Pros and cons of IEDs

It’s usually impossible to deradicalize hardcore militant activists, because they will not change their convictions, in the same way that a liberal will usually not change his or her convictions either.

When communicating with militant activists one has a better chance of getting them disengaged from terrorism if not moralizing when honestly, coldly and logically explaining both the pros and cons of this violent method.

Instead of “dog whistling” I’m here just telling it as it is, a bit similar to how Machiavelli told the truth in The Prince, so that everyone could see it.

After the US Capitol riot (Jan 6, 2021) and Big Tech’s censoring of conservative free speech, it’s an educated guess when I claim that each year there is now a 20% to 50% chance that Big Tech will be the target of some kind of “successful” terrorist attack. This risk is now independent of what anyone writes online about terrorism. The die has already been cast. Banning a website like mine will therefore not have much effect, partly because smart terrorists are offline. And if a terrorist is smart enough to avoid the Internet it also means that he/she obviously doesn’t need this website here as a source of emotional inspiration.

Both militant activists and Big Tech can intellectually learn a thing or two from the information presented on this website. CEOs like Bezos can become aware of threats, be scared enough to take them seriously, and prepare accordingly, to counter them.

While over 99.99 % of all left- or rightwing radicals are wasting time on futile chatter on social media like Gab, the ultra-rich have the discipline, organizational skills and resources to hire private military companies to protect them.

With over 30 years experience it’s my professional opinion that Big Tech doesn’t have to worry about 99.99 % of all left- and rightwing activists. The latter have too much ethical awareness to engage in terrorism or they are either cowards or too incompetent to orchestrate a successful terrorist campaign.

At the time of writing (Jan 31, 2021) nobody is publishing comments in the field below my posts, and the website has only had 112 visitors, despite radicals on Gab knowing about it. This low number may increase, in the future, but when this website drew little attention right after the US Capitol riot one can safely assume that online radicals are just cowards, too scared and timid to pose a threat to Big Tech. I saw the same pattern on two former websites I created to debate militant activism. Even after 15 years nobody was active there. The traffic was low.

From the above I draw a sobering conclusion about human nature: almost all radical intellectuals are cowards who don’t dare to become militant activists, and non-intellectual activists are too stupid and undisciplined to fight in an effective manner.

After this long intro many “dummy terrorists” will have stopped reading this post because they don’t have the attention span to study academic texts even when these contain valuable information about how to conduct effective militant operations.

Many radicals usually have too vulnerable egos, so if you insult them, like I just did, they will simply reject arguments you present even when these arguments are good for their own cause. This dynamic is very amusing. Many are so attached to their own subcultural identity that they refuse to act pragmatically even if that’s the only way to victory. Their ability to play 3D chess is not that great either. When naive peasants come to the city, to sell their goods, they are often pawned by clever urban Machiavellians.

If you from the above get the impression that my respect for both left- and rightwing militant subcultures is close to zero, then you are right. They are not like professional soldiers, to put it mildly. Even if two professional soldiers hate each other, they will still cooperate if they happen to be on the same team, in a fight against a common enemy. They don’t waste time on petty quarrels. They have their priorities in order.

From one viewpoint I have more respect for those who in one way is my enemy: the Machiavellians running the global corporate world. I kind of respect their high-quality Byzantine skills, despite the idealist in me always supporting the underdog, “the little man”, especially all the hyper-individualists out there.

But I digress. What a detour. Here I’m supposed to write about car bombs, but so far I’ve only created yet another wall of text; an intellectual wall that will hopefully keep moronic, undisciplined and lazy activists away from the information below. They are not like energetic corporate lawyers who are able to endure verbosity and information overload.

Well, if you are 1) a smart radical person reading this, and 2) you have a secret desire to encourage militant activists to attack a Big Tech company like Amazon, and 3) you are already adamantly determined to incite others in this manner, then I honestly recommend that you a) only advice them to use nonviolent sabotage, and b) go offline when giving them this advice: spread the info here through word of mouth, while always assuming that your apartment is bugged and that anybody might be an informant or undercover officer.

Smart militant activists already have the op sec described in the last paragraph above. I’m just explaining elementary stuff here. Yet another detour.

However, if you think nonviolent sabotage is a method for pussies, and you for some reason get excited when seeing car bomb videos, then ask yourself why corporate media loves to cover stories about terrorist atrocities. It’s because the corporate elite knows that common people will be very scared when seeing the bloody result of a car bomb; a fear that leads them to accept increased surveillance.

If a car bomb kills many innocent bystanders in front of an Amazon building, the consequence is maybe an (astroturf) street march where people shout “I’m Amazon too”, shown on prime time tv.

Terrorists must learn from Clausewitz and the Vietnam War. Clausewitz said that war is politics by other means. You can therefore win a battle, but still lose the war if the brutal methods you relied on just mobilized people to reject you politically, as seen during the Vietnam War.

Furthermore, intelligence services and private military companies have infiltrated all left- and rightwing militant movements, so if you are a member of a large terrorist group (or a militia) it’s a relatively high risk that you will get arrested a couple of days right before detonating a car bomb.

Now we have discussed the drawbacks, the cons of the primitive car bomb tactic. IEDs will always be morally evil. It’s also aesthetically disgusting when body parts fly all over the place. It stinks. And you have to be a monster, ethically speaking, to use a method that may easily kill children. But in the following I will not focus on ethics, just the coldhearted effectiveness of some IED campaigns.

IEDs are counterproductive if you want to build something positive. Destruction is not creation. IEDs can work however if your only goal is to destroy your enemy (or scare them away from a contested territory). But this presupposes that IED attacks occur frequently enough to 1) constitute a real insurgency, as seen in Iraq for example, or 2) they are part of a relatively large terrorist movement, cf IRA and ETA.

If twenty disciplined and leaderless terrorist groups, consisting of 2-3 activists each, decide to only attack Amazon, then it’s little doubt that twenty car bomb explosions outside Amazon buildings will seriously harm this very powerful Big Tech company. If this leader of the Big Tech pack is seriously crippled, it will also destroy much of the morale that drives other Big Tech corporations.

Even if Trump supporters are demonetized and rightwing militias are forced into economic bankruptcy it’s very easy for poor farmers in the US to build IEDs. They have all the equipment and ingredients they need on their own farms. They also have enough guns to fight effectively if focusing all their energy on taking down one single Big Tech company. And then move on to the next Big Tech corporation.

The drawback of leaderless IED attacks is that the first group detonating a car bomb outside Amazon can’t know if other independent cells or solo terrorists will also attack the same company. It may therefore backfire politically if only 1-3 random IED attacks happen, over a time span of two or three years. It will lead to increased surveillance. And a higher number of average people will probably express support in favor of Amazon.

On the other hand, tyrannical drone and IoT surveillance will soon be widespread in any case, if nobody fights it, right now. In an automated society run by elites not relying on taxes it’s also a fact that the opinions of average citizens don’t really matter that much anymore. Today, all left- and rightwing militant activists can basically ignore polls, ignore anti-terrorism street protests, and ignore condemnations published in corporate newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post, a paper owned by Amazon.

Here’s the five reasons why I think that a leaderless IED campaign, as described above, will not happen in real life despite it being effective in theory: your “average” radicalized farmer, and even 99.99 % of militia members, are 1) not sociopathic enough to detonate car bombs, 2) the anti-surveillance cause is so “abstract” that it seldom leads to the necessary emotional motivation needed for triggering terrorism, 3) many radicals lack the cognitive ability, the intellectual capacity, to stay focused on the danger of Big Tech surveillance, 4) there are too many cowards and faux rebels even in militias, and 5) most radicals today are disillusioned creatures of comfort, with less combat morale than defeatist French who let Hitler occupy Paris.

Big Tech, the world is your oyster. Go and take it. Nobody is stopping you.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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