Unmasking the Lone Wolf Myth in Extremist Violence
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
The Enduring Lone Gunman Myth
When violence erupts, particularly in the United States, a familiar narrative often emerges: the “lone wolf” or “lone gunman.” This story suggests that violent extremists act in isolation, detached from broader movements or ideologies. For instance, after shots were fired at state Democratic politicians in Minnesota, media reports quickly focused on the suspect as a “mentally unstable” individual and a “lone gunman.” This explanation, while seemingly comforting, is dangerously simplistic. It obscures the true conditions that enable such violence to take root and flourish.
This pervasive myth casts perpetrators as isolated anomalies, perhaps mentally unwell or unpredictable, with no connection to larger societal currents. However, research consistently shows that extremists are almost always part of a “pack” rather than truly acting alone (theconversation.com). The idea of a truly stealthy and highly capable “lone wolf” is largely inaccurate. This mischaracterization can hinder effective counterterrorism efforts and prevent us from asking more difficult questions about the conditions that produce such attackers (researchgate.net).
Understanding the Lone Wolf Myth
The “Lone Wolf” Myth: This narrative suggests that violent extremists act in complete isolation, detached from broader movements or ideologies. However, empirical research indicates that individuals labeled as “lone wolves” rarely operate in true isolation. They typically have significant ties, whether online or offline, to radical milieus that influence their motives and capabilities. This mischaracterization hinders effective counterterrorism efforts by obscuring the systemic factors contributing to radicalization and violence.
The Social Nature of Radicalization
Despite the “lone wolf” label, radicalization is predominantly a social process, not a solitary one (theconversation.com). Individuals absorb extremist views through various social mechanisms. These include online echo chambers, where their beliefs are reinforced by like-minded individuals, and algorithmic recommendation systems that funnel them towards increasingly extreme content. Peer validation and reinforcement from political and media figures also play a significant role in solidifying these views (theconversation.com).
Consider the cases of Robert Bowers, who committed the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, and Payton Gendron, the Buffalo supermarket shooter. While they acted alone in their attacks, both were deeply embedded in online far-right networks and extremist forums. Bowers, for example, echoed white nationalist and antisemitic conspiracy theories on the social media platform Gab (theconversation.com). Gendron’s radicalization was nourished in extremist online communities such as 4chan and Discord (theconversation.com). These examples demonstrate how individuals, even when acting without direct accomplices, are profoundly influenced by a collective ideological environment. Perpetrators of hate crimes often see themselves as “heroes” defending their perceived group, such as the white majority, against perceived threats like immigrant caravans (washingtonpost.com).
Uneven Application of the Narrative
The “lone gunman” narrative is applied unevenly, often along racial lines, impacting public perception and policy responses. White perpetrators are frequently described as mentally ill or troubled loners, with their violence compartmentalized as personal issues. This approach tends to overlook any broader ideological or systemic factors that may have contributed to their actions. It allows society to view such violence as an aberration rather than a pattern (theconversation.com).
In stark contrast, Black, Muslim, or immigrant suspects are often presented as proof of a broader religious, ethnic, or cultural threat. This double standard reinforces racial stereotypes and shapes how law enforcement and media view violence. For instance, the FBI hesitated to label Dylann Roof’s attack, which killed nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, as “racial terrorism.” Instead, they designated it a hate crime by a disturbed young man (theconversation.com). This sparked criticism given Roof’s clear white supremacist motives and symbolic target. Such asymmetry matters deeply, as it shapes public perception, policy responses, and resource allocation, allowing white supremacist violence to flourish under the radar.
Perception of Perpetrators: A Racial Divide
This visualization illustrates the common disparity in how media and public discourse frame perpetrators of violence based on their racial or ethnic background.
The Rising Threat of White Power Extremism
The threat of domestic terrorism, particularly from white power extremists, remains high in the United States. Many white power extremists subscribe to the “Great Replacement theory,” a white supremacist conspiracy theory. This false claim suggests that white populations are being deliberately replaced by nonwhite immigrants, especially Muslims, Latinos, or Black people, through immigration, higher birth rates, and federal government policy (theconversation.com). This theory fuels a climate of racial fear and conspiracy, often leading to violence.
The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly identified white supremacist violence as one of the top domestic terrorism threats. In fact, more terrorist attacks in the U.S. are perpetrated by right-wing extremists than by Islamists, although the overall number of terrorist acts in the U.S. remains low (vox.com). Hate crimes in the U.S. have been on the rise, hitting a new high in 2016 with over 6,000 incidents recorded by the FBI (washingtonpost.com). Investigations related to domestic terrorism and violence have increased significantly over the past few years. For example, the FBI was investigating 850 people three years ago, and now they are investigating 2,700 (PBS NewsHour).
Key Indicators of Domestic Extremism
These figures highlight the significant and growing threat posed by domestic extremism, particularly from white power groups, in the United States.
Beyond the Myth: Towards Prevention and Community Building
Understanding the systemic issues and ideological underpinnings of extremist violence is crucial for prevention and building healthy communities. It is not enough to label perpetrators as “lone wolves” and move on. Connecting the larger social, political, and cultural issues surrounding extreme violence is critical for effective prevention (theconversation.com). This means addressing the environments that nurture radicalization, whether online or offline.
Meaningful structural reforms are necessary, including in tech and social media regulation, gun control, and public education. However, these reforms have remained elusive (theconversation.com). Political figures are often reluctant to acknowledge the ideological underpinnings of such violence, especially when those ideologies overlap with their own rhetoric or voter base. Dispelling the “lone wolf” myth could help
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
