'm not so sanguine about the future.
The entire Middle East (Nigeria, Venezuela, etc. too) has an economy built on crude oil. Unfortunately, OPEC nations were allowed to make "fantasy estimates" with the OPEC export rules of the 1980s that restricted exports based on total reserves. Naturally, everyone's estimates shot up dramatically within 2-3 years (all without any geological surveys, test drilling, or any other bothersome little details).
Peak oil has come and gone. World production is declining slowly (Iraq's dissolution is speeding things up, however). The 2 largest oil fields in the world (Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, Burgan in Kuwait) have already maxed out their capacities and begun to decline in production. Of course, a basic lack of liquid pressure will prevent economically viable oil recovery in many of our current oil fields long before the reserves are physically depleted.
What's the catch? That population explosion you were just talking about. Take Saudi Arabia as an example: 38% of the population is under 15, and 97.6% under the age of 65. Resources like water are beings stretched to the limit and the problem may continue to escalate in the years ahead. CIA Factbook records an official Saudi male unemployment rate of 13%, but notes that other, informal figures reach as high as 25% of the total population. It's no coincidence that 10 of the 11 September 11th hijackers were recruited from Saudi Arabia.
The problem with the theory of culture victorious is that it can't work without money. Sure, anyone with a little time and effort can beg, borrow, or steal any media any time, but how are you supposed to do that without the Internet? Or a computer? Or a HOUSE? You need technology to achieve the revolution you described and for many people in the Arab world the cost to achieve a globalization awareness is simply beyond their reach, however much they might want it.
Muslim fundamentalists are able to take advantage of this poverty and shame by arguing that those items are undesirable anyway and sinful besides, allowing people to take pride in their religious/cultural heritage and tradition. The sheiks will continue to encourage this because it deflects blame away from the oil-based economy and the blatant exploitation of the working class in those countries by their own governments.
What's going to happen when those countries have no oil to export? Sand comes in at a poor second in the global economy. It's a race between them running out of oil (much sooner than the US is willing to admit, since we trust their reserve estimates) or the Western world finding alternative energy sources. Either way will result in massive unemployment and fury across all oil-based economies as joblessness triggers a devastating recession. Lack of economic diversification will thus trigger a wave of fundamentalism far stronger than the stalemate we've achieved at the present.
Unless the US throws its weight behind comprehensive social, political, and economic reform in the Middle East (and abandons pro-Western dictators like Musharraf and Mubarak), 9-11 will be just a minor tidbit of a bloody 21st century. Culture cannot subsume Muslim fundamentalism if the fundamentalists can't afford to acquire the basic necessities of the technological age.