Were there any ideological, political, or personal motives cited in the attacker’s communications or manifesto?

1. Ideology is explicit in many manifestos — especially far‑right “replacement” narratives

A large body of research finds that contemporary manifestos frequently invoke race, immigration and religion to justify violence, with the Great Replacement idea prominent in several attacks; the Buffalo shooter’s writings, for example, centre on replacement theory and antisemitic tropes even though the attack targeted Black victims ^{[2] [1] [5]}.

2. Antisemitism and anti‑Black racism are named motives in specific communications

Analysts documented manifestos that directly call for violence against Jews and Black people: the Antioch manifesto reportedly contained expressions of anti‑Black racism and antisemitism including explicit genocidal phrasing, while other far‑right texts similarly centre on racial hierarchies as justification ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Manifestos serve political aims — to instigate wider conflict and influence public debate

Perpetrators often frame their acts as political propaganda designed to sow discord or ignite broader conflict; attackers have written that their violence should deepen social divisions (for example around gun ownership) or spark race wars, revealing a deliberate political intent beyond individual grievance ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Personal grievances and psychological drivers appear alongside ideology in many texts

Studies of lone‑actor manifestos find mixtures of motivations: personal resentment, perceived humiliation, and ressentiment commonly run through texts that also borrow ideological language, and coding exercises show researchers must often choose the predominant motive when documents contain overlapping drivers ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Some attackers draw on mixed or idiosyncratic belief systems rather than disciplined doctrine

Law‑enforcement analyses and academic reviews note that manifestos can be ideological patchworks—combining anti‑government sentiment, incel grievance, misanthropy and other motifs—so that an attacker’s stated motives may not map neatly onto classic left/right politics ^{[10] [1]}.

6. A minority of cases reflect nihilism or subcultural influences more than clear political ends

Investigations into “nihilistic violence” identify attacks where manifestos lack a political end‑goal and instead display subcultural aesthetics or a desire for infamy; some perpetrators explicitly reference accelerationist or gaming‑style reward systems, suggesting motivations tied to online violent subcultures rather than traditional ideology ^[4].

7. Manifestos are also propaganda — they can exaggerate or perform motives to amplify impact

Scholars caution that manifestos function as communication tools: attackers package motives to recruit, emulate predecessors, or gain media attention, and many manifestos borrow extensively from prior texts (the Christchurch and Buffalo cases show plagiarism and cross‑referencing), which complicates taking every self‑stated motive at face value ^{[7] [11]}.

8. Conclusion — motives are usually present but often hybrid, performative, or contested

Across the literature, attacker communications commonly name ideological or political motives—most prominently far‑right racial replacement and related hate narratives—yet those motives frequently coexist with personal grievance, subcultural nihilism, and communicative performance; rigorous case‑by‑case analysis is required because manifestos can be both genuine windows into motive and tactical instruments of propaganda ^{[1] [4] [8]}.