09 December 2015

The provocation-repression fallacy or: what ISIS wants

A common line of argument against Donald Trump's repressive proposals for Muslims is that Trump is the best thing that could happen to the self-styled Islamic State, or that the IS or Daesh couldn't ask for a better American ally than Trump. This is really the same argument you hear whenever repressive measures are proposed against a violent or merely radical organization, and in this case it strikes me as lazy thinking. It forces the current terrorist movement into an old, arguably irrelevant mold.

In the late 19th century, violent anarchists developed the idea of "propaganda of the deed" that appeared to justify terrorist action, whether it was effective or not. A terrorist deed's propaganda effect was supposed to be twofold. If successful in its original objective, by blowing up a building or killing a politician, it exposed some weakness of the oppressive state. The second effect is known as the provocation-repression theory. According to this theory, a terrorist attack was successful if it provoked new repressive measures by the government. Anarchists hoped that these new repressive measures, by in some way curtailing the liberties of people in general, would expose the essentially repressive, tyrannical nature of the state to more people in a radicalizing way. This strategy never worked; in most countries it fell to a minority of civil-libertarians to defend anarchists as a whole, including the non-violent ones, from majoritarian demands for violent repression by the government or, as many Americans wanted after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, a ban on admitting immigrants who espoused anarchist views.

I'm no student of anarchist movements, but I doubt that repressive measures anywhere actually inspired growth in anarchist ranks. Despite this failure, some academics, and more laymen, seem to think that the provocation-repression process actually can work the way the anarchists hoped. This assumption explains the puerile argument that Trump is doing the IS's work in America. The argument itself assumes that the measures proposed by Trump, if not Trump's mere proposal of them, are sufficient to radicalize more Muslims here and abroad. For some it may go further, their idea being that the IS or supporters like the San Bernardino shooters carry out their attacks in order to provoke the repressive response  that will truly radicalize Muslims. Here, for once, the old reactionary argument that certain people wrongly "blame America first" for everything bad in the world has merit. By now, with the rise of the IS, we're past the stage at which the terror war could be described as a "defensive jihad" to which the correct response would be some change in American behavior, be it more equitable treatment of Muslim countries or total disengagement from the Middle East. With the proclamation of a caliphate it's more correct to speak now of an Islamist offensive with a momentum and motivating logic of its own. I doubt greatly whether the IS requires or even wants Trump to do his thing, although they'll probably try to milk it for something. My hunch right now is that the IS in particular is driven not by a continued narrative of infidel oppression but by a perceived winning streak. If they can keep pulling off attacks, or inspiring them, and if they can hold out in Syria and Iraq under the chaotic assault of neighbors and superpowers, that's what will inspire people to swear allegiance, not some beef with Donald Trump. If anything, the IS might use Trump as proof of how scared Americans are of them right now, with the emphasis not on any threat Trump may represent to Muslims but on how powerful the Daesh must be to inspire such fear. That's no more an argument against Trump's stand than the provocation-repression theory. There are real arguments to be made against Trump, but his seeming hysteria and simplistic thinking shouldn't provoke hysteria and simplistic thinking among his critics. Trump's antics are unlikely to help the IS in any measurable way, but it's even less likely that stopping Trump will stop the jihad, or even slow it down.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

It isn't "radicalizing more muslims". It is getting them to show their true colors. Islam is a vile superstition that is at odds with anyone who refuses to kowtow to their demands. The "moderate muslims" are simply practicing taqiyya until they are in a position to no longer be moderate, without undue risk to life, limb and/or property. The only solution is to run every muslim out of the West. Those who refuse to leave, execute. Do to them what they would be gladly doing to us if they were in the majority.

Samuel Wilson said...

But of course: taqiyya, the excuse never to tolerate, let alone trust a Muslim. But don't you think that if Muslims really wanted to practice taqiyya until Der Tag, they'd deny they were Muslim at all when they came here? Then your solution would simply be to go back to 1920s immigration policy and keep out everyone from Muslim-majority or Arab countries; Congress could just name the countries without making any statement about Islam and thus avoid any First Amendment criticism. That might annoy those Republicans who want to bring in Christian refugees from IS-land, but I doubt you care much for those refugees, and just for fun you could say that they're Muslims practicing taqiyya. In this environment you'd get the people behind you in a snap.

Anonymous said...

As if they wouldn't simply claim to be from some non-muslim country. Need I remind you that only a month or so ago ISIS members were caught with false IDs, claiming they were syrian refugees, attempting to gain admittance to this country. Are YOU claiming that YOU know the secret heart of every muslim and can vouch for every "moderate muslim"? Again, YOU may be willing to risk your life trusting someone you have no basis to trust and every reason not to trust. But you don't have the right to risk other people's lives. And, as an atheist, I would think you would understand the danger islam poses to you and every other atheist out there. I am quite surprised that you would defend a religion whose very essence is against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. But I suppose feelings liberal guilt knows no bounds. I can only imagine liberals are so desperate to trust muslims because you feel some modicum of guilt for something regarding that abomination, that mother-lode of all bad ideas, that most barbaric of all primitive belief structures.

Be that as it may, I will never believe any muslim can be trusted, and as I've stated before, the only time the rest of humanity will have cause to breath a sigh of relief is when every single muslim bastard on this planet has been forced to renounce that shit religion or is pushing up daisies.

Anonymous said...

As far as I'm concerned, the blood of every single American murdered by muslim terrorists on American soil is on the hands of every one of you who defends those vile bastards.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm not sure if you are aware, but as of last year, the national law of Saudi Arabia has defined all atheists as terrorists. Atheism is also completely illegal in the UAE. So yeah, lets allow more of these bastards into the US so eventually they can lock you and I up for refusing to follow their shit religion.

Allah is SHIT. Mohammed is his pedophile slave. DEATH TO ISLAM.

Samuel Wilson said...

1:42 - No, you are claiming to know their secret hearts on the basis of a book rather than knowing anybody. I don't know any Muslims but I also don't think that some selective reading of the Qur'an substitutes for that. Do you still espouse some form of socialism? Then you must want to put us all into a gulag. You see how that works?

1:43 - Then I guess it won't add to the blood on my hands if you drop dead. Collective guilt of any kind is bullshit.

2:25 - That's like saying every country that's a dictatorship is a threat to my freedom of speech. Sheesh. Agreed on Allah and Mohammed, but when you're done with the killing you may notice that a lot of your new gun buddies will turn on you for exactly the same reason you're freaking out over now.

Anonymous said...

I'm not claiming to know their hearts. I'm claiming to have read the Koran and understand that there is an underlying reason why, if they are a "good muslim" a non-believer has no basis for trust. I know that in most muslim countries - including those of our allies, I would be guilty of blasphemy and I have no reason to believe that, should they become enough of a political party in this country, that people such as I WILL be hounded, persecuted and, in all probability, murderer, as will you. Something people like you simply refuse to acknowledge. Any "bible-believing" muslim is free to tell you to your heart's content how peaceful and tolerant they are, all the while plotting to murder your children. Because that is what their religion, as codified in the koran, preaches.

There may be violent christians or christians who resort to violence, but they cannot, in all honesty, point to any words attributed to Jesus that condones violence. Muslims cannot make that claim. Any muslim committing violence against non-believers, a justification in one of over 100 surahs wherein violence is justified, if not mandated. In all honesty, I have a hard time understanding why you'd defend a religion that would repay you by having you beheaded.

Anonymous said...

You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but facts do not stand on your side. Neither does history. Look at what has happened to every country wherein islam has become the dominant religion. An end to pretty much most freedom. It will happen here as well. At least if it should happen in my lifetime, I can die knowing I didn't sell my values out for the false promises of lying muslim bastards.

Samuel Wilson said...

8:44 and 8:50 - The Koran cover to cover? I doubt it, but I wouldn't encourage it, either. Pretty tedious and repetitive. While there's certainly more violence in that book than in the New Testament, don't forget Matthew 10:34. But are you taking Christianity off the hook now? Perhaps you'd feel safer if you get baptized. Strength in numbers and all that. Perhaps you should register as Republican, too. Or would that also be selling out your values, whatever those are? I'm trying to remind you of all the other stuff you normally get angry at so you won't be so scared of one thing right now. Because when you start talking about Muslims taking over the U.S., you're scared as hell.