What are the most common ideologies associated with right-wing extremist groups?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, right-wing extremist groups are associated with several key ideologies that have dominated domestic terrorism in the United States. The data consistently shows that right-wing ideologies have been responsible for the vast majority of extremist violence, with sources indicating that right-wing attacks account for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^{[1] [2]}. More specifically, since 2002, right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terrorism plots in the United States according to Anti-Defamation League data ^{[3] [4]}.

The specific ideologies associated with right-wing extremist groups include neo-Nazism, white supremacy, and anti-immigration sentiments ^[5]. These movements demonstrate a global presence and diversity, indicating that right-wing extremism is not confined to any single geographic region or specific manifestation ^[5]. The analyses reveal that right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence ^{[1] [2]}, establishing a clear pattern of ideological violence that has persisted for over two decades.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements that provide a more complete picture of the extremist landscape. While the question focuses specifically on right-wing ideologies, the sources also address the complexity of assessing political violence and the subjective nature of determining which forms of violence count as political ^[6]. This suggests that categorizing extremist violence requires careful analysis rather than broad generalizations.

The sources also highlight administrative and legal challenges in addressing domestic extremism. For instance, experts say the president lacks authority to designate domestic terrorist organizations, and that antifa has no official leadership or organization structure ^[7]. This reveals important limitations in how government authorities can respond to different types of extremist groups, particularly those without formal organizational structures.

Additionally, there are concerns about potential government overreach in targeting political groups. The analyses note that civil liberties groups and political experts fear that the administration is ramping up its efforts to punish or silence critics ^[3]. This indicates that discussions about extremist ideologies occur within a broader political context where the designation of terrorist organizations can be used as a political tool rather than purely as a security measure.

The sources also question whether 'radical-left' violence is really on the rise in America, suggesting that the data may not support the notion that left-wing violence is a significant threat ^[6]. This provides important balance to the discussion by indicating that while right-wing violence dominates the statistics, the threat assessment of other ideological groups may be subject to political interpretation.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears relatively neutral, asking for factual information about ideologies associated with right-wing extremist groups. However, the analyses reveal potential areas where misinformation could emerge in broader discussions of this topic.

Political actors may have incentives to either downplay or exaggerate certain types of extremist threats based on their ideological positions. The sources indicate that there have been attempts to target left-wing groups while the data shows that right-wing violence accounts for the vast majority of domestic terrorism fatalities ^{[3] [2]}. This suggests that political narratives about extremist threats may not align with actual statistical evidence.

The analyses also reveal that some claims about left-wing violence may lack evidentiary support. For example, one source notes that prosecutors made no such link between certain violent incidents and left-wing groups, despite administrative claims to the contrary ^[3]. This indicates that political rhetoric about extremist threats may sometimes outpace actual evidence.

Furthermore, the subjective nature of categorizing political violence ^[6] creates opportunities for bias in how different types of extremism are characterized and discussed. The lack of official organizational structures in some groups ^[7] can make it difficult to make definitive statements about their ideological coherence or threat level, potentially leading to either overstatement or understatement of risks depending on political motivations.