This checklist is designed to help readers understand how extremist violence rarely appears out of nowhere. Instead, it emerges through patterns of language that normalize grievance, erode democratic legitimacy, and gradually make harm feel justified or inevitable. Words are not just expressions of belief but signals of intent, rehearsal, and readiness. By tracking how rhetoric shifts over time, it becomes possible to identify when movements or individuals are moving from performative outrage toward real world preparation and action.

The levels outlined below should be read as a progression rather than a set of isolated categories. Groups may stall at one stage, accelerate rapidly through several, or oscillate between them depending on pressure and opportunity. The further down the list rhetoric travels, the shorter the distance to physical harm and the narrower the window for prevention. Used carefully, this framework allows researchers, journalists, and safety practitioners to distinguish protected speech from credible threat and to recognize when concern should escalate before violence becomes irreversible.

Think of this list as a progressive warning system. The further
down the list a group or leader moves, the shorter the time horizon to
real-world harm:

LEVEL 1 — Performative Grievance

Language indicators

• “Free speech,” “censorship,” “globalists”
• Mockery, irony, trolling framed as “just jokes”
• Focus
  on outrage and provocation rather than policy

What this predicts

• Online harassment campaigns
• Protest tourism and confrontational demonstrations
• Targeted
  doxxing-lite behavior (names, workplaces hinted)

Risk posture
🟢
Low immediate physical risk
🟡
High normalization risk (cruelty and dehumanization)

LEVEL 2 — System Delegitimization

Language indicators

• “Rigged system,” “fake democracy,” “courts are
  corrupt”
• Claims that voting or reform are meaningless
• Journalists
  framed as enemies or collaborators

What this predicts

• Sustained harassment of journalists and officials
• Willingness to violate protest laws
• Increasing
  attraction to extralegal action

Risk posture
🟡
Medium-term escalation risk
🟡
Democratic norm erosion

LEVEL 3 — Defensive Violence Framing

Language indicators

• “If it comes to it…”
• “We don’t want violence, but…”
• “Tyranny,”
  “we’re under attack”

What this predicts

• Justification of threats
• Applause for violence elsewhere
• Increased
  weapons rhetoric without deployment

Risk posture
🟠
Threshold risk — violence now morally permitted

LEVEL 4 — Inevitability & Acceleration

Language indicators

• “No political solution”
• “It’s already happening”
• “The
  collapse is unavoidable”

What this predicts

• Training talk (fitness, readiness, “discipline”)
• Increased interest in militias / fight clubs
• Shift
  from protests to preparation

Risk posture
🟠
High trajectory risk — preparing for conflict

LEVEL 5 — Identity Hardening

Language indicators

• Ethnic framing (“demographics,” “replacement”)
• Loyalty tests, purges of “weak” members
• Glorification
  of hardness, masculinity, suffering

What this predicts

• Splintering and radical consolidation
• Move toward closed groups and encrypted platforms
• Dehumanization
  of out-groups becomes explicit

Risk posture
🔴
High radicalization density

LEVEL 6 — Euphemized Policy Violence

Language indicators

• “Remigration,” “heritage protection”
• “Men’s clubs,” “community standards”
• Sanitized
  public posts paired with extreme private speech

What this predicts

• Recruitment expansion
• Structured training sessions
• Coordinated
  demonstrations with uniformity and discipline

Risk posture
🔴
Organized extremist activity likely

LEVEL 7 — Explicit Violent Intent

Language indicators

• “Race war is here”
• Advocacy of deportation “at gunpoint”
• Calls to execute politicians or journalists
• Praise
  or denial of genocides / Nazis

What this predicts

• Target identification
• Weapons acquisition or rehearsal
• Increased
  likelihood of lone-actor or cell-based violence

Risk posture
🚨
Imminent public safety risk

LEVEL 8 — Instructional & Command Language

Language indicators

• Step-by-step hypotheticals (“give me some guys…”)
• Operational metaphors (roundups, checkpoints,
  trucks)
• Repeated
  calls to arm and train

What this predicts

• Transition from rhetoric to action
• High probability of serious criminal violence
• Need
  for immediate intervention

Risk posture
🚨🚨
Critical threat

CROSS-CUTTING RED FLAGS (Any Level)

These accelerate risk
regardless of stage:

• Two-track messaging (clean public posts +
  brutal private streams)
• Infighting purges that reward extremity
• Militarized aesthetics (uniforms, drills,
  masks)
• Platform migration after moderation
• Martyr
  framing following arrests or bans

How to Use This Checklist

• Researchers: map language changes over time
  to predict escalation windows
• Journalists: identify when “optics” diverge
  from intent
• Community safety analysts: prioritize
  monitoring based on language stage
• Policy
  makers: understand why early rhetoric matters

Bottom line: Violence does not arrive suddenly. It is
spoken into existence, first as grievance, then as inevitability, then
as policy, and finally as instruction.