Nerds of Jihad and the Virtual Worlds Evolution

Comprehension is critical. All movements congregate around a message, a coherent narrative understood by all, a rallying cry. Extremist propaganda serves this function, and discriminates amongst different audiences. In the court of international public opinion it aims to create either fear or a broad sense of sympathy. When aimed at the enemy, whether military or civilian, the intention is to create fear and uncertainty, and to undermine morale. Different emphases can be placed on the message distributed to extant supporters of an extremist organisation – corroboration, encouragement, reinforcement, righteousness. The fourth audience is the population in whose interest extremists claim to act. Propaganda mobilises public support, constructs bottom-up legitimacy, and affirms credibility through action. Within this population lies the most important group of all: the next generation of extremists.

What would John Boyd have said here ?

“Shape or influence events so that we not only amplify our spirit and strength (while isolating our adversaries and undermining their resolve and drive) but also influence the uncommitted or potential adversaries so that they are drawn toward our philosophy and are empathetic toward our success. – Patterns of Conflict

I would also add that the potential radical online is also drawn in by the same psychological process that occurs with cults – acceptance, affirmation of identity, certainty, an emotive connection that is continually reinforced and provides a neurophysical stimulus. A good book to pick up here would be Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics). The mad gleam in the eye of the ranting Islamist has been seen before in SS diehards, Maoist Red Guards, anarchists of the 19th century People’s Will and innumerable others.

Extremism itself is not the problem and nor is radical thinking, but violence against innocent individuals – becoming ‘kinetic’ in military parlance – is not acceptable in modern liberal society. Although its role is sometimes overstated online radicalisation is very real. It cannot be viewed in isolation from the societies in which it occurs but there are targeted approaches available to mitigate its worst excesses. Testimonies of violent extremists of every ilk highlight the role of the internet in radicalisation, either of themselves or of others, and we are obliged to pay attention.

Prior to the 1960’s, liberal societies and liberals themselves did not have problems accepting the fact that the open society had blood enemies and treating them as such. Liberals volunteered to go to Spain to fight fascism and were enthusiastic advocates for the crusade to destroy Nazism in WWII. Social Democrats and trade unionists fought to kick Stalinists out of unions and democratic-Left organizations and so on.  They had a moral center and argued for a “vital center” against extremism, at home or abroad.

Unfortunately, ever since the Vietnam War, liberals have been unable to effectively answer the anti-Western, anti-democratic, illiberal critique posed by New Left radicals, deconstructionists, multiculturalists, gender feminists and various forms of au courant intellectual nihilism. Instead, the democratic Left have accepted the undemocratic extremists as political allies in good standing against the Right, are loath to criticize them and implicitly accepted the moral legitimacy of their crypto-Marxist jeremiad, if not their policy recommendations or often inane political advice. While a general cultural trend, this effect is most acute in the baby boom generation, particularly the ’68’ers and New Right oponents who are at their zenith of systemic responsibility as managing editors, CEO’s, political leaders, intellectuals and bureaucrats.

 A generation still torn by the cultural civil war of their youth make ineffective defenders of a civilization. “The Long War” will be long in part because our leadership is badly divided and on occasion, blind and grossly incompetent.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

  1. A.E.:

    I might have told you this before, but you really need to check out the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex anime series. There are all sorts of scale free networks, netwars, puppetmasters, etc. The main villain of the first season is an Anonymous-type network wreaking havoc on the populace.

  2. Tim Stevens:

    Hi Mark,

    Cheers for the linkage btw. It’s good to post something and then let someone else expand and improve upon it. The Armano thing is interesting, and I’ll have to look into it more. Likewise for the Metaverse Roadmap Overview. I’d heard of neither prior to your post, so thanks for pointing them out.

    Your take on liberal inadequacies holds a lot of water, as well as being a masterpiece of linguistic creativity and critical sharpshooting. Bravo. Part of the whole problem with the whole GWOT, etc, has been an utter inability even to define terms, ideologically or otherwise. A total paucity of self-awareness bedevils administrations on both sides of the Atlantic. How is one to ‘know the enemy’ unless one knows oneself. You can kick against the pricks as long as you want but eventually your hollowness will collapse in upon itself. Voila, le monde.

    I would take mild terminological issue with your mention of ‘cyberterrorism’ in your opening paragraph. It’s unfair to single you out on this issue as there’s an awful lot of misunderstanding about this – it’s absolutely not what I’m referring to, but I understand why people might think it is. That’s one for another post though 😉