EXTREMISMThe Role of Violent Conspiratorial Narratives in Violent and Non‐Violent Extreme Right Manifestos Online, 2015‐2020

Published 14 April 2022

Much research remains to be done on the precise qualitative difference between the structures and linguistic markers that are evident in violent and non‐violent conspiratorial language, especially on the extreme far right, and how this encourages an individual to violent action. A new report offers findings which are both striking and, in some cases, unexpected.

While there exists an academic consensus stressing the importance of extremist words that sharply delineate, reify and polarize in‐and out‐group identities, much research remains to be done on the precise qualitative difference between the structures and linguistic markers that are evident in violent and non‐violent conspiratorial language, especially on the extreme far right, and how this encourages an individual to violent action.

A new report from GNET offers findings which are both striking and, in some cases, unexpected. Looking through the qualitative analysis of the manifestos, the researchers could find that the common denominator in all manifestos is the common conspiratorial narrative that the white race is becoming extinct and replaced by non‐whites –though the timeline for action and the call to action is brought forward and obviously tilted in a more violent direction for right-wing lone actor (RWLA) manifestos. In terms of linguistic features, there are considerable differences within the RWLA and non‐violent manifestos as to the targeted out‐group, format and solutions prescribed by the authors. For example, while Hispanics are the target of Crusius’ire, so black people are the main out‐group for Roof and the Islamic population fulfils this role for Tarrant and Rathjen. The researchers say that what is also interesting is the differing levels of conspiratorial language used between these manifestos; Rathjen is the outlier in his focus on the paranoid conspiracy of a secret organization monitoring his every movement.

Using the Grievance Dictionary, what is evident is how similarities overshadow differences between the violent and non‐violent manifestos. On the whole, the researchers found a greater percentage of violent and threat‐based language in four of the six violent manifestos when compared with that of those cleaving to non‐violent manifestos. Worryingly, however, the researchers note that they see in the cases of Roof and Rathjen something equal to the threat‐based language of the violent manifestos. In the case of the Der Dritte Weg and Traditionalist Worker Party manifestos, the language is perhaps more violent and threat‐based than the violent manifestos.

In sum, then, the research has found a more complex issue than expected. Both violent and non‐violent manifestos use dehumanizing terms to define their out‐groups and draw the horizon for people to take action (violent or not) in such a way that defined out‐groups appear an existential threat.