The way this list of criteria for 'extremism' is designed, people like me fit into a number of the cherry-picked categories. I remember this list, or some variation thereof, was on the Internet a few years ago, and at that time I saw (to no surprise) that I was in several, or several dozen, of the 'doubleplusungood' classifications.
6 Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
I notice that some of the items on the list are redundant, like numbers 10 and 14. I guess they want to be sure that everyone knows that approving of homosexuality is a must, and no dissent is to be brooked.
And what I see as being "pro", such as loyalty to my own folk and heritage they choose to depict as being ''anti'', against certain groups of people, which is, as we know, ''hate", no matter what one's motivation for opposition to a group or to an agenda.
They certainly intend to keep dictating the agenda, controlling the language and framing the debate in ways that automatically disqualify any differing views -- not only disqualify such views, but ultimately the intent is, I think to criminalize all opposition or dissension.
I notice that one of the items on the list involves believing in 'conspiracy theories' or discussing them. Interesting that the powers-that-be have discussed tactics for influencing people on the Internet away from such theories:
[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of
extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of
extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting
either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously)
will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts
about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such
groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.
And then they wonder why people are wary of the possibility of paid operatives positioning themselves as random commenters in Internet discussions. Proposals to try to 'influence' people's opinions covertly tend to make us all distrustful of those in power, those who are not content to let people speak freely, and to ''let all sides be heard'' to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.
Lists like the 'extremist' criteria above are meant to try to marginalize a great number of people, and to create a climate which is inimical to opinions that are not politically correct -- opinions which were, in fact, mainstream and perfectly sensible and acceptable to a great majority, throughout the history of this country. What the list does is re-define what is right and wrong, who is mainstream and who is 'extreme' or even dangerous. Illegal immigrants of unknown background and connections? Not extreme. Followers of Islam? Not extreme, even when known to be involved in militant groups. Christians who believe in the Bible? Extremists, and probably dangerous. This is turning reality and common sense on its head. And the worst of it is, most people are accepting this re-definition of reality.