Skip to content

Another U.K. Terror Attack – and Now the PM Blames…the Internet

There was another terrorist attack in the U.K., in London, in which the attackers drove into a crowd of pedestrians and then stabbed people at random, killing 7 in all. So the British Prime Minister Theresa May is stepping up her anti-freedom of speech and thought rhetoric. No surprise there.

In reference to Islamic ideology, May stated, according to the NYT: “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide … We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace.”

Mrs. May wants to have other countries join in the criminal intrusiveness that her own government already has been engaging in since last year, her Investigatory Powers Act, a.k.a. the “Snoopers’ Charter,” which allows government police to collect and/or intercept specifically-targeted and bulk Internet communications, forces ISPs to collect data indicating which web pages users visit and allows government police agencies to criminally snoop and pry into that info without a warrant, allows government police to hack into users’ computers, forces ISPs to remove users’ encryption by order of government police, and other provisions. The Soviets would have loved this stuff.

Theresa May now wants that current U.K. policy expanded internationally, including in countries which impose restrictions on government to protect the right of the people to freedom of speech and their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

According to Wikipedia, a list of the participating U.K. government agencies in the “Snoopers’ Charter” includes, besides the usual police agencies, the “Department for Work and Pensions,” the “Competition and Markets Authority,” and the “Food Standards Agency.” I guess they are concerned that Islamic terrorists might violate food standards.

So really, just as in the U.S. in which NSA spy data are used for reasons other than terrorism, such as the DEA enforcing the drug war and the DEA giving the NSA data to the IRS as well, these intrusive powers are being used for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism.

The truth is, if governments were really serious about stopping terrorism, they and their militaries would stop invading those Muslim countries, stop bombing them and murdering their people, because the bureaucrats know that it is their own provocations for decades that have been poking those primitive and barbaric hornets’ nests.

And if the bureaucrats were really serious about stopping terrorism, then they would also stop funding and supporting the jihadis, those Islamic States such as the Saudis who are the biggest exporters of Islamic jihad. Stop radicalizing non-extremist Muslims to become extremists which the CIA, FBI, etc. have been doing for decades.

Given the access these government “national security” agencies already have to Internet users’ data, on the Internet and other communications (including email, gaming, phone calls, etc.), I find it hard to believe that NSA, GCHQ, CIA don’t already have knowledge of who the terror-plotters are out there. And they must know about the Saudis, and so on. So it seems that the government goons just don’t want to prevent terrorist acts, because their parasitism seems to be an addiction. The public-trough gravy train never seems to stop, in other words.

So Theresa May and other bureaucrats are really FOS, in my view. All this really has to do with control. Government bureaucrats are control freaks. Government powers and authority and the ultimate decisions of justice and The Law are what attract control freaks to those agencies of supreme power. We now know that those government spy agencies have been engaged in criminal shenanigans, such as utilizing online tactics of deceit to manipulate business relationships and intentionally destroy reputations. They have been engaging in assassinations, coups, and blackmail. So they’re not exactly angels, quite frankly.

Since it’s not as much about preventing terrorism as it is about government bureaucrats and goons exercising control, one thing these calls for Internet regulation are about is enforcing today’s loony-tunes Social Justice political correctness, and cracking down on “hate.” As the Daily Caller notes, “the ‘extremism’ that would likely come under regulation would be from critics of Islamism, rather than Islamism itself.” The Brits already arrest and detain innocent people for “offensive” tweets and Facebook posts.

And this is not just about those who criticize Islamic fanaticism, but other more severe forms of “hate,” such as “racism, sexism, homophobia,” and so on. Those “Hates” are more important to the worldwide SJW crusade than the anti-Islamic stuff.

But even more than that political correctness, the true priority is cracking down on political dissent, on those who criticize the government and its awful policies, its criminality and corruption. This is why the government-worshipers out there on the left and right believe that Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are the ones who should be jailed (or killed), not the government criminals they have exposed for the rest of us to see.

And when whistleblowers release such information, government goons go after them like the messengers are the criminals. Just ask William Binney and Thomas Drake (NSA whistleblowers), and John Kiriakou (who exposed the CIA torture program that now the government wants to sweep under the rug, and who pointed out how corrupt many of them are).

So, after all the intrusions that U.S. and U.K. government goons are inflicting into innocent people’s privacy, their homes and their Internet usage, just what more can the government do to save us from the jihadi Islamic extremists that the governments and militaries are provoking and creating more of each year? In other words, nothing. All these corrupt bureaucrats are doing is criminally violating our privacy, and our security as well. We are less secure and less safe because of all this.

And by the way, Theresa May seems to express concern over how some impressionable people are influenced by certain websites and “safe spaces.” But what these bureaucrats obviously want to do is outlaw certain forms of speech and thought.

However, while people can be influenced by violent speech, ideas or suggestions, they nevertheless are responsible for their own actions as acted out by their own free will, such as the Massachusetts teenager who committed suicide as encouraged by his girlfriend who is now on trial for that.

And rioters who riot and commit acts of violence are responsible for their own willful actions, not the ones who suggested or encouraged them to do that, as Murray Rothbard pointed out regarding the idea of “incitement.”

The message ultimately should not be “What speech, ideas and messages are those that moral society should allow or forbid?” as the Theresa Mays of the world seem to advocate. Instead, it should be, “Don’t harm innocent people,” which hasn’t been these Western governments’ message when they start wars of aggression and bomb and murder innocent people, such as in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.

Government bureaucrats seem to find it difficult to admit their criminality in their inflicting violence and horror on innocents. It’s easier for them to persecute their own citizens for “hate” speech or forbidden ideas.

Published inUncategorized