Online Library

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

White Supremacist groups have been an active participant in the digital world since its inception. However, as this technology evolved so too did the opportunities it provided to various iterations of far-right political groups and organizations. Though it would be incorrect to say that the evolving realities of the digital world are the central cause for far-right radicalization, it did provide the opportunity by which those individuals already holding extremist attitudes and beliefs to better consolidate those beliefs, while also embracing a community of like-minded individuals across the country and around the world. Attitudes and beliefs, which were perhaps less welcome in normal day-to-day experience could now be shared and validated in ways that furthered this process extremism and made the possibility of violence more likely.

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-lockdown movements sparked concerns about online extremism escalating into real-world violence. This study takes the Australian anti-lockdown movement to explore extremist discourse in Australia, as it contained several, overlapping and interacting extremisms. This study explores the labelling of these protests as extreme and examines the interplay between individuals, ideologies and discourse. Understanding the definitions and labels of extremism is fundamental for identifying and countering potential threats, as it distinguishes harmful rhetoric from extremist discourse and enables precise, informed interventions. A qualitative close reading revealed that while Australian anti-lockdown discourse contained crisis narratives and group antagonisms, it did not consistently meet the structural definition of extremism. This is partly due to the problem of coding violence, which lies in the lack of a clear comparative threshold to determine whether a discursive claim, rhetoric, or cultural reference signifies violence or violent intent. While not meeting the structural definition of extremism, there was evidence of specific structural attributes that logically precede extremism and the emergence of violence. By reconceptualizing extremism as a temporal dynamic, this research explores the relationship between discursive and violent extremism, shedding light on the complexities of extremist movements and their social impact.

Although researchers know a great deal about persuasive messages that encourage terrorism, they know far less about persuasive messages that denounce terrorism and little about how these two sides come together. We propose a conceptualization that distinguishes a message’s support for an act from its support for the ideology underlying an act. Our prediction is tested using corpus-linguistic analysis of 250 counter-extremist messages written by Muslims and U.K. officials and a comparison set of 250 Muslim extremist messages. Consistent with our prediction, Muslim extremist and Muslim counter-messages show disagreement on terrorist actions but agreement in ideological aspects, while U.K. officials’ counter-messages show disagreement with both Muslim extremists’ acts and ideology. Our findings suggest that counter-messages should not be viewed as a homogenous group and that being against violent extremism does not necessarily equate to having positive perceptions of Western values.