The attack yesterday in London is a new opportunity to the political inconsistency. It is hateful for anyone to reach such a level of folly as to see the world through bloodshot eyes that lead him to indiscriminately kill humans and to immolate himself in the midst of ecstasy. It is difficult to accept that innocent people see their lives truncated so cruelly and surprisingly. But it is unbearable that those whom we entrust to guide our countries in the most rational and balanced way from the point of view of the general interests behave so inconsistently with the causes of our ills.

Yesterday’s murderer, we still do not know if he had political or religious motives. In any case, this type of actions kills of anyone (black o white, religous or atheist) given their blind and cruel character. Every week we hear of attacks in the Middle East that end the lives of hundreds of Arabs at the hands of Arabs, leaving the attacks in Europe in other scale. The attacks in Europe or in the United States are often carried out by marginalized fanatics in their last stage of their social resentment, whether spontaneous or envoy trained and armed from the foci of international terrorism. As the authorities have masked the fissures by which professional terrorists arrived, there has been a proliferation of craft attacks whose maximum example was the attack with civil aircraft filled with passengers to the Twin Towers of New York. Add to it the suicidal character of many of them to raise the difficulty of detection and prevention to very complicated levels. If there is another lone wolf, this same morning anywhere in the world there could be a similar attack. Nobody could stop it.

But the inconsistency that gives title to this article has to do with the answer given by our politicians. It is not s solution against an attack like the one of yesterday close the borders nor taking the army to the streets. Two absurd measures. The attacks are committed by people who are already inside and the army is useless against the murderous will of one man. Beside of internal mesures against the attack, what is necessary is what governments are not willing to do for cryptic reasons. What things? Not liberate foreign peoples with wars, not trade with the country that blatantly finances terrorism while not accepting a single refugee of his race. Cut radically the circulation of weapons that make possible the existence and resistance of core terror with aspirations of government in the Middle East. If there are stable countries fanatics are diluted as we have diluted ours. Does anyone think that among us and with our very appearance there are no people willing to practice terror if a sufficiently toxic ideological broth is created? See what it has cost to end up ETA (Basque terrorists in Spain). If you attack the causes it will not be necessary to prohibit anyone visiting a country or, within universally accepted laws, to emigrate. Much less will it be necessary to deport individuals or families if the corresponding xenophobic environment has not been created.

In the United Kingdom, about 600 people die every year (9 per million) from violence of all kinds. In France 800 (12 per million) and in the country of the xenophobic Trump 12,000 (40 per million). In Spain, fortunately, the figures are lower: 300 (6 per million) However the commotion of these crimes affects only relatives, while those of terrorism shocks the whole nation in Europe or America. The reason is that the terrorist not only takes a life, but also aspires to demolish a society. The paradox is that circumventing measures against deep causes facilitates their claim, while taking typical measures of propaganda undermine the foundations of our democratic societies. Hardness with the symptoms, yes and yes. But, also and especially with the causes.

An apocryphal phrase says sensibly that the madness is to do always the same thing and expect different results. In science it is considered that there is a probable cause-effect relation when the intensity of an event always varies with the intensity of another event. How many times do you need to burn your tongue with a hot soup to stop following? Well, the politicians of the big countries do not take into account the example of the soup or the one of Spain with its exemplary resistance and patience to end the ETA terrorism. Quite the contrary, they stubbornly continue doing the same expecting different results. In other words, they are technically crazy. Or not? And if the degree of terrorism that is produced in Europe is considered a bearable collateral effect against the geostrategic success of continuing staying up in countries whose raw materials they want to control? And if that degree of terrorism allows fear to facilitate the most convenient policies? In that case the usual response of the politicians: «they will not end with democracy»; «We are at war with terrorism»; «they will pay for their crimes», etc. would not be the product of conventional madness, but of the worst of them: lucid, hyperrational madness of the homicidal exercise of the power of those who believe that the human being has no remedy and that resources are scarce. So what needs to be done is to exercise an institutional merciless egoism and «every man for himself!» that we are too many to share. In that case I change my diagnostic: they are not inconsistent but madmen (male o female).

Deja una respuesta

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Salir /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Salir /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Salir /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir el spam. Aprende cómo se procesan los datos de tus comentarios.