What to do against terror?

Another terrorist attack in London. The third one in the England this year. Needless to say that this is horrible for the few individuals who, against the odds, actually got caught up in it. They really were very unlucky. Terrorism looks big on TV, but even in a year like this, it is in reality an extremely small problem. There are plenty of everyday risks that are far more likely to kill you compared to terrorist. This includes things like a normal car accident, or a simple flu. The latter literally kills several hundred times more people every year. Yet we do not get freaked out about it. We don’t lock down the city and mark ourself as save on Facebook just because someone sneezed. Thank god we don’t.

But the human mind is not that rational. Terrorists deliberately, and senselessly murdering innocent people gets the emotions going far beyond a casualty of a car accident or a flu death. And whenever emotions take over, facts like the de facto unlikeliness of being killed by a terrorist fade into the dark. So what to do against terror?

As I am writing this, the background of the attackers is not clear. But let me take a guess, based on what we know about most of the other attacks we have seen in Europe recently. They are likely second generation immigrants, with some criminal history. They feel hostile to the society they live in, and as a consequence discover that there is a movement within Islam that justifies massacring random, innocent people. And it is most likely the preaching of violence which motivated them to join the Islamists, and become terrorists.

One of the most important things to do therefore is to not pay them too much attention. This is what they crave. They are after their 15 min of fame, and their place in the history books. But they are ordinary criminals, desperate to give their pathetic lives at least some meaning. We should forget about them, and pay them as little attention as possible.

When someone decides to kill innocent people with very simple means, there is really very little anyone can do about it. There is no need to pretend otherwise. These terrorist events are an embarrassment for the state. The government keeps telling us that we need to give up our liberties so that they can protect us. The UK government in particular is world champion in surveillance. It openly stores all our activities online, listens to our phone calls, stores all the places we have visited via meta data, and now even prohibits us from using any form of encryption. Yet despite that, they did not see any of these terrorist events coming. Sure, they assure us that they have prevented many more. But what is the evidence for that? The fact that we have seen three terrorist events this year makes it more likely that the absence of terror in the years before was probably more due to the fact that there aren’t that many terrorists out there. It was not because the government kept us save.

But admitting incompetence is never an option for governments. Government is a civil religion. It lives on making people believe that it has some super powers to solve problems. Apparently, it can prevent us from becoming poor or ill, and save us from accidents, crimes and terrorism. In reality of course the government cannot do any of these things. Far from it, in many instance it makes things worse, or even outright cause the problem. But it need to keep up the illusion that it is the ultimate problem solving tool. Otherwise people would abandon it.

That is why, we are currently seeing an impressive show being put on in the streets of London. Heavily armed police is invading all kinds of homes, and screaming at people in the streets. It looks like a desperate attempt to make it look like they are in charge of the situation. But you see, ‘enough is enough’ Theresa May said today. Wait, does that mean that before yesterday it was not enough for you Theresa? But let us not encourage her to do more, when the last strategy is already a disaster.

Unfortunately, it is too late for that. May in the same speech went on to announce that she is now going to really clamp down on the internet, ignoring that the government is already monitoring everything. Now, according to her, freedom of speech itself needs to be even more infringed upon. Sounds like more of the same to me. We give up our liberties, and when that does not work than that is just because too much freedom is still left.

That way we end up in a dictatorial state of martial law. And quite frankly, this is not in some distant future. We are pretty much there already. The government has even taken away our ability to freely speak about the problems. That would include pointing fingers at certain ideas. It also involves pointing out that not all people and believes are the same. Whoever tries to do that however, risks being charged with hate speech. I hope Miss May will get a big slap in the face for her authoritarianism on election day this week.

No, the state won’t save us from terrorism. If anything they will make it worse. It is this massive police presence that gives the attackers a lot more importance than they deserve. And let me not get started on why we now have this kind of terrorism in the first place. The UK state in particular has a lot to do with motivating these people.

When someone attacks you in the street, the best thing you can hope for is to have the means to defend yourself. With the increase of the UK police state however, this valuable option has long been taken away from us. That is why, this time, people were literally trying to defend themselves with chairs against terrorists. But we better don’t use chairs for fighting too often, otherwise the government might start to license them too.


  1. Agreed, there is very little the state (or anyone can do to prevent a small group of derranged individuals from attacking people. Especially if they are using mudayne things like vans and knifes to do their dirty work.

    It is also saddening that such lunatics dress their actions in the cloak of Islam to somehow justify their muderous tendancies. As far as I am concerned the vast vast majority of muslims live their lives in peace

    However it is quite common from my experiance to hear so-called ‘libertarians’ express their beleif that Islam is somehow at odds with freedom. That the two ideals cannot occupy the same geographic space.

    Although that is not my view it is one I come across often.

    So Nico, I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that these attacks show that on a cultural level- Islam is incomaptable with freedom?



    1. There were no Muslims killed in the Manchester bombing because Islam prohibits music other than for religious purposes. And that fact tells its own story.

      Because it’s about time we understood that the problem is not a few radical extremists with a perverted interpretation of their religion. The problem is that a segment of ignorant and stupid people we have invited to this country still adhere to a primitive authoritarian 7th Century superstition that has been used for centuries to oppress them. Their “scholars” use the doctrine to prevent the believers from assimilating into our society and demand that their depraved “culture” be respected by the “infidels” they purport to despise.

      And the politicians and media smile at this and make us pay for Muslim children to be educated into this kind of hateful credo……

      But their culture deserves no respect. It is nasty, misogynistic, homophobic and intellectually desolate. It is anti-sexual, anti-joy and ultimately anti-life. It is regressive and repugnant. It should be. and will be, eradicated from the planet but, until that can be achieved, it should be eradicated from the UK because the problem is not to be found in Islamism, the problem, at its core, is Islam itself.

      So lets have no more candlelit vigils. love concerts and no more community cohesion. Lets have a bit of honest rage.



    2. I think Islam can mean whatever you want it to mean. That is how religions work. But if someone insists that the Quran needs to be taken literally, then it probably is not compatible. It is not a very libertarian book. But so isn’t the bible. And there are de facto Muslim and Christian libertarians. So if someone wants to argue that it cannot be done, then they are arguing against reality. Or worst, they are arguing the Islamist case. We need to fight anyone who is not liberal, meaning anyone who does not agree that people should be free. And there are certainly many among Muslims who do not believe that. For those I have very little sympathy or tolerance.



      1. There is a key difference between the Quran and the Bible. The Quran is the word of god handed down by an angel, the bible is written by mortal men. How can the Quran not be taken literally? There is no room for interpretation of supernatural beings and therefore no reformation in sight. Islam cannot mean whatever you want it to mean.


      2. If Islam cannot be moderate, then how come there are many moderate Muslims? They are not a fiction of my imagination, they do exist, and they do exist in large numbers. One of them is the Mayor of London, who has not endorsed violent Islam. So the statement that Islam cannot be interpreted is falsified by the facts. In reality, there is a very brought spectrum of Muslims in the world, all of which believe in different things. One of the reasons, we are seeing so much violence in the Muslim world is because there is a reformation on its way. The conservatives are fighting the progressives. What I don’t get about Islam haters is that they are preaching the agenda of ISIS, which is that there cannot be a moderate Islam. If we want to see a reformation, we need to start promoting the idea that that is possible and not stab the reformers in the back, by insisting that they better listen to ISIS.

        Here is a interview with a darling of Islam haters, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Unfortunately, they don’t really seem to listen to her. I disagree with her on some thing, but she is not saying that Islam is not reformable. Instead she is making clear that there are a whole range of Muslims, some of which are very moderate. And she believes that a reformation is on its way. She also believes, that the radicals, who want to bring everyone under the rule of Islam, are a small minority. She estimates about 3% of Muslims.


  2. Nico – you have previously made it very clear that you are not interested in an honest discussion of Islamic doctrine or the deeds of the founder of the Islamic faith. Which is odd as I would have thought that how a man could create his own private army (from nothing) and build an Empire would be of interest to an anarchist (as it is the creation of a state – the transformation of an honest merchant into a warlord and then into a ruler) – especially as the movement Mohammed created has carried on for the next 14 centuries, with just as many private attacks as formal government attacks (indeed the distinction in between government and private armed forces in Islam is unclear – which should also be of interest to an anarchist).

    Should you ever become interested in an honest discussion I suggest you start with David Wood’s short Youtube film a few days ago (Ramadan Bombathon – the Afghanistan one). Dr Wood makes the philosophical point that modern “liberals” (the political, academic and media rulers of most of the West) WILL themselves into a state of stupidity in which they are unable (unable – because they make-themselves-unable) to see the most obvious things, things that someone of even below average intelligence could work out with ease. The “liberals” are not naturally stupid (indeed their raw intelligence level is often high) – they WILL themselves into not understanding.

    Till you become interested in the actual matter of principle, talking to you further, on the matter of Islamic attacks, is a waste of time. In this post of yours you do not even mention the words “Islam” or “Islamic” – you might as well have just urinated on the dead.

    You have exercised your freedom of speech – fair enough, have a nice day Sir.



    1. I am the one who is not honest? You constantly suggest that I hold opinions that I don’t hold. From wanting to kill all Jews, to not being open to arguments about Islam, or even that I like Bitcoin. You never even consider taking the viewpoint of someone else. It is almost like you suffer from autism. You seem to also think that a debate is only honest, when people end up agreeing with you. Well, that is very wrong. I don’t agree with you. You have a very simplistic view of what religion is. But yes, arguing with you is pointless. So I won’t.



    2. I spared 5 minutes to look at David Wood’s YouTube. He confessed elaborately to murdering his father, and he’s described elsewhere as a sociopath or a psychopath. I suggest this is borne in mind.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s