Moral Panic Next Door: The new "Internet radicalization" boogeyman for the simple-minded

[Heathen Hammer]

In 1980s, America and Western societies have been bombarded by mainstream media's fearmogering over Satanic conspiracies. Children and youths were in alleged danger of being corrupted by secret Satanic societies, that spread their evil messages through Heavy Metal music and table top RPGs. Examples of "Satanic" serial killers like Berkowitz and Ramirez were used as undeniable proof that the threat is real.
Sounds familiar yet?
That's because now, in 2020s, little had changed:


As we can see, with the current "Alt Panic", also referred to as "internet radicalization", online image boards have replaced table top RPGs, while metal music is... still being blamed, this time for turning youths into far-right radicals. In the same way, serial killers who carved pentagrams on their palms and wore Venom shirts are now replaced with "lone-wolf" attackers, examples of which are used as undeniable proof of impending radical doom in the same way as with the former.

While without a doubt, to believe such narrative would require virtually no critical thinking abilities, less intelligent segments of society do fall for this narrative. In both cases, we see freaked out simpletons (soccer moms in both cases, evangelical activists in the 80s, antifa activists today) demand limitations on freedom of speech and access of information - all to safeguard children and youths from the scary thing from the TV.

So why does mainstream media engage in such intellectually dishonest fear-mongering campaigns?

"Satanic Panic" itself was mainly an attempt by political establishment to scare the population, as scared people are easier to control. It was also meant to suppress free thought in society dominated by consumerism and evangelical ideas.
In the same way, "Internet radicalization" panic has little bearing with reality and has a similar explanation:

For the most part, corporate media conglomerates see Internet-based content creators as dangerous competition. Indeed, cable news are a dying industry, while their online presences popularity is dwarfed by that of independent content.

They also don't like the availability of alternative political narratives, which makes it difficult to convince the public to give up their individual rights or support yet another war. So of course legacy media cares little for spread of actual "extremism", as it has thrived on it for decades. Same goes for "conspiracy theories", as the notion of "Internet radicalization" is a conspiracy theory in the very conventional definition of the term. What it really doesn't like is that younger people tend to think beyond the establishment-approved political beliefs based on faux-egalitarianism and consumerism.

So what do you guys think? How would moral panics work in the future, where mainstream forms of media are eventually going to become extinct?

Also how would this be viewed in the future, say several decades from now?

[antaeus]

I think wherever there are politicians who are trying to stand out from the diverse field of sociopathy that their career path offers up, there will be simplified moral panic about something. It isn't limited to democracy, internal politics within absolutist regimes also offer opportunity to bend the masses to help climb the political ladder.

The key for me is that most people it seems don't like nuance. Most people like clear and concise messages from their leaders. When in reality the world is nuanced. This conflict opens up vast space for advantage taking.

Every moral panic, like a good stereotype, contains a splash of truth. Just enough to provide a veneer of legitimacy for people who don't like digging deep for understanding.

The internet is an easy boogieman. It is full of private spaces for people to gather and talk about secret stuff. The majority of that secret stuff mundane. But there is just enough dirt to scare simple people who like simple narratives. This is only going to get worse as the internet becomes more a part of our non-computer worlds.

Because people like simple narratives, I don't think mainstream media will ever become extinct. Kind of like mainstream beer when craft beer became cool. It sticks around for the lazy, and creates or buys up indie sub brands for those who like to look different. We already see plenty of mainstream media oozing out into the seemingly indie space. Creating a false sense of local or individual. This is just a modern re-imagining of printed media - where big corporations dabbled in the indie space to add more personality.

Edit:

Something I didn't consider earlier is the concept of the freak show. Which I should have with Marilyn Manson staring at me from the OP. I don't think it is any coincidence that a lot of those singled out for moral panic happen to be counter-culture in some way. Metal bands challenge mainstream - some are leftist, some right, some satanic and some Christian. But all do something to challenge normal. And because these moral-panic subjects are counter-culture, they sometimes feed into their own panic by attracting those who are actually dangerous. Metal has it's Varg Vikernes. It doesn't take much for a newspaper or politician to turn a crazy who happens to like metal and be crazy, into someone who is crazy because they like metal. The subtlety is lost on many, and ignored by others.

In this respect, counter culture is both the driver of creativity and positive change, and also repeatedly the victim of fear from those who don't understand challenges to their normal.

[Abdülmecid I]

Citation desperately needed for the pretty bold claims that mainstream media regularly blame heavy-metal and board games for the alt-right phenomenon. So, should I take the word of two notorious Internet activists of the alt-right, the first one a misogynist and the other one from the Holocaust apologia variety, that the alt-right or any other euphemism for Fascism, Neo-Nazism or any other extremist right-wing ideology, poses no threat to society? I think not. Of course, I agree that the political impact of the 4chan losers is minuscule, as their capabilities are limited to review-bombing and dislike games and videos, whose message may trigger their fragile sensitivities. Beyond that, they don't really play any major role in the society, although they are insecure enough to pretend they are responsible for Brexit or the presidential election of Donald.

That being said, similar to Salafists, for example, their overall insignificance doesn't mean that we should not criticise them for their hateful dogmas and morally bankrupt actions. Their embellished parroting of bigoted, Antisemitic and unscientific stereotypes undermines the quality of the political discourse and directly contributes to a normalisation of vile ideologies that were smashed 75 years ago. Moreover, the most mentally unstable of them also commit terrorist attacks that have claimed the lives of tens of innocent civilians, from Hanau and Halle in Germany to El Paso and Pittsburgh in the United States. Nowadays, "part and parcel of living in a global, digital word is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives".

By the way, I find the reference to the Satanic ritual controversy (which was highlighted in the media, because sensationalism sells, not to scare the populace into submission) not a very apt comparison. It's not completely dead yet, as the alt-right, which Black Pigeon so painstakingly tries to exonerate, has often revived the myth to attack its perceived opponents. Far-right fans of Trump were whining that the Democratic elite participates in culinary orgies of blood and sexual fluids, because they were genuinely incapable of comprehending that you cannot possibly bake, fry and grill abstract concepts, like emotions. Not to mention the fact that their hysterical conspiracy theory about a pedophile ring operating in the nonexistent basement of a pizza restaurant almost led to a tragedy, when a vigilante completely lacking in critical thinking intervened. To summarise, regardless of how weak and feeble the far-right ease, complacency is never recommended, when dealing with the groupies of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet.

[Himster]

There always has to be a boogeyman, or a Goldstein to use Orwellian terminology. Every society needs its mythical antipode to give that society form lest it collapse in on itself. The Nazis had Jews, America had the blacks, Sparta had the Helots and so on.

Enforcing social cohesion through the exaggeration and demonization of divergent viewpoints is a staple of human behaviour.

The excessive demonization of any who question PC culture may seem questionable from an outside perspective, but if we were to consider the alternatives and examples from history... it's not a bad choice really.
Also, it won't last forever, the next Goldstein is just over the horizon.

[Heathen Hammer]

There always has to be a boogeyman, or a Goldstein to use Orwellian terminology. Every society needs its mythical antipode to give that society form lest it collapse in on itself. The Nazis had Jews, America had the blacks, Sparta had the Helots and so on.

Enforcing social cohesion through the exaggeration and demonization of divergent viewpoints is a staple of human behaviour.

The excessive demonization of any who question PC culture may seem questionable from an outside perspective, but if we were to consider the alternatives and examples from history... it's not a bad choice really.
Also, it won't last forever, the next Goldstein is just over the horizon.

Indeed, and it is quite amusing to see proponents of "Alt Panic" try and separate themselves from their evangelical equivalents of the similar "Satanic Panic"(although self-proclaimed "antifascists" will probably be viewed in the future with same legitimacy as evangelical TV pastors of the 80s) or even project it on the "alt-right". Heck, we even see same desperate parallels with Hitler's Germany in both moral panics. The post above yours being a good example of combination of media-induced narratives that are peddled by corporations and governments to the intellectually vulnerable demographics of soccer moms and fanatical activists (evangelicals in the 80s, antifa today).

At the end of the day "alt-right" is just edgy young people who are too cynical, educated and intelligent to gobble up the narratives of mainstream media and use shocking and offensive content to turn public's attention to issues that establishment would rather not have them look at t, be it pedophilia among the elites (Epstein didn't kill himself btw), falsehood of establishmentarian narratives used to justify wars or unfair and tyrannical legislation or simply point out corruption among the "upper echelons" of our society. Most of them are libertarian, some subscribe to more "radical" ideologies, but of course not on the same scale as media fearmongers would like us to believe. They are demonized, but that demonisation won't stick, just like demonisation of D&D players and metalheads didn't stick in the 80s.

While one has every right to disagree with far-right, or any other ideology as for that matter, establishmentarian narrative where limits on freedom of speech and information are an acceptable method in dealing with "wrongthink" is a dangerous thought, that media and politicians desperately try to find legitimacy for. Of course, they care very little for "far-right radicalism" and would simply use that to suppress independent content and criminalize questioning of certain narratives.

At the end of the day, even if "Internet radicalization" was anything other made-up danger by mainstream media, authoritarian symbiosis of corporate and government interests manifesting itself in calls for censorship is a far bigger to society and civilization that was built on free thought and skepticism.

When it comes to subjects like racism or xenophobia, it is important to understand that this is, after all, simply part of human nature. We are supposed to not trust other tribes, as doing the opposite led to death or enslavement throughout history. It is there to stay, as nothing really separates humans of today from humans of Neolithic period. Just look at quarantine's panic buyers who beat the crap out of each other over toilet paper and sanitizer. And it will be there, perhaps until we are confronted with some intelligent alien life form.

[Cope]

The similarities between the alt-right (a rebranded form of the far-right) and the radical left are striking. Both are vehemently opposed to neoliberal, corporatist economics; both place an emphasis on collective identity over individualism; both despise the US's global hegemony and its associated institutions (ie. NATO); both openly sympathise with anti-Semitic, fascistic and misogynistic regimes/organizations in the Middle East; both have a loathing for Israel and Israelis; and both treat the Kremlin with far more leniency than it deserves.

In terms of the institutional response to these movements, the far-right has generally been treated with the contempt it deserves, even if the threat posed by nationalist terrorism is often overstated and conservatives (ie. the "deplorables") are often falsely branded as extremists (eg. Shapiro, Peterson and Trump). On the other hand, the radical left's destructive identity movements (which are more about social revenge than they are social justice) have gone unchallenged for far too long. The silent takeover of academia by leftism, for instance, is a particular problem which we're going to have to deal with sooner rather than later.

[Heathen Hammer]

I would say differences between different form of authoritarianism in general are rather semantic. Any authoritarian regime requires censorship and limitations of other individual freedoms, while pretext is usually simply manufactured, which is what we see with the ongoing Alt-Panic.

At the end of the day, some self-proclaimed "liberal" that demands censorship and draconian gun control is far more closer to 30s German policies then some "alt-right" guy with "Don't tread on me" flag who just wants to have more guns and pay less taxes.

[Cope]

I would say differences between different form of authoritarianism in general are rather semantic. Any authoritarian regime requires censorship and limitations of other individual freedoms, while pretext is usually simply manufactured, which is what we see with the ongoing Alt-Panic.

At the end of the day, some self-proclaimed "liberal" that demands censorship and draconian gun control is far more closer to 30s German policies then some "alt-right" guy with "Don't tread on me" flag who just wants to have more guns and pay less taxes.

You're describing the wrongful branding I mentioned above. There is a problem with people in positions of power (academics, journalists, civil servants, politicians etc.) falsely accusing conservatives and libertarians of being morally "deplorable" or belonging to the far-right. Even so, those false accusations don't mean that the far-right isn't actually real.

[Heathen Hammer]

You're describing the wrongful branding I mentioned above. There is a problem with people in positions of power (academics, journalists, civil servants, politicians etc.) falsely accusing conservatives and libertarians of being morally "deplorable" or belonging to the far-right. Even so, those false accusations don't mean that the far-right isn't actually real.

Far-right is actually real. So are Satanists. But that makes neither Alt-Panic, nor Satanic Panic factual, but falsehood manufactured by an extensive mainstream media campaign.

[Gromovnik]

Relax, no one is panicking over some chud rambling on YouTube.

[Prodromos]

The similarities between the alt-right (a rebranded form of the far-right) and the radical left are striking. Both are vehemently opposed to neoliberal, corporatist economics; both place an emphasis on collective identity over individualism; both despise the US's global hegemony and its associated institutions (ie. NATO); both openly sympathise with anti-Semitic, fascistic and misogynistic regimes/organizations in the Middle East; both have a loathing for Israel and Israelis; and both treat the Kremlin with far more leniency than it deserves.

In terms of the institutional response to these movements, the far-right has generally been treated with the contempt it deserves, even if the threat posed by nationalist terrorism is often overstated and conservatives (ie. the "deplorables") are often falsely branded as extremists (eg. Shapiro, Peterson and Trump). On the other hand, the radical left's destructive identity movements (which are more about social revenge than they are social justice) have gone unchallenged for far too long. The silent takeover of academia by leftism, for instance, is a particular problem which we're going to have to deal with sooner rather than later.

The so-called 'Alt Right' are generally just racist leftists. Richard Spencer's liberal girlfriend says that, "aside from Richard’s stances on racial identity and immigration, the majority of his positions on social politics are decidedly liberal."

[Cope]

The so-called 'Alt Right' are generally just racist leftists. Richard Spencer's liberal girlfriend says that, "aside from Richard’s stances on racial identity and immigration, the majority of his positions on social politics are decidedly liberal."

Aside from the specific crossover on the issue of anti-Semitism, the only genuine difference between the radical left and the far-right is which side they take in identity disputes.

[antaeus]

Aside from the specific crossover on the issue of anti-Semitism, the only genuine difference between the radical left and the far-right is which side they take in identity disputes.

It's funny you say that. I've got a friend who is a wellness counsellor. He's started posting the Covid conspiracy theories that people in his very leftist circles are seriously discussing. They are literally the same theories the alt-right is posting. Word for word. Only with pretty organic looking fonts.

They are both examples of the same kind of extremist low EQ personalities. The only thing that separates them is the influence of their upbringing. They're just looking for a fight, the motivation is coincidental. 50 years ago they were militant Marxists. 90 years ago they were militant fascists. 110 years ago they were militant unionists, 230 years ago they cut off rich french people's heads.

[Cope]

It's funny you say that. I've got a friend who is a wellness counsellor. He's started posting the Covid conspiracy theories that people in his very leftist circles are seriously discussing. They are literally the same theories the alt-right is posting. Word for word. Only with pretty organic looking fonts.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

They are both examples of the same kind of extremist low EQ personalities. The only thing that separates them is the influence of their upbringing. They're just looking for a fight, the motivation is coincidental. 50 years ago they were militant Marxists. 90 years ago they were militant fascists. 110 years ago they were militant unionists, 230 years ago they cut off rich french people's heads.

Another difference I have observed is that the radical left have an ironclad belief in their own morally and intellectual superiority which the far-right (and also the right more generally) tends not to have. They're convinced that the reason they often struggle in elections is because the general public is just incapable of recognizing the brilliance of their ideas. By contrast, I get the impression that the far-right knows that it what it's asking for would lead to cruelty and subjugation, but they are simply indifferent toward it if it advances their identity interests.

[antaeus]

Another difference I have observed is that the radical left have an ironclad belief in their own morally and intellectual superiority which the far-right (and also the right more generally) tends not to have. They're convinced that the reason they often struggle in elections is because the general public is just incapable of recognizing the brilliance of their ideas. By contrast, I get the impression that the far-right knows that it what it's asking for would lead to cruelty and subjugation, but they are simply indifferent toward it if it advances their identity interests.

I think you're going too far in identifying difference. I'm pretty sure conservative right wing religious crazies are about as sure of their moral correctness as any sociopathic socialist... The thing they all share is the belief that they, and only they, are correct, and they have a complete inability to empathise. The rest is semantics.

[Cope]

I think you're going too far in identifying difference. I'm pretty sure conservative right wing religious crazies are about as sure of their moral correctness as any sociopathic socialist... The thing they all share is the belief that they, and only they, are correct, and they have a complete inability to empathise. The rest is semantics.

The alt-right (what we're discussing) is enthnonationalistic and fascistic, not religiously conservative. It tends to view Christianity as a servile "Jewish" religion while cynically treating it as useful vehicle for uniting certain European ethnic groups (since it is a point of cultural contact). The Church's historic practices are used as a justification for homophobia, misogyny and anti-Semitism, but Christ's messages of love, forgiveness and universalism are openly denounced. In terms of their own religious views, followers of the alt-right tend either to be atheists or "Pagans" (they're really just appropriating paganism for nationalist reasons). To this extent the movement mirrors the attitude of the NSDAP.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think you're going too far in identifying difference. I'm pretty sure conservative right wing religious crazies are about as sure of their moral correctness as any sociopathic socialist... The thing they all share is the belief that they, and only they, are correct, and they have a complete inability to empathise. The rest is semantics.

The problem is that while praising Hitler is not socially acceptable, praising Lenin, Castro or Mao for some reason is.

[Mayer]

Internet is the alternative media outlet and a tool for free speech. It offers a way to discuss freely on issues unobstructed by societal norms, the narratives of mainstream media and a counter to government monopoly on information. They way i see it, it's a accelerator for social change based on a media revolution. Like the printing press invented 600 years earlier, which led to free exchange of information among commoners and ultimately revolutions. The same way we see the Internet influencing elections, spreading awareness and causing protests.

Is there stupid stuff on the Internet? Of course, bogus like junk theories about UFOs, reptillians or flat earthers.
Does is incite violence? Sometimes. Like ISIS using social media for recruitment or radical leftists like linksunten.indymedia.org sharing addresses of citizens to hunt.

But so is the nature of free speech, if we only allow uninspiring government-approved information, we might as well have a dictatorship.

The problem is that while praising Hitler is not socially acceptable, praising Lenin, Castro or Mao for some reason is.

Speaking of which, communist dictators are mostly praised because they were hard rulers who forced industrialization or fought foreign intervention. But Hitler also tried to make Germany great at costs of lives and fought US and British Empire as well as World Communism. He is the black sheep of the dictators, because he lost everything and his legacy is destroyed. And instead of the ancient practice of damnatio memoriae, the world resorts to telling the story of Hitler as the great evil to scare people into obedience.
You like X, then you are just like Hitler. This simple logic is often applied to condemn nationalists and other undesirables.
But logically it should condemn almost everything, because Hitler was a human being. Lately i saw a good documentary about Hitler's love for his german shepherd Blondi, how the two were inseperable and that he brought the dog with her puppies even at official occasions and how it broke his heart to have to poison her.
Therefore if you like dogs, you are just like Hitler. Or more elaborate, if you support animal rights, the Nazis invented it and the outlaw of shechita caused anti-jewish resentment.

If Nazi Germany continued to exist, it would be like a germanic version of China. Oppressive dictatorship, but efficiently run.

[Morifea]

If Nazi Germany continued to exist, it would be like a germanic version of China. Oppressive dictatorship, but efficiently run.

Offtopic: Nazi Germany was anything, but not efficiently run.

[Mayer]

Just compare the execution of public building projects. The Federal Republic is incapable of such feats.
The New Reich Chancellery had a build time of 11 months. Airport Tempelhof is a wild success story whereas the cost-overrun, botched, never opening Airport BER("Willy Brandt") only highlights the corruption of politicians and construction companies involved and is a embarassment for Germany. Or the eyesore of the Elbe Philharmonic Hall which is hilariously claimed to be a symbol of democracy, but doesn't even perform its main function as concert hall properly with its botched acoustics. Stuttgart 21 is another disaster.

In modern-day Germany, we can't even build a road without some tree-huggers throwing a hissy fit. Meanwhile China builds whole cities in record time.