The Durability of Ironic Extremism


Mideast and North Africa scholar Michael Degerald recently posted a piece on the phenomenon of “ISIS trap music.”

View story at

Degerald describes this new genre, which blends the musical tropes of trap music with the visual and rhetorical tropes of IS/Daesh. “IS trap” songs have been appearing on Youtube and Soundcloud for years now, and no one seems completely sure who is putting them there, or just how serious they are about jihadism (or, for that matter, trap music).

Read the whole thing. It’s a fascinating dive into a weird cultural excrescence—to the extent that anything still counts as weird in 2017. It’s also (no kidding) a pretty good primer to trap music in general.

I make a brief appearance at the end of the piece, talking about the durability of ironic extremism:

Media scholar Brian Hughes pointed out to me that including jihadi themes and bomb sound effects through irony allows the perpetuation of the symbols of ISIS. While they may insult and joke about Daesh, the images nonetheless proliferate. He saw similar patterns in how Nazi themes maintained themselves on the edges of popular culture, often put forth in gest. He articulated clearly what I had been seeing in these media but struggled to put my finger on: “ISIS Trap” is the perpetuation of jihadi symbols through irony and sarcasm.

Or, put another way:

This is a point I want to write about in future blog posts. It’s a strange quality of the internet, how speech can retroactively take on radically different meaning to its initial intent. On one hand, our posts live on indefinitely, even after we die. On the other hand, readers consume those old statements in an environment of hyper-immediacy. A statement from 1994 is as immediate to the reader as one made last night. So an ironic post can become sincere if its author develops sincere feelings at any point after it was written. Irony is the warm, dark, wet place where extremist tropes can proliferate and evolve. Or maybe it’s better thought of as a memetic time bomb. A critical memetic mass can be built up under cover of irony and sarcasm, then ignited with just a few sparks of extremist sincerity. That’s a profound affordance for anyone playing the propaganda long game.


Birth of a Meme: The Right Attacks People Living with HIV/AIDS


Last week, I was quoted in a piece for, a website, blog, and resource for people affected by or interested in HIV/AIDS. The article, by Jennifer Johnson Avril (follow her on Twitter), describes Georgia State Representative Betty Price’s call to quarantine people living with HIV or AIDS. Price’s proposal, Johnson Avril writes, is particularly grim in light of prior neoreactionary calls for just this policy.

I offered my opinion on the way that a new hostility to people living with HIV/AIDS has crept from alt-right discourses into the rhetoric and even proposed policies of the mainstream American Right:

“If a talking point resonates in one of these marginal outlets, it then gets adopted by semi-mainstream and “alt-lite” sympathizers. From there, a really good meme is refined and sanitized, to the point where it can appear in a mainstream source like or Tucker Carlson.”

Read the whole piece here. Johnson Avril goes into much greater depth on the rhetorical specifics and political ramifications of this trend. It’s well worth the read.

UPDATE (10/31): Sure enough, the far right project to restigmatize those living with HIV and AIDS is still going strong. Earlier today, perpetually-owned alt-right clown Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet tweeted this attack on a Toronto restaurant staffed by people living with HIV/AIDS:

This represents the kind of science denialism we’ve come to expect from the American right. Fact: You cannot contract HIV from food even if it contains HIV+ human blood.

This is precisely the process that Johnson Avril writes about, wherein the alt-right trots out bigoted, discredited tropes in the interest of renewed scapegoating of a vulnerable population. All too often, individuals in the mainstream right are willing to play along.

I doubt this is an organized strategy. It’s more likely an emergent group opinion, as I discuss in the Body article. That’s cold comfort for all those who might be affected by these renewed attacks. Kudos and solidarity to all the people who are going to be fighting against this for (likely) years to come.


The Database Culture of “Google Guy” James Damore


By now, you’ve no doubt read about (and probably formed an opinion on) the ten-page manifesto that Google employee James Damore posted to the company’s internal message forum. The essay, entitled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, objected to the corporation’s diversity initiatives and made claims that men were better disposed to careers in tech than women. Damore has subsequently been fired in the wake of the memo going public.

As a longtime observer of fringe and extremist cultures, reading Damore’s essay I immediately recognized the familiar arrangement of talking points and rhetorical constructions which can be found in almost every online exposition on innate differences in sexual or racial ability. Damore’s was a collage of opinions clipped from an online subculture fixated on racialist and anti-feminist interpretation of pop genetic science. There are many facets and factions of the subculture reflected in Damore’s essay, but for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call it “Human Biodiversity” (HBD) subculture.

A solid overview of the HBD subculture may be found here.

Ideological collages like Damore’s manifesto are often the product of what Japanese critic Hiroki Azuma has termed “database cultures”—online groups based around the collection and organization of a class of data points according to an informally agreed-upon grand narrative. Azuma explains, the internet comprises a vast reservoir of data, but each data point is quite meaningless absent its selection and juxtaposition relative to other data points. Azuma calls this process of selecting, juxtaposing, and giving meaning to the data of the internet the act of “reading up.” When groups of people collaborate online or imitate one another in the “reading up” of data, a database culture is born.

The HBD database culture is effectively a phylum of the alt-right, which means that its pet data points typically pertain to IQ distributions, crime statistics, and employment numbers. These are subsequently arranged by HBD bloggers and forum-posters according to a narrative structure that asserts male analytic superiority, female irrationality, African-American criminality, a contempt for non-STEM fields, and an adolescent, Randian economic ideology.

Damore’s essay did not address the racial angles common to the HBD subculture. Perhaps he knew that was a bridge too far, or perhaps he dislikes that aspect of the HBD discourse. Otherwise, however, Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber is a rather orthodox “reading up” of the HBD data pool, in accordance with the grand narrative of the still-emergent post-millennial right. The data presented was nothing if not rote, as the HBD database culture draws from a single, rather small, pool of data to support its intended conclusions.

Damore claims that his memo grew organically out of a critical appraisal of a workplace diversity seminar. However, his memo’s obvious rhetorical kinship to the HBD database culture severely undermines that claim from the outset. Damore’s subsequent appearance on longtime HBD advocate Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Radio podcast, and his rapid incorporation into the ecosystem of alt-right personalities, further confirm that the memo was anything but the innocent musings of a neutral, ideologically naive observer.

It is far more likely that Damore realized his manifesto would bear strong negative consequences, and he sent the piece hoping to prove a point, either internally at Google or, as turned out to be the case, in the larger public discourse. Indeed, the low-key yet self-satisfied tone of the piece, with its “just asking questions” pretense, is an integral feature of alt-right content intended for public consumption. This is the same pretense that frames fascistic provocation as an ideologically empty exercise in testing the limits of free speech. It is a contrivance and subterfuge, intended to shift attacks away from the substance of the message being put forth, and onto the question of free speech itself. And it works.

I believe the point Damore was trying to make was that Google is not a neutral business, concerned only with producing the best digital applications it can. Google is, frankly, a political force, and as such operates with an ideology. Of course, this is true. However, Damore, like all reactionaries, can only criticize capital if he does not criticize capitalism. Instead of understanding that Google’s egalitarian ideology serves as cover for economic authoritarianism, Damore and his ilk believe that egalitarian policies stand in the way of an economic authoritarianism of which they are the rightful beneficiaries. This is the bait and switch of the alt-right, Trump, and reactionary politics in general. It promises to solve the problems posed by capital through the purging or punishment of a scapegoat. But once that purge has been performed, the problems of capitalism inevitably remain. A few low and mid-level drones—the James Damores of the world—see benefits by seizing some of the economic space vacated by purged minorities. But fundamentally, the system, with its contradictions and cruelties, is unchanged.

Lone Wolf in the Hypertext : Radicalization Online


I’m very proud to be included in this series of papers on ISIS media, organized by the Center for Advanced Research in Global Communication (CARGC) at the Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania, and published by Global-e at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

A Lone Wolf in the Hypertext: Radicalization Online addresses the myths and misperceptions that tie self-radicalized lone wolf terrorists to Islam. Citing the case of Omar Mateen, and psychological profiles of spree and serial killers, it argues that men such as Mateen are not devoted religious traditionalists, but mere criminal narcissists. Their connections to Islam are tenuous at best, and reflect the illogical, even contradictory, biases of hypertextual media.

Case studies of lone wolf terrorists—particularly those who follow a pattern of self-radicalization—reveal that violent extremism grows not from the specific cultural or historical practices of Islam, but from a general affect of sadism, thrill-seeking, and personality disorder.  The lone wolf’s pathologies are only Islamically-inflected, often through an accretion of mediated encounters linking representations of violence, Islam, and the lone wolf himself. This points us to the conclusion that in the case of these violent extremists, pathology usually—perhaps always—precedes theology/ideology.

In a network of meaning wherein any data point is potentially juxtaposed to any other, all equivalence becomes false. We may reasonably speculate that the hypertextual path of radicalization is often experienced as a straying, arbitrary zigzag, where the rules of linear thought and logical conclusion are suspended, taking the lone wolf through illogical and even contradictory ideological watersheds. A capricious, dis-integrated multiplicity of personae emerge, figureheads fronting impossible chains of identity and belief whose links and pieces will never fit together.

Read the rest at Global-e

Chemical Weapons and Fractalnoia


Last night, the Trump administration issued an announcement, saying that “the United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime.” This claim arrives fewer than two days after a report by Seymour Hersh in the German newspaper Die Welt, which claimed to debunk reports of the April 4 Syrian chemical weapons incident that inaugurated a return of open hostilities between the U.S. and Assad regime.

I can’t be the only one to notice the highly coincidental timing of these contradictory reports. Some may interpret this coincidence to mean that pro-war forces within the Trump administration rushed to issue an announcement contradicting Hersh’s assertions. But I think it is actually more likely that Hersh’s own sources were motivated to speak by foreknowledge of the White House’s upcoming accusations against the Assad regime. After all, Hersh’s report made barely a ripple in the frothy murk of the American news discourse.

That’s not to say that this White House, or the defense establishment, are incapable of overreaction. Obviously, they are. But if we’re weighing likelihoods, it’s most probable that Hersh’s sources within the American defense establishment tried to do an end run around the anti-Assad factions who currently enjoy the ear of the president.

Of course, it’s also possible this really is nothing more than a coincidence. But I doubt it.

One thing is certain. There is a propaganda war raging in the apparatus of the global media, and it’s so vast and tangled that I doubt anyone, from Sy Hersh to the Pentagon, knows exactly what’s going on. There are likely more players in this game than anyone is aware of, on myriad, ever-shifting narrative battlefields that link Syria to Russo-American relations, to the perennial questions of Iran and Israel, energy policy, Islamophobia, gun violence, Pepe the frog…you name it. Everyone loves a neologism; let’s call it “World War P.”

It’s no wonder that conspiracy theories are now an (arguably) dominant part of the mainstream media discourse. Conspiracy theories are, after all, based on misapplications of pattern recognition. Simply calling the current bedlam “intersectional” doesn’t come close to doing justice to this tangle of thorns. It’s omnisectionalhypertextual.

This may be a permanent feature of our still-emerging database society. With an ever-expanding supply of data points (true and false), apophenia is inevitable. Any claim, true or false, may be juxtaposed with its corollary or contradiction, presented to the public online, and someone will be sure to take up its narrative cause.

Distributed Solidarities and Extremism


I recently sat down with my friend and mentor Douglas Rushkoff to record an episode of his excellent Team Human podcast. We covered a lot of ground, from 20th Century Arab Nationalism to the alt-right, Zizek, magick, fake news, and poor, poor Pepe the frog. We also get into my theory of emerging styles of social solidarity and political action, which I hope to flesh out in subsequent work. Team Human is an amazing podcast, and deserves a spot in your rotation if you’re looking for rays of hope in our dark little timeline.

Listen to my episode, “Distributed Solidarities and Extremism” at

How to Fix the Fake News Problem


This piece originally appeared at

Unfortunately, word count prevented a more in-depth description of the Digital Fairness Doctrine I’m proposing. Likewise, there are many nuances to defining “fake news” that have to go unaddressed in an OpEd this brief. I’ll elaborate on these points in a future post, when the semester is over and all the papers have been graded.

Can tall tales swing an election? That’s the question being asked today in conference rooms across the digital media industry.

After Donald Trump’s startling presidential victory, many are wondering if an abundance of misleading or simply made up news stories gave President-elect Trump the edge he needed to win. Critics are calling on media companies to regulate the spread of phony news reports. Already, platforms like Facebook and Google have announced plans to curtail fake news by revising their algorithms and user policies. But will such changes really improve the trustworthiness of online news?

First, some perspective…

Read the rest at

Is Social Media Turning You Into a Zealot?


This piece originally appeared at

Have you heard? Hillary Clinton is dying of Parkinson’s disease. Also, Donald Trump thinks the United States shouldn’t have stopped the Bosnian genocide. Angry mobs of “Bernie bros” are hurling chairs at Democratic staffers. And President Obama, who smells like sulfur, is followed everywhere he goes by a swarm of flies.

These are fake statements, pulled from the bowels of the internet. Can you tell?

If you get your information from social media, the world is an almost supernaturally dark place these days. Our feeds and timelines are jammed with outrageous and incredible accounts that prove what we all already suspected: our political opponents are crazy. Maybe some of them are downright evil.

The good news is that much of what you read via social media isn’t true. The bad news is that more and more people believe it is…

Read the rest at

#DNCleak and the Wait for Red October


Back in June, when word first came of Guccifer 2.0’s hack of the Democratic National Committee, few understood just how big an impact it would have. The hack seemed to be little more than a bit of opposition research and some fundraising spreadsheets. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange pledged to release enough info later that week “to indict Hillary Clinton,” but when nothing materialized, people just sort of moved on.

(For the record, I did get how big a story this was. And to their credit, so did a few others, including Alexa O’Brien, from whose Twitter I first heard about it.)

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 8.02.59 PM

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 8.04.28 PM

Even back in June, it was obvious that Russian intelligence was at least partly involved in the DNC hack. Writers like John Schindler—who oddly enough writes for the pro-Trump Observer—have been banging the drum to connect Wikileaks with Russian intelligence for some time now.

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin must have no interest in dealing with Hillary Clinton for the next 8 years. Clinton, remember, has presided over what is essentially a de facto proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in Syria. Trump, on the other hand, wants to be Vladimir Putin’s best friend. Really, the Russians would be fools not to try helping Trump win the election.

And the Russians are not fools. Which means they absolutely did not shoot their wad this early in the season. Surely not to get Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired. There will be more leaks. Worse leaks. And these leaks will be thoughtfully timed to inflict maximum damage on the Clinton campaign.

The only way I can see this backfiring is if there are too many leaks. More than one or two more file dumps, and it becomes obvious even to the average American voter that Wikileaks and the Kremlin are out to manipulate U.S. politics. That, I believe, would generate sympathy for Clinton and hostility to the perceived meddlers. This is already the Clinton team’s damage control strategy. One more well-timed drop, however, could absolutely tank Hillary’s hopes and open a clear path for Trump to the White House. The Kremlin wants that, and I believe it has the resources to try to make it happen. I’m calling it here: expect an October surprise.

Melania’s Plagiarism: A Wink at /pol?


On Monday night, Melania Trump sent a signal to Trump’s digital troll army. And no one in the press even noticed.

They were too preoccupied, you see, with a handful of lines that Melania’s speech obviously cribbed from one given by Michelle Obama at the 2008 Democratic Party convention.

How could Trump’s team be so stupid? journalists were asking themselves. This was a layup gotcha moment. If a hard-luck freelancer hadn’t been the one to catch it, then Team Blue would surely have noticed. Did team Trump really think they wouldn’t get caught?

Of course not. In fact the Trump campaign counted on getting caught for their plagiarism. That’s why they cribbed from, of all people, Michelle Obama. Because here’s the ugly truth: Only writers care about the actual act of plagiarism. The mere act of plagiarism will send reporters into a feeding frenzy, but the general public couldn’t give less of a damn. The public cares about plagiarism if the source of the stolen content is significant (like, oh say, biting from Mussolini). But even then, it’s not like they care a lot.

By selecting Michelle Obama’s speech as the source of their theft, the Trump campaign ensured that news coverage would focus on the act of theft (which no one but journalists cares about), and not the actual source of stolen content. This was a calculated and successful gambit to control the media narrative for the critical first day of the RNC. It directed news coverage for that all-important first day, and helped steer the tone for the days to follow. In doing so, it distracted media attention away from potentially damaging stories and gave the Trump campaign one crucial day to correct mistakes learned on the first night of the convention. All the while the media was busy chasing errant clichés.

As is often the case in politics, you won’t find a smoking gun to prove any particular reading of the situation. However, later in her speech, Melania made another odd reference. “He will never, ever give up,” she said of her husband. “And most importantly, he will never, ever let you down.”

This line, I believe, is the key to understanding Melania’s speech, and by extensions “her” plagiarism.

The line is what is known in internet argot as a “Rick Roll.” That is, the playful insertion of a reference to 80s pop milquetoast Rick Astley in unexpected places. The meme originated on the 4chan message boards, which has (along with its spinoffs) served as a fertile recruiting ground for Trump’s troll army. The channers and their surrogates in the blogosphere have made much of Trump’s powers of persuasion, and there are rumors that some have even infiltrated the campaign at high levels of influence. It’s possible—indeed, in my opinion, very likely—that the Rick Roll constituted a wink at those in the know, communicating sub rosa that this was a speech with both exoteric and esoteric messaging, and that therefore its words had been carefully selected from start to finish. It was an act of reassuring the faithful that the Trump campaign was acting consciously, was not careless, stupid, or thieving. It was a secret handshake, an acknowledgement and quiet thank-you.

I don’t believe Melania was aware of any of this. Nor do I think that Trump is a closeted /pol lurker. But there are people in any campaign whose job it is to understand every facet of its base of support. The chan culture (in particular the ultra-edgy 8chan) has been a tireless fighter on behalf of the man they literally call their God Emperor. If that doesn’t earn you a wink, what does?