Critique of Anti-Extremist Stereotypes

Martin Luther King Jr.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. [...] So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? [...] Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

1

Introduction

Extremism is usually perceived as one of fundamentally evil. Despite this most anti-extremists fail to provide any coherent definition of what they’re opposed to, usually giving some adjectives that sound bad such as: “violent”, “terrorist”, “anti-democratic”, “intolerant”, “dogmatic” and “fanatical”. For example according to the German Federal Ministry of the Interior: “Extremism refers to activities which oppose our democratic constitutional state and its fundamental values, norms and rules. Extremists seek to overthrow the liberal democratic order and replace it with one in line with their own ideas. They often endorse, encourage or even use violence as a way to achieve their aims. Terrorism is the most aggressive and militant form of extremism”2 ; the UK government defines it as: „the promotion or advancement of ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 1. negate or destroy fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 3. intentionally create a permissive environment for other to achieve the results in (1) or (2)”3 , according to Russian law extremist activity has characteristics like: “the forcible change of the foundations of the constitutional system and the violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation”, “the seizure or acquisition of peremptory powers”, “the exercise of terrorist activity”, “the excitation of racial, national or religious strife, and also social hatred associated with violence or calls for violence”, “the abasement of national dignity”, “the making of mass disturbances, ruffian-like acts, and acts of vandalism for the reasons of ideological, political, racial, national or religious hatred or hostility toward any social group” and “the propaganda of the exclusiveness, superiority or deficiency of individuals on the basis of their attitude to religion, social, racial, national, religious or linguistic identity”4 .

What those definitions share is the rejection of the dominant ideology. This is why the Russian definition stands out by including “the abasement of national dignity” as a characteristic of extremist activity, as the Russian government promotes nationalism in contrast to most western countries. In general the meaning of the word “extreme” is the opposite of “moderate”, which is the acceptance of the powers that be. While centrism at first glance might seen identical to conservatism, it differs in that it accepts gradual non-radical change.

Radicalism is commonly used as a synonym for extremism, although the words have different meanings. The word “radical” derives from the Late Latin “radicalis” meaning “of or pertaining to the root”. Therefore radicalism is defined as the advocacy of a fundamental political change. This kind of view has some overlap with extremism. A non-extremist radicalism is a radical reformism, the idea that the system should be fundamentally changed through top-down reforms in cooperation with the ruling class5 . Radical extremists want to create a new system through a revolution. Non-radical extremism is a position that while being unacceptable from the point of view of the dominant ideology doesn’t advocate for fundamental change. Still I’ll examine criticisms of radicalism too, as anti-extremists tend to not see any difference between “extremism” and “radicalism”.

It’s necessary to clarify that this essay primarily critiques anti-extremism, which is defined as the notion that extremism should be restricted by means such as censorship or de-legalization of political organizations; and that every single person who is too strongly opposed to the dominant ideology(the degree may vary) is a dogmatic, intolerant and authoritarian extremist that supports terrorism, most anti-extremists to be the same and have a black-and-white view of the world, in other words they consider all extremists to be the same.

Schrödinger’s Extremism

Albert Camus

„The journalist smiled ‘you talk the language of Saint-Just.’
Without raising his voice Rieux said he knew nothing about that. The language he was using was that of a man who was sick and tired of the world he lived in, though he had much liking for his fellow men and had resolved, for his part, to have no truck with injustice and compromises with the truth”

6
There are 2 definitions of extremism: a view that’s dogmatic, intolerant, fanatical and advocates for the use of violence; and a view that strongly deviates from the dominant ideology. Those are commonly treated as one and the same. This leads to what I call Schrödinger’s extremism – a view that simultaneously could and couldn’t be described as “extremist”, because it fits only one of the definitions. An example of this are the political views of Martin Luther King Jr., who while advocating for non-violence, upheld many radical positions. His opposition to racial segregation was very controversial and was regarded as extreme, even Dwight D. Eisenhower has openly compared the Civil Rights Movement to the Ku Klux Klan7 . King also expressed opposition to capitalism and advocated for democratic socialism and called for “a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values”8 . Another example is the resistance against apartheid in South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, the movement is usually described as non-violent, but this is false. After the Sharpeville massacre, Mandela has founded the terrorist organisation uMkhonto weSizwe, which has made attacks against government installations; according to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission use of torture and executions without due process by the group was routine and according to the police statistics approximately 130 people were killed, 100 of those being civilians, while the rest being members of security forces9 . Both of those examples are usually presented in a positive light by moderates, despite both having extremist goals and the latter violent means.

A good example of using a poor definition of radicalism is the UCL study demonstrating that radicals have a worse meta-cognitive sensitivity than moderates; meta-cognitive sensitivity is the capability of reflecting on one’s own thought process. In order to judge whoever is a radical or moderate questionaries have been conducted, the authors of the study claim that:

These questionnaires were selected based on prior models of political radicalism as stemming from a combination of intolerance to others’ viewpoints, dogmatic and rigid beliefs, and authoritarianism, which represents adherence to in-group authorities and conventions, and aggression in relation to deviance from these norms.

10
Dogmatism and intolerance were measured by asking opinions on statements such as: „my opinions are right and will stand towards the test of time”11 . When measuring authoritarianism factors such as obedience to in-group authorities, group conventions and support of aggression to reach one’s political goals are used12 . The problem is that those features do not necessarily indicate radical beliefs, a centrist might well be dogmatic, intolerant(for example towards radicals) and authoritarian; for example the statement „What our country needs is a strong, determined chancellor which will crush the evil and set us on our right way again”13 might well be said by a moderate while advocating for more anti-extremist measures.

Another article claims that extremism is a result of perfectionism and a potential symptom of the Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. This claim is solely on the definition of “extremism” as “the holding of extreme political or religious views”14 , but this “definition” is essentially meaningless, as the word “extreme” might mean many things even the Oxford English Dictionary which has provided this definition is ambiguous regarding the meaning of “extreme”, the most relevant use is “going to great lengths; opposed to moderate”15 , but moderation in politics is the support of the dominant ideology, therefore all the author’s theories aren’t about extremism even according to his own definition. This is proven by him claiming that governments can be extremist, which by definition can’t be true, as something can only be extreme in relation something else. The terms “centrism” and “extremism” always relate to a certain point of reference, the only reasonable choice for such point is the dominant ideology, as most people adhere to it. This is also justified by the fact that people like the participants in the Civil Rights Movement were called “extremists”.

The confusion regarding the definition of extremism is prevalent even in academia. It appears to arise from a lack of critical thinking as the meaning of the word “extremism” is taken for granted without any serious attempt at examining its usage. This approach also encourages discrimination based on political beliefs and creates and idealized picture of the powers that be, making it nearly impossible to oppose them.

Political Violence

Emma Goldman

But, it is often asked, have not acknowledged Anarchists committed acts of violence? Certainly they have, always however ready to shoulder the responsibility. My connection is that they were impelled, not by the teachings of Anarchism, but by the tremendous pressure of conditions, making life unbearable to their sensitive natures

16
The fact that extremists have committed acts of violence is used to “prove” that extremism always leads to terrorism and the further away is a view from the norm the more likely are its adherents are inclined to violence. First of all not all extremists are violent, actually the first advocates of non-violence were radicals, Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy were anarchists, Mahatma Gandhi was an opponent of western parliamentary democracy and capitalism, and Martin Luther King was a socialist.

The connection between extremism and violence is based upon the assumption that only political views lead to terrorism, but looking at the stories of terrorists it appears that the true cause of political violence are restrictions of the freedom of expression by either society or the state, violent responses to peaceful protests also tend to make the protestors inclined to violence. For example Nelson Mandela has turned to terrorism due to the violent responses of the government to non-violent resistance:

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form uMkhonto weSizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. […] Firstly, we believed that as a result of government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decided to answer with violence.

17

Another example is the history of the German new left. Despite the movement’s fairly peaceful approach, it was met with repression and violence. First the activist Benno Ohesorg was shot by a policeman, then Rudi Dutschke was shot by a Neo-Nazi. This has lead many socialists to feel inclined to violence. In response to the former event, Gudrun Ensslin – the co-founder of the Red Army Faction(RAF), a Marxist-leninist-maoist urban guerilla, said:

They’ll kill us all. You know what kind of pigs we’re up against. This is the Auschwitz generation. You can’t argue with people who made Auschwitz. They have weapons and we haven’t. We must arm ourselves!

18
Terrorist organisations were founded and attacks carried out. After a while a lot of the terrorists have stopped their activities with many turning themselves in to the police. This was the result of the lack of effects of these actions and the continued alienation of the members. Bommi Baumann, a co-founder of the June 2nd Movement has stated after leaving the organization:

For me, the whole time it was a question of creating human values which did not exist in capitalism […] That’s what it’s about: to discover them anew, to unfold them anew, and to create them anew. In that way, too, you carry the torch again, you become the bearer of the new society – if it is possible. And you’ll be better doing that than bombing it in, creating the same rigid figures of hatred at the end.

19

Another reason why radical movements turn to violence is the example set by the police, military and education. Children are taught about the “successes” of violent revolutions in France, America and Russia, creating a narrative where violence is the only way of bringing about change. While changes brought about in non-violent ways are taught, they’re presented as exceptions, which can only be used to create a liberal democracy anyway, and revolution is still defined by the concept of political violence. In this way people opposed to the system are discouraged from using peaceful tactics in order to be easier targets of repressions and brutality from police or military, it’s easier to justify killing dissidents if they “shot first”. Moreover police and military are described by both state and private media as forces that bring about justice and preserve order, which spreads the idea that violence justified when applied for a good cause. In other words the state presents itself as inherently peaceful and all its opponents as terrorists.

It’s a common belief that all perpetrators of terrorism are extremists or radicals. This is certainly false, as the word „terrorism” has first been used in order to describe the tactics used by the Jacobins after taking power in the French Revolution. They weren’t the only terrorists to have views that are now deemed “moderate”; the violent acts of the French Revolution, American Revolution, Irish Republican Army, suffragettes and uMkhonto weSizwe are either ignored or justified. When it comes to “extremists” even the most minor, commonly provoked by the police, acts of violence immediately are dismissed as „terrorist”. There’s clearly a double standard and „moderate” views are inclined to violence no more than „extreme” ones. People aren’t called „violent extremists”, because of their tactics, but rather people holding extreme political views are deemed violent in order to be dismissed, this also applies to non-violent extremists, for example the Civil Rights Movement has been accused of provoking violence20 .

The End of History

Martin Luther King Jr.

I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: ‘All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.’ Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

21
Extremism is usually described as purely destructive. This is an oversimplified and one-sided account. There are extremists who do exactly what they’re accused of, but those individuals don’t represent extremism as a whole and most extremists do work towards creating a different, in their view better, world. Many issues have been overcome solely because of the activity of extremists, such as legal racial segregation in the US, or the apartheid.

But, doesn’t the system already have the capability to solve every single issue, meaning that extremism is an obstacle to progress? The most detailed formulation of this view has been presented by Francis Fukuyama in his idea of the end of history. While his theory has many aspects, I’ll primarily focus on his philosophy of history and portrayal of liberal democracy.

According to Fukuyama, since the the Cold War has ended, liberal democracy has no competition, as its primary rivals, that is fascism and communism have fallen:

Communists now find themselves in the unenviable position of defending an old and reactionary social order whose time has long since passed, like the monarchists who managed to survive into the twentieth century. The ideological threat they once posed to liberal democracy is finished, and with the withdrawal of the Red Army from Eastern Europe, much of the military threat will be gone as well.

22
By this logic, after all countries adhering to a single set of ideals, those ideals can’t possibly return to prominence, but this isn’t the case, because democracy has gained popularity centuries after failing in ancient Athens and the Roman Republic. Regarding Athenian democracy the author claims „The democracy of Periclean Athens does not qualify, because it did not systematically protect individual rights”23 and he mentions the Roman Republic only while summarizing Hegel, claiming that it has fallen due to not recognizing the citizens’ rights and inner dignity24 . In a way Fukuyama’s right, considering that modern democracies are very different from the ancient ones, but still democratic ideals have returned after the collapse of all democratic states; therefore communism, fascism and monarchism can return.

Another argument is that liberal democracy fulfils the desire for recognition, because all the people govern themselves. This claim is based on the assumption that the participation provided by the trustee model of representation grants everyone sufficient influence over all decisions concerning them. For this to be true, politicians would have to have no interests of their own and blindly follow the will of the people, this is obviously untrue, because those at the top commonly strive for having power over the citizens without due accountability and this wouldn’t even be possible in a system of aggregative democracy, because a centralized power structure cannot rule according to the wishes of thousand, or millions of individuals, all of them having different personalities and living in different circumstances. According to Fukuyama, this is resolved by the division of power, but the problem is that this system gives too little control to the citizens, not that the government has too much power. It also could be argued that elections make the government accountable, but this doesn’t work, as one can only choose from a certain array of options which doesn’t include every single world-view, this is especially bad for people who are opposed to the system as a whole, furthermore it is the ruling class that has created the laws that regulate who can run for office, meaning that significant changes can never occur; it’s necessary to also mention all the manipulation from the ruling class creating a false consciousness, leading to people preferring a system which harms them. Another factor is people’s participation, which is the only way of sustaining a democracy, the perceived value of which is diminished by common approaches to governance that are encouraged by the narrative supporting elections. Basically the politicians are promising to create a perfect society, where nobody has to struggle for anything, which the leads their voters to believe that everything is going in the right direction therefore it’s unnecessary to be concerned with the governments actions, meaning that it can simply autocratize with nobody caring.

However even if liberal democracy isn’t perfect, can’t some other ideology create a utopia which wouldn’t need any opposition? First of all, it’s necessary to establish that the concept of utopia is authoritarian by definition, as it is a perfect society, meaning that there can be no disagreement or change, as everything is perfect as it is. This also means that utopia is unsustainable, because people have to constantly adapt to changing circumstances, this includes political organization. There is no way of preventing changes and there’s no way of knowing what exactly will happen in the future.

A common response from the centrists is that they are opposed to all utopian ideologies and advocate only for what works in practice, that is, the system in which they live. This is a consequence of the view that the system isn’t based upon utopian thinking, but even the idea of a state is utopian, because it’s meant to create a society where most people don’t have to make make decision, which are automatically made by those in power, elections don’t change this, as voting isn’t deciding, it’s letting someone else participate in the decision-making process.

According to Francis Fukuyama the end of history is a fact arising from the creation of „a stable democratic society in which struggle and work in the old sense are made unnecessary”25 , but this is impossible. Every democracy eventually becomes a dictatorship and the only way to preserve freedom is rebellion. Therefore the “end of history” is a psychological phenomenon, arising from conformity and a fanatical adherence to the dominant ideology. The fight against the end of history is the fight for liberty and this fight is extremist.

Conclusion

Marian Turski

Be faithful to this commandment, the Eleventh Commandment: thou shalt not be indifferent. Because if you are indifferent, you will not even notice when another Auschwitz descends from the sky falls upon the heads of you and your descendants

26
Nearly everyone believes that people shouldn’t face persecution or discrimination, because of their political views. Yet still those same people commonly advocate for restricting activities of extremists and use the word pejoratively without any coherent definition, sometimes when someone is called „extremist” or „radical” all of their views immediately become unacceptable. This results from the view that all extremists are the same, no matter what they advocate for, in this way every deviation from the dominant ideology, which goes farther than that of the reformist or progressive, appears dangerous. But this isn’t true, an extremist is just as likely to be fanatical, authoritarian or violent as a centrist. All totalitarian societies have a tendency to associate dissidents with their worst and most inhumane enemies, this is best know under the ad Hitlerum and ad Stalinum, but there’s also an even more dangerous logical fallacy, reductio ad extremum, which considers everyone not on the “right side” an equivalent of both Hitler and Stalin(which her are presented as representing the exact same world-view).

I think this result from a political manipulation of vocabulary, a certain Newspeak. The word “extremism” doesn’t any more mean a view going beyond the limits of moderation, but a view that’s intolerant, authoritarian that supports violence; “radical” doesn’t mean advocating for a fundamental change of society, but going too far. A very similar thing is happening to all political labels, if you’re anything other than a “liberal”, “conservative”, “progressive” or “social democrat” your views either aren’t treated seriously or are perceived as dangerous. You either are a conformist or you don’t exist.

This narrative encourages indifference, towards discrimination, intolerance and violence. This narrative resounds with fanaticism and intolerance towards those holding opposing opinions. This narrative uses the language of stochastic terrorism.

• 1Martin Luther King Jr(1963). Letter from Birmingham City Jail, American Society of Friends
• 2Federal Ministry of Interior – Extremism, https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/security/extremism/extremism-node.html Accessed 7 June 2025
• 3GOV.UK – New definition of extremism (2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024 Accessed 7 June 2025
• 4Federal Law No. 114-FZ Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity
• 5Non-extremist radicalism shouldn’t be confused with radical centrism, which while belonging to the classification doesn’t constitute it’s entirety.
• 6Albert Camus(1947), The Plague. Penguin Books p. 6
• 7McCarthy, Anna (2010). The Citizen Machine: Governing by Television in 1950s America. New York: The New Press. ISBN 978-1-59558-498-4.
• 8Obrey M. Hendricks Jr. The Uncompromising Anti-Capitalism of Martin Luther King Jr. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-uncompromising-anti-capitalism-of-martin-luther-king-jr_b_4629609 Accessed 8 June 2025
• 9“The Liberation Movements from 1960 to 1990” Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Repost. 2. Truth and Reconciliation
• 10Max Rollwage, Raymond J. Dolan, Stephen M. Fleming(2018). Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs, Current Biology 28(24). 10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053
• 11ibid.
• 12ibid.
• 13ibid.
• 14Fei Zi(2023). Moral Perfectionism and the Three Faces of Extremism: A Look from the Perspective of Psychoanalysis, Psychology 14(8). 10.4236/psych.2023.148076
• 15Oxford English Dictionary – extreme, adj., adv. % n. meanings, etymology and more https://www.oed.com/dictionary/extreme_adj?tl=true Accessed 30 July 2025; italics in original
• 16Emma Goldman(1910). Anarchism and Other Essays, Mother Earth Publishing Association p. 46
• 17“Nelson Mandela’s Statement from the Dock at the Rivona Trial”. African National Congress; my italics
• 18Harold Marcuse. Legacies of Dachau: The Uses and Abuses of a Concentration Camp, 1933–2001, Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 978-0-521-55204-2. p. 314
• 19Bommi Baumann(1975), How it all began: the personal account of a West German urban guerrilla, Trikont Verlag p. 116; my italics
• 20Cf. Martin Luther King Jr(1963). Letter from Birmingham City Jail, American Society of Friends
• 21Martin Luther King Jr(1963). Letter from Birmingham City Jail, American Society of Friends
• 22Francis Fukuyama(1992), The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press pp. 35-36
• 23ibid. p. 48
• 24ibid. p. 61
• 25ibid. p. 312
• 26Notes from Poland – “Do not be indifferent”: the most powerful (and political) moments from Auschwitz commemoration, https://notesfrompoland.com/2020/01/28/do-not-be-indifferent-the-most-powerful-and-political-moments-from-auschwitz-commemoration/ accessed 20 September 2025, my italics