The Role of Violent Conspiratorial Narratives in Violent and Non-Violent Extreme Right Manifestos Online, 2015-2020

By William Allchorn, Andreas Dafnos and Francesca Gentile

  Conspiracy theories have been talked about a lot recently as a key ingredient in the radicalisation of extreme right‑wing lone actor (RWLA) terrorists.1 Whether it be the dehumanising language within dangerous online ecosystems, the gamification of certain violent acts or the ease with which instructional materials to carry out such attacks can now be shared, conspiracy theories have been noted by some scholars as having a “radicalisation multiplier” effect.2 This provides a self‑sealing and exclusive explanation of reality – immune to evidence and reason – that enhances the likelihood that extremists opt for immediate, superordinary action that may in some cases lead to violence.3 While there now exists an academic consensus stressing the importance of extremist words that sharply delineate, reify and polarise 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, conspiratorial language – especially on the extreme right – and how such language encourages an individual into violent action.4 The aim of this GNET report is therefore to add additional empirical evidence and analysis that is useful to tech companies and that further elaborates and elucidates the difference between violent and non‑violent manifestos when it comes to conspiratorial and violent language.

London: The Global Network on Extremism and Technology (GNET), 2022 , 47p.