Could the video be a deliberate provocation to bring out the insanity of Muslims, and should this approach be pursued?

Matthew Bracken writes:

It appears to me that some Egyptian Christians who do understand Islam very well might be behind the ludicrous Mohammed “video trailer” for valid psychological warfare purposes. Note that this Ann Barnhardt video from about a year ago has had new Arabic subtitles added by a group calling itself “LoveJesusforEgypt.” It has now been re-released on LiveLeak, and it is getting responses from Muslims, so it will probably be in the news shortly.

Both the “Innocence of Muslims” video and Barnhardt’s bacon Koran video indicate to me that Islam’s weaknesses are finally being exploited by those who understand them. Islam has a brittle glass jaw hidden behind its very effective smokescreen of fear and terror. Muslims cannot engage in rational debate, have no capacity for self-examination, and no sense of humor. In fact, these qualities are mortal sins within Islam. These two videos (and more that will follow) exploit the subrational Islamic thought processes, and cause them to lash out with reflexive Pavlovian anger, exposing the true nature of the insane death cult to those in the West who are still unaware of it, having been brainwashed by political correctness.

These videos are merely opening shots in a counter-jihad psy-ops war that will be fought by ordinary citizens, who also understand perfectly well by now that their elected leaders would rather submit than fight back effectively against the real enemy, which is Islam itself, and not some fuzzy and undefined “extremists” within “the religion of peace.”

LA replies:

I think you’re on to something.

We could imagine how this strategy might be employed in the future. Let’s say the U.S. or Europe is in on the verge of making some suicidal agreement with the Muslims, e.g., letting Turkey into the EU or pushing Israel to surrender. At that moment a new anti-Mo video is released into the Internet. The Muslim world goes wild, and the negotiations collapse.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

Muslim refusal to engage in rational debate, engage in self-examination, or permit “humorous” attacks on their religion are not weaknesses. They are mighty strengths! They are not Islam’s “brittle glass jaw”; they are its bulging biceps! These attributes generate fear in their enemies, and cause their enemies to seek to avoid provoking Muslims and to appease Muslims when they are angry. Muslims probably know, at some level, that if they engage in rational debate about Islam, engage in self-examination, or permit “humorous” attacks on Islam, then Islam is doomed. Precisely these methods have been used for centuries now to undermine Christianity and traditional Western civilization, and Muslims need look no farther than at the empty shell that is today’s Christianity and Western civilization to appreciate the effectiveness of these methods.

If Christianity and traditionalism want to survive, then they too should refuse to engage in rational debate with the Left, refuse to “self-examine” on Leftist terms, and refuse to tolerate “humorous” Leftist attacks. Such an obstinate attitude is warranted not least because the Left itself does not tolerate “rational debate” about its ideas, does not permit “self-examination” of its ideas, and has no sense of humor about its ideas. Among the reasons the Right keeps retreating and the Left keeps advancing is that the Right tolerates debate about itself and humor about itself but the Left does not. Indeed, trying to persuade Leftists to engage in rational debate or self-examination, let alone mocking them, often has exactly the same outcome as trying the same techniques on a Muslim—i.e., the Leftist flies into a rage, tries to shout you down, and ultimately may even assault you or kill you. To paraphrase Bracken, using rationalism or humor on a Leftist causes him to lash out with reflexive Pavlovian anger and exposes the true nature of his insane cult.

A further reason that rational debate or humor are ineffective against Muslims is that as we have seen, such efforts cause the Left to side with the Muslims and attack the perpetrator. The more effective the attack on Islam, the more stridently Western Leftists seek to appease Islam and punish its critics. After all, we should hardly be surprised that irrational psychotics are allied with other irrational psychotics.

LA replies:

You make good points, but what is your overall point? Are you agreeing with Mr. Bracken’s suggested strategy or disagreeing?

James P. replies:

My overall point is up front—what he characterizes as weaknesses of Islam are actually strengths. From this it follows that if some people concocted the video as a deliberate strategy to play on the supposed weaknesses of Islam, then this strategy will fail.

Josh F. writes:

James P. says,

Muslim refusal to engage in rational debate, engage in self-examination, or permit “humorous” attacks on their religion are not weaknesses. They are mighty strengths!

I think this misses Matthew Bracken’s point. The jihadist’s “refusal” may be his strength, but his reaction to those THAT CAN and DO ATTACK Islam is his weakness for the very fact that his reaction IS CONTROLLED by the attacker of Islam. They’re like puppets on a string and their “refusal” to do this, that and the other as far as protecting Islam is beside the point.

LA replies:

I agree with Josh, and I thank him for his reply to James P. which was inchoately in my head but I couldn’t formulate it at the moment.

LA writes:

Matthew Bracken has written a reply to James P. which is an essay in its own right. I’ve posted it in a new entry, entitled, “How Islam—and the ever-present threat it poses to humanity—could be brought to an end in one, simple step.”

September 18

Wanda S. writes from Canada:

We’ve been debating whether the street-level unrest in the Muslim world this past week is an indication of Islamic strength or Islamic weakness. I believe it demonstrates weakness, and am discouraged that Western governments persist in cowering before mob hysteria.

The fact that no one is forcefully opposing the mob and making it retreat gives the impression that its power cannot be challenged. Even those who are determined not to submit to Islam’s demands fear that Islam will overwhelm us.

The West did not grow powerful through unthinking reaction and mob violence. We’ve fought and defeated such enemies in the past using our own tools: independent thought, imagination, and will, harnessed to action. The Western way of war is audacious, flexible, versatile, and inventive—no seventh century-style Islamic warrior or raider, flipping through Mohammed’s book of instructions, has a hope of combating a modern West determined to fight and win. Throwing stones and lighting fires will work at a micro level; in single combat, a hopped-up psychopath has an advantage over a bookish professor. But an army of hopped-up psychopaths has no chance against an army of Western men.

To concede superiority to Muslims based on their theatrics is like declaring that Timothy Treadwell’s death proves the superiority of bears. One unarmed human versus a bear is no match; but a man with a gun is a different question, and only one side is capable of making the gun.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 17, 2012 11:35 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):