Twenty-five years ago, the United States was shaken by the bombing in Oklahoma City. Since then, there have been many incidents of violence perpetrated by ideological extremists. Looking at these perpetrators of violence may assist with identifying future perpetrators before they attack. Though there is no profile of terrorists—everyone is a unique human being—there are parallels or patterns that occur among those who coordinate or carry out attacks. These reoccurring characteristics include both psychological or internal factors and life circumstances or external factors, as demonstrated by the selection of violent extremists discussed herein.¹

Internal Factors

Three primary internal mindsets appear to be shared by many ideological killers: paranoia, grandiosity, and callousness.

Paranoia, Victimization, and Impending Doom

Many extremists see conspiracies where they do not exist and believe that they are being so severely victimized that their group—whether defined by race, religion, national identity, or something else—is facing annihilation.

Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing, United States) believed in a wide range of government conspiracies. He not only feared that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be abolished and firearms confiscated from all citizens, but he also thought that the government had constructed concentration camps and crematoria like those that existed in Nazi Germany to exterminate political dissidents. In addition, he believed the U.S. government had invented AIDS and spread it around the country to control population growth. He reportedly believed that the government was implanting microchips in newborn babies. He thought that the U.S. government, the United Nations, and the so-called New World Order (which did not exist) was planning to enslave humanity. In his mind, conservative gun owners like him were facing the end of their lives.

Anders Breivik (Oslo bombing/Utoya shooting, Norway) believed that he was defending white, Christian Europe from the nonexistent Muslim invaders who wanted to annihilate his culture. He claimed that Muslim men were raping indigenous Norwegian women and that Muslims were enslaving Europeans. He not only saw Muslims as his enemies, but he believed that liberal government officials were colluding with Muslims in a deliberate effort to destroy Norway.

Dylann Roof (Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, United States) believed that African Americans were engaged in a war against white Americans and that black men were raping white women daily. He viewed African Americans as “taking over our country.” In addition, Roof thought the U.S. media was colluding with African Americans to keep the race war secret from the white population.

Robert Bowers (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Tree of Life synagogue massacre, United States) viewed Jews as an existential threat to the United States. He claimed, “They’re committing genocide to my people.” According to Bowers, “HIAS [Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered.” In his mind, Jews were colluding with people from other countries in a genocide against whites in the United States.

Brenton Tarrant (Christchurch mosque massacres, New Zealand) believed that Muslims were invading New Zealand and Europe “to plunder, rape, and ethnically displace the native European people.” He complained about “Islamic occupiers” in Europe and sought “revenge for the enslavement of millions of Europeans taken from their lands by the Islamic slavers.” He not only believed white Europeans were facing genocide, but he was convinced that certain white organizations were colluding with Muslims to carry out their annihilation of whites.

“What can be seen across the range of violent extremists are similar claims of victimization.”

Similarly, Osama bin Laden believed in conspiracies among Jews, Christians, and Hindus to overrun Muslim nations and destroy Islam. He made claims of invasion, colonization, ongoing rapes, enslavement, and annihilation. He also believed that corrupt Muslim rulers were colluding with the United States and Israel.

What is particularly noteworthy about these claims is that there were frequently two levels of paranoia. The first level was that the extremists believed there was an enemy seeking to destroy their in-group. The second level of paranoia was that they also believed that there were members of their in-group who were colluding with the enemies.

What can be seen across the range of violent extremists are similar claims of victimization. Whites claimed that blacks or Muslims were raping their women, and bin Laden claimed Jews were raping Muslim women. Where bin Laden believed the West (Jews and Christians) were invading Muslim nations in an effort to eliminate Muslims, white supremacists believed Muslims were invading their nations in order to exterminate white people. The fundamental belief among extremists is that “we” cannot exist without eliminating “them.” In their minds, their paranoid perceptions justify their violence.

Grandiose Aspirations

Violent extremists often view themselves as heroes, the defenders or saviors of their people. McVeigh saw himself as a patriot, a defender of the U.S. Constitution, and the protector of the United States he believed in. He thought he’d go down in history as a hero or martyr and envisioned a statue of him on the Washington Mall between the Capitol and the Washington Monument. This is very grandiose thinking for anyone, especially a mass murderer.

Breivik created an identity for himself as a Knight Templar and appeared to think he was the leader of a European movement. When he was captured, he declared, “I’m the supreme authority here.” In his mind, he was Europe’s savior and would go down in history as a hero. Roof viewed himself as the would-be savior of the white race and assumed he’d receive a presidential pardon and become the governor of South Carolina. Similarly, Tarrant also saw himself as the defender of the white race.

Bin Laden seemed to view himself as the savior of the international Islamic community, defending it against those who sought to destroy it. He gave himself the authority to tell nations what to do, assuming god-like power to decide who lives and who dies.

Callousness and Collective Guilt

Finally, violent extremists think that the perceived threat to their existence or in-group justifies killing anyone they perceive as belonging to the enemy group. They are unable to see their victims as people—there is no empathy for the “enemy” and no qualms of conscience regarding the cold-blooded murder of people they do not know. Whether or not the people killed had any connection to the alleged crimes against the in-group is irrelevant.

“Extremists have no empathy for their victims or their survivors.”

McVeigh convinced himself that everyone who worked for the federal government was guilty because they were part of an evil, unjust system that threatened him and his way of life. In his mind, there were no innocent federal employees: “Think about the people as if they were storm troopers in Star Wars . . . They may be individually innocent, but they are guilty because they work for the Evil Empire.”

Even though Roof was struck by how nice the congregants were in the Bible study group that he sat in on—and even though he knew that they had not killed any whites—he still deemed them guilty simply because they were African American. Therefore, he shot them. Similarly, Bowers had no reason to think that the congregants at the Tree of Life synagogue had brought invaders to the United States or were involved in the genocide of white people; nonetheless, he deemed them worthy of killing simply because they were Jews.

Bin Laden claimed that all Jews, Israelis, Christians, and Americans were guilty because they were all part of the evil system that sought to destroy Islam. Thus, in his mind, there were no innocent victims of his attacks—they were all guilty and, thus, were all legitimate targets. Again, the same mindset can be seen from one ideological extremist to another.

In addition, despite having killed innocent people, extremists have no empathy for their victims or their survivors. McVeigh was stone-hearted in court as he listened to victims’ testimony; he referred to them as “the woe is me crowd.” Breivik was excited and celebratory as he gunned down adolescents and pleased with the number of victims. Roof was unmoved by the suffering he caused. He asked, “Why would I be sorry for what I planned and did?” Bin Laden reveled in one attack after another, taking pleasure in killing people he did not know.

External Factors: From Nobody to Somebody

In addition to extremists’ internal worlds—their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes—their external worlds are worth discussing. Extremists often are going nowhere in their lives, with failures in several major life domains.

After high school, McVeigh tried taking classes in a two-year business college but dropped out. He failed in his attempt to become a Green Beret. He was unmarried and apparently never had a romantic relationship. By the time of his attack, he had been essentially unemployed and homeless for two years. He had nothing going for him. He sought to transform himself from a failure living in obscurity into a hero who would go down in history.

“Extremists often are going nowhere in their lives, with failures in several major life domains.”

Similarly, Breivik dropped out of high school, never had an adult relationship, was unemployed, and lived in his mother’s apartment. Roof was another high school dropout who was unemployed, never had a romantic relationship, lived in a parent’s house, and rarely ventured anywhere.

Such perpetrators have been characterized by professor and journalist Peter Bergen as “zeros trying to be heroes . . . losers who attached themselves to extremist right-wing ideologies that gave meaning to their otherwise dead-end lives.”² Their grandiose aspirations are a way to compensate for their sense of insignificance and inadequacy.

Sometimes, however, a violent extremist appears to be somewhat better in the world. Tamerlan Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon bombing, United States) had a wife and young child, which indicates a level of functioning in the social and sexual domain beyond what was achieved by the white supremacists cited above. Nonetheless, there were numerous failures and stresses. His family had scattered, with his parents divorcing and moving back to Central Asia and his sisters moving out of state. He had been an outstanding boxer and dreamed of boxing for the U.S. Olympic team. He had, however, given up this dream. Though he attended college, he dropped out. He was unemployed and stayed home with his child while his wife worked 80 hours a week. Even with his wife’s income, they needed public assistance. It was a long fall from his dreams of Olympic glory.

Similarly, Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood, Texas, massacre, United States) was a major in the U.S. Army and a psychiatrist. Nonetheless, his parents had died at young ages and he struggled to cope with their loss. At age 39, he was not only unmarried, despite his desire for a wife, but he may have never had a date. Also, although he was a psychiatrist, he was barely competent; his work performance was not only lacking, but his behavior on the job raised serious concerns, with people thinking he was paranoid or psychotic. Furthermore, he was facing deployment to a region where the Army would be fighting Muslims, and this caused him severe distress. Thus, behind his apparent success in the world, he was falling apart inside.

The same drive to create a heroic identity that the referenced white supremacists displayed can also be found among jihadists. To quote Bergen again,

There is, after all, something exciting, even heroic, about casting yourself as a holy warrior fighting in a glorious, Allah-sanctioned war against the enemies of Islam—especially when you might otherwise be just another suburban office worker.³

Tsarnaev, who was an unemployed, stay-at-home father who resented his role in the family, decided to redefine himself as a jihadist: “Now, I live because I’m a warrior.” Similarly, Nidal Hasan, who was failing as a psychiatrist and could not find a wife, redefined himself as a “soldier of Allah.”

Rationales vs. Reasons

From a psychological perspective, the internal and external factors discussed here are the reasons behind extremist violence. The causes cited by violent extremists are simply rationales. This becomes clear when one considers that their so-called causes are based on paranoia or conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. Jews are not annihilating the white race. Neither are Muslims nor African Americans. Conversely, Jews and Christians are not out to destroy Islam. The U.S. government is not building concentration camps and crematoria for dissidents.

In some cases, the extremists point to incidents that, in their minds, prove the conspiracies they believe in. McVeigh claimed that the government’s actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, demonstrated its evil intentions. Bin Laden pointed to the United States’ support for Israel as evidence of collusion against Muslims. While the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco did occur and the United States does support Israel, the extremists engaged in a paranoid leap from reality to the conspiracies they envisioned and their claims of being on the brink of annihilation.

Evaluating Threats

Understanding the internal and external patterns among violent extremists can assist in assessing threats. Beyond whatever written or oral statements someone makes, is there evidence of paranoid thinking, a grandiose self-concept or aspirations, or callousness? Does the individual view all members of an out-group as legitimate targets? And what of the person’s personal life? Does he or she seem to be a zero trying to be a hero? For many killers, violence serves to transform them from feeling inadequate to feeling powerful. Thus, when evaluating a threat, consider whether the individual is seeking to compensate for failures or a sense of inadequacy. As noted earlier, though there is no one profile of a violent extremist, there are patterns. Knowing these patterns can help law enforcement and threat assessment professionals detect impending threats and keep people safe.

Notes:

¹ The information about the individuals discussed in this article are based on prior research and publications by the author, namely, Peter Langman, “Psychological Insights into Homegrown Jihadists,” Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention 7 (2019): 46–55; Peter Langman, “Desperate Identities: A Bio-Psycho-Social Analysis of Perpetrators of Mass Violence,” Criminology and Public Policy 19, no. 1 (February 2020): 61–84; and Peter Langman, “Osama bin Laden: Humble Megalomaniac” (in process).

² Peter Bergen, “Zeros Trying to Be Heroes: What Motivates Terrorists,” CNN, October 30, 2018.

³ Peter Bergen, United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists (New York, NY: Crown Publishing, 2016): 16.

Please cite as

Peter Langman, “The Mindset of an Ideological Attacker:  Internal and External Contributors to Violent Extremism,” Police Chief Online, June 17, 2020.