(This is a long post. You can skip to the Summary at the end if you want)

So yet another terror attack on London. And the usual #HashTags of prayingfor, standing together and sympathy and reminders that #NotAllOrcs and #SayNoToOrcophobia. None of the hastags, and very little of the outpourings of politicians and journalists and pundits is anything other that virtue signalling of one sort or another.

I’ve seen various people mocking the comment by Sadiq Khan the London Mayor that terrorism is ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’. And others mocking the Met’s Run, Hide, Tell advice. The responses themselves are also, IMHO, virtue signalling too, albeit in a different direction.

Sadiq Khan is not someone I have much sympathy for but he is in fact correct, although he’s especially correct that cities run by two-faced sleazebags like him that tie the police up in political correctness are particularly likely to suffer from it. Assuming the existence of a global or regional ideology which promotes terrorism then big cities are exactly where the terrorists are most likely to strike. Moreover, as the various vehicle and knife attacks show us, there isn’t much you can do to stop them. In modern society there are simply too many ways to cause deaths and injuries in crowds and you get crowds in cities so, while you can raise the bar to action slightly you can’t stop it perfectly. And while it is true that armed passers by might stop some modes of attack, they would not, to pick a recent example, have done any good at all in Manchester  (Note also from a practical standpoint, while I’m not at all against the idea of firearms for self defense but in the UK (and France), this isn’t going to fly for a while).

So the trick is stop the creation of would be terrorists and to arrest the ones created before they get to the point of actually attacking.

Without a realistic analysis of the actual threats and causes this isn’t going to happen. Theresa May, being the kind of Big Mother statist wants to trample all over free speech having already seen to the UK being disarmed and subject to arbitrary searches. [The UK isn’t the USA so it doesn’t have a constitution or bill of rights and over the last couple of decades various governments have taken advantage of that to commit abuses to at least half of those first 10 amendments. Given that some (the quartering of soldiers and the rights of states) don’t really apply we’re probably closer to 100% of relevant amendments ]

Mrs May’s splatting all over Google, Facebook and Twitter puts me in a position of defending these rapacious and unpleasant corporations because what she’s doing, for the most part, is shifting the blame. If GCHQ and their buddies at the NSA aren’t in fact able to identify what IP address and device is uploading this stuff then I’d be very very surprised and getting at those people is probably more important that taking down the content they’ve uploaded. Mind you her speech did actually name the evil as Islamic, which is a first, even if she did the ruin it by going all #NotAllOrcs a few sentences later.

Root Causes

This may come as a shock to my reader, but I’m going to get in touch with my inner lefty and blather on about root causes for a moment. The root cause of most of the current global instability are the fundamentalist strains of Islamic thought. On their own these strains are bad but not a global threat because they tend to lead their followers to early graves once they encounter someone of a different, rather more technologically adept, belief system.

120 years ago Hillaire Belloc put is simply:

“Whatever happens, we have got.
The Maxim gun, and they have not”

Today of course the maxim gun and its relatives and descendants are widely available and can even be operated by Islamic terrorists, but it is notable that whenever the modern (Western) armies go up against these sorts in times and places where they are not too hindered by idiotic rules of engagement, they kill hundreds of them for close to zero casualties themselves.

Sadly, though, the places where the most extreme bits of Islamic fundamentalism are running things are also the places with lots of oil. As a result, for a wide variety of geostrategic reasons (not just oil, though that is a major one), the western world has elected to not call out the sponsors of the proselytization, but rather has done its best to ignore the camel in the tent while cleaning up the mess it makes.

The root cause of almost all Jihadi terrorism these days is Saudi Arabia, with assists by Qatar and Iran. These countries, and particularly Saudi Arabia, have sponsored the construction of mosques and madrassahs, paid for their imams and teachers and provided much of the basic literature within them all over the world. Everywhere they have done so Islamic extremism has increased. Take, for example, Pakistan. Over at Samizdata I found a very depressing article about the Arabization of Pakistan which makes very clear that this, and the resulting talibanization of society is due to the investment Saudi Arabia has made into the country with the acceptance of the US and the rest of the West as well as many of the leaders of Pakistan from General Zia on.

A few moments googling shows that Boko Haram has a very similar legacy. If the sneering classes were as sensitive to the suffering of Africans as they claim, instead of twattering on about #BringBackOurGirls, they’d be sponsoring UN resolutions that imposed sanctions on nations and individuals that support Boko Haram. Of course that would make it difficult to do business with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the gulf and they are a great customer for our exports of arms, oil and gas extraction technology, motor vehicles, food and so on – not to mention being a supplier of oil to the sweatshops of China that make for our new iToys and so on.

The root cause of almost all the wars and terrorism in the world today is radical Islam. The root cause of this is the proselytizing of it by the oil-enriched gulf states. If the West is going to defeat the scourge of Islamic terror then it needs to be honest and understand what the root cause is. Taking away the civil liberties of the rest of us so as to catch the deluded losers who’ve been indoctrinated into the various radical Islamic cults is a stop gap. If (for example) London’s water supply were infected with some disease-causing bacteria the stop gap is to boil water before using it, the fix is to find the source of the infection and clean it out. For the disease that is Islamic aggression the source is the Persian gulf. Stop the money and propaganda from there and the disease will die out. 

Suppose they gave a war and only one side noticed?

There’s a more irritatingly smug than usual article at vox which points out both the overwhelming military might of the West (and the US in particular) as it claims that “the idea that the West is at war with radical Islam, and that the survival of Judeo-Christian European culture is at stake, is completely bonkers”. In this statement it is correct, the West is not at war with radical Islam.

However just because the West does not consider itself at war with Radical Islam does not mean that the reverse is the case. Indeed radical Islamists repeatedly claim that they are at war with us. Of course they aren’t just at war with us (see Da’esh in Syria, Boko Haram, Al Shabab etc.) but they are pretty explicit that they consider themselves to be at war with the decadent West and that they despise our lifestyles, our system of government, and our lack of devotion to Allah. The good news is that they’re pretty incompetent at it, just as they are at most things, but that doesn’t stop them trying.

What’s worse is that they’ve got our own sneering classes hoodwinked into supporting them because of intersectionality, multiculturalism and other bits of post modernist buzzword bingo. This won’t last. At some point the Islamists will make it sufficiently obvious that they despise all the other “minorities” such as women, gays, blacks that even the sneering classes will have to take note – although you’d have thought stuff like the Pulse Nightclub attack would have been sufficient, not to mention the various brutalities of Da’esh, would have made this clear however the way this all gets ignored suggests that the Nile runs through London, Paris, Berlin, Washington DC and New York.

Widespread sympathy for Islamic extremism can change the composition of a country’s population. Look to France, where in 2014 more than one in six Muslims said they supported Islamic State. Only a few of the dozen or so Islamic terror incidents over the last five years have targeted French Jews. But lots of other crimes and bias incidents have, including harassment of synagogues. As a result, French Jews are emigrating in record numbers. Remember, crime in France now includes incidents such as the one in which Sarah Halami, a Jewish woman, was beaten and thrown off her balcony to her death by a man reciting Koranic verses. Like the Bavarian supermarket killer, this murderer was promptly thrown into a looney bin. “Without the Jews, France is no longer France. It’s the oldest community. They have been French citizens since the French revolution,” said Manuel Valls, a former French prime minister

When British Parliamentarian Jo Cox was murdered by a gibbering right-winger last year, media commentators such as Adam Bienkov specifically blamed the tenor and tone of the Brexit campaign. They called out then–UKIP leader Nigel Farage for inflammatory posters. The murder was emblematic of something sinister that needed to be named and confronted. But when three men start slaying people while shouting about Allah, or a man blows up a nail bomb around pre-teen girls, or other men slit the throat of a priest at Mass, or shoot up a convert, we resort to statistical analogies about freak accidents and lightning strikes and reflexive warnings about the dangers of Islamophobia.

As a result we get FB posts like this

In fact it’s worse. Brendan O’Neill points out that we’ve been sucking up to Islam for a while now.

Islam now enjoys the same kind of moral protection from blasphemy and ridicule that Christianity once (wrongly) enjoyed. All last week, for example, I received furious emails and messages in response to two articles I wrote about the Manchester attack, telling me I was wrong to defend the use of the phrase ‘Islamist extremism’. That term has an Islamophobic bent to it, we’re told. It demeans Islam and its adherents by suggesting they have something to do with terrorism. You should just say ‘extremism’, not ‘Islamist extremism’. Don’t ever name the extremism, don’t label it, because you might hurt people’s feelings.

This is why our political leaders so rarely use the terms Islamism, radical Islam and Islamic terrorism: because they want to avoid offending Islam and also because they don’t want to stir up what they view as the public’s bovine, hateful prejudices. This censorious privilege is not extended to any other religion. We do not avoid saying ‘Catholic paedophiles’ about the priests who molested children for fear of tarring all Catholics with the same brush. We happily say ‘Christian fundamentalist’ about people who are Christian and fundamentalist. We use ‘Buddhist extremists’ to describe violent Buddhist groups in Myanmar. And yet Islam is ringfenced from tough discussion; phrases which at some level include the word ‘Islam’ are tightly policed; criticism of Islam is deemed a mental illness: Islamophobia.

Hence the now more than a decade long effective ban on jokes (or indeed anything negative) about Mohammed or his religion. Other than Charlie Hebdo and, perhaps, the (UK) Spectator what print publication would print a joke like this?

In fact as Scott Adams points out most of the reaction to terror attacks by the MSM and political classes are pretty much case studies in what to do to get more terrorists because it makes the terrorists sound like the heroes fighting against the “Islamophobic” bad guys. This is not helpful.

The right approach

Given the discussion above what are the right things to do to stop (or at least reduce significantly) Islamic inspired terrorism?

The main thing to do is to make it clear that there are unacceptable sorts of Islamic belief and that the violent forms are the unacceptable ones. Those who support or preach or otherwise promote the unacceptable sorts will face consequences that they dislike.

The easy way to do this is to simply apply the existing illiberal hate crime laws against them. I hate the laws, I’d rather they weren’t on the books in the UK (or Europe in general), but since they are they should be used to slap down all the anti-women, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, etc. comments of various Islamic sorts. We know who they are. In many cases we have audio and video recordings. The various UK police forces (e.g. Cheshire above) just need to apply the laws to these people too.

Actually it would probably be an excellent idea to apply the laws in general to these sorts. We might stop child abuse, spousal battering, female genital mutilation etc. by simply paying more attention to the Islamic immigrant communities than we do now. That might end up reducing terrorism too; the New Statesmen points out that wife-battering is a common factor for many terrorists. Mrs May has said she intends to ignore the various human rights agreements when it comes to terrorists. This is, again, something where I’m very nervous about what it could lead to, but a law that said that spousal abuse by an immigrant was grounds for deportation and revocation of visa, citizenship might end up partly solving the terrorism problem by significantly reducing the potential pool of terrorists.

But we need to also find ways to make additional sponsorship of extremist Islam personally unpleasant to the whole chain from the local imams to the rulers and rich people in the Middle East who sponsor it and to also ban the “charities” that do it. It is relatively simple to do the following after each terror attack. First you identify who the terrorists are. Then, since most (all?) of them will turn out to be “known wolves” use the previously gathered intel to identify the mosques etc. that they frequented. Raid those mosques with the greatest disrespect possible – muddy boots on the floor, bacon sandwiches, korans dumped on the floor and possibly trodden on etc.. Gather samples of all the literature videos etc. Find the publishers and charities of the literature that is preaching Islamic supremacy if not outright jihad. Ban said charities and seize all their assets. If possible get the account books of both the mosque and the charities and publish the list of donors and the sums donated. Fine the donors a significant sum and, for the ones that want to come to London to shop, the Riviera to party etc., arrest them when they arrive and hold them until they pay the fine.

There will undoubtedly be protests. They too need to be treated with disrespect – tear gas, water canon etc. Make it very clear that this will happen to every mosque that is raided and has extremist literature in it. If you don’t want to be raided then don’t push jihadi viewpoints.

Once the local situation is stabilized similar action should be taken on an international level; i.e. do the same sort of thing with governments and Boko Haram, Al Shabab etc. Deploy some surveillance resources to go find their bases and then raid them hard with special forces types. Once you’ve got the bases do two things. First, assuming there are any survivors, lock them up and let them become the prisoners of the women who have been rescued by the raid. Ignore the screams but do consider handing a video camera or two to the new guards and accidentally leaking the footage on the internet. Second do the forensic analysis thing on the computers, paperwork etc. and figure out the suppliers. Freeze assets, name and shame banks, donors etc.

One final thing that does need to happen is that the MSM – which will undoubtedly try to take the side of the Islamists, see above – needs to be given very strong incentives not to do so. Fortunately many MSM outlets, particularly those of a “progressive sort” are on rather shaky financial ground right now so hitting them in the wallet will be easy. For example in the UK the Grauniad has an entire section of ads for open job positions in government departments. Simply declining to use the Guardian for this (and using the Telegraph say) would be a major financial hit. The BBC, to pick another obvious example, is highly dependent on its license fee being maintained so that would be another obvious pressure point. Of course the media luvvies would complain, but a voluntary BBC subscription would almost certainly make a lot of voters happy.

One can do more and, for example, decline interviews and exclusives with media outlets (or specific journalists) that don’t tread the line – let’s face it despotic regimes do this all the time, no harm at all in copying them.


  • Remove Islam from the “protected minority” classes
  • Use the existing laws to imprison and/or deport potential terrorists for other crimes
  • Ensure there are negative consequences for spreading radical Islam
  • Make sure that the MSM and the rest of the sneering classes get the message

PS A mosque in the US that could benefit from my muddy footed investigators would be this one