Fact check: What are the most common characteristics of right-wing extremist groups?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provided offer a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of right-wing extremist groups. According to ^[1], right-wing actors are significantly more violent than left-wing actors and have committed the majority of terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994 ^[1]. ^[2] identifies three broad types of right-wing terrorist individuals and networks in the United States: white supremacists, anti-government extremists, and incels, and describes their ideologies, tactics, and targets ^[2]. ^[3] provides a working definition of violent right-wing extremism (VRWE) that includes acts of individuals or groups who use, incite, threaten with, legitimise or support violence and hatred to further their political or ideological goals ^[3].

Further analyses from ^[4], ^[5], and ^[6] highlight the use of online platforms to radicalize teenagers and recruit new members, the threat of right-wing terrorism in the US and Canada, and the polarized nature of US politics ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

Additionally, ^[7], ^[8], and ^[9] discuss the threat of far-right violence, its connection to law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern, and the characteristics of right-wing extremist groups in online communities ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

Key characteristics of right-wing extremist groups include:

• Violent ideologies: Many right-wing extremist groups promote violent ideologies, including white supremacy, anti-government extremism, and incel ideologies ^[2].
• Online radicalization: Right-wing extremist groups use online platforms to radicalize teenagers and recruit new members ^[4].
• Exclusionary nationalism: Right-wing extremist groups often promote exclusionary nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance ^[3].
• Rejection of democratic order: Many right-wing extremist groups reject democratic order and values, and seek to further their political or ideological goals through violence and hatred ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

While the analyses provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of right-wing extremist groups, there are some missing contexts and alternative viewpoints. For example, ^[6] highlights the polarized nature of US politics and the potential for violence from both left-wing and right-wing ideologies, but does not provide a detailed analysis of left-wing extremist groups ^[6].

Additionally, ^[9] provides a typology of the threat posed by right-wing extremism in the military, but does not discuss the threat posed by left-wing extremism in the military ^[9].

Alternative viewpoints that could be considered include:

• The role of social media companies in facilitating online radicalization and the spread of extremist ideologies (not discussed in the analyses).
• The impact of economic and social factors, such as poverty and inequality, on the growth of right-wing extremist groups (not discussed in the analyses).
• The potential for overlap between right-wing and left-wing extremist ideologies, and the implications of this overlap for law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts (not discussed in the analyses).

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement asks about the most common characteristics of right-wing extremist groups, but does not provide any context or definition of what constitutes a right-wing extremist group. This lack of context could lead to misinformation or bias in the response, as different sources may have different definitions and characterizations of right-wing extremist groups.

For example, ^[1] and ^[2] provide different characterizations of right-wing extremist groups, with ^[1] focusing on the violence and terrorism perpetrated by these groups, and ^[2] providing a more nuanced analysis of the ideologies and tactics of these groups ^{[1] [2]}.

Who benefits from this framing? The framing of the original statement could benefit law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, who may use the characteristics of right-wing extremist groups to inform their efforts to prevent and respond to extremist violence ^{[7] [8]}. However, the framing could also benefit right-wing extremist groups themselves, who may use the attention and publicity generated by the original statement to recruit new members and promote their ideologies ^[4].