M: I want you to go through news summaries from 1990 onward up until today, looking for your acts of political violence using a set of rules that we figured out in another conversation. You will place each violent political act that you find either onto a list of left-wing responsibility, right-wing responsibility, or discard it according to the rules that will be given. Once you have done that, I would like you to present the lists you build in the following format: yy-mm-dd ST-City K Z …where yy-mm-dd is the year-month-date of the act, ST is the state and City is a logical Title Case abbreviation of the act, K is the number killed, and Z is either ‘X’ if the perpetrator killed themselves, ‘x’ if shot by authorities, or blank if the perpetrator was captured; if more than one perpetrator died, append the number to Z, such as ‘x3’ if 3 perpetrators were shot by police. here is the rule set given by a separate silo which you will use to determine what actions belong on the list:

Here’s a clean set of rules phrased so you (or I, in a different silo) can apply them consistently to decide whether an act of violence belongs in the left-wing bucket, the right-wing bucket, or is not applicable.

⸻

Rules for Classifying Political Violence

Step 1: Does it qualify as political violence? • The attack must be an attempt to injure or kill human beings. • Property destruction alone (arson, sabotage, vandalism) does not qualify unless it was done in a way that made harming people the likely outcome (e.g., firebombing an occupied building during the day). • Personal disputes, domestic violence, or other killings unrelated to ideology are excluded, even if the perpetrator had extremist views.

If it doesn’t meet these, mark Not Applicable.

⸻

Step 2: Determine if the motive was political/ideological • There must be clear evidence the perpetrator acted from an ideological or political belief, not just a personal grievance. • Acceptable evidence includes the attacker’s statements, writings, target selection, or group affiliation. • If ideology is incidental (e.g., mentally unstable person lashing out at symbolic target without deeper program), mark Not Applicable.

⸻

Step 3: Assign Left-Wing or Right-Wing

Left-Wing • Ideology rooted in socialist, anarchist, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, environmental, or antifa-aligned views. • Target selection or statements reflect those beliefs (e.g., attacking police as symbols of systemic racism). • Excludes: • Property sabotage alone. • Attacks on people where ideology was not the primary motive.

Right-Wing • Ideology rooted in nationalism, white supremacy, antisemitism, nativism/anti-immigrant sentiment, Christian nationalism, anti-LGBTQ, militia/anti-government (“tyranny”) framing, neo-Nazi ideology, etc. • Target selection or statements reflect those beliefs (e.g., synagogue shootings, Walmart attack on immigrants). • Excludes: • Property sabotage alone, unless method/setting made killing people the clear intent. • Standard criminal violence unrelated to ideology.

⸻

Step 4: If unclear

If you cannot determine with reasonable certainty that the ideology is left-wing or right-wing, or if the motive is primarily mental illness/personal grievance, mark Not Applicable.

⸻

G: Thanks for the detailed rule set and formatting instructions. To begin researching this effectively, could you please clarify the following:

  1. Are you interested only in incidents that occurred within the United States, or should I include international cases as well?
  2. Should I prioritize well-documented incidents from mainstream or reliable news summaries only, or include lesser-known/alternative sources?
  3. Do you want me to exclude foiled plots or only include attacks that resulted in actual injury or death?

Once I have this information, I can start gathering relevant data for you.

M: For number one, yes, only in the United States. For two, prioritize the mainstream incidents. Any alternative sources that seem applicable should be verified as having occurred and having occurred in the manner that the potentially biased lesser source has colored. And number three, include actions that were prevented. But, again, strictly following the rules that have been given. In the other conversation, the not-applicable things included situations where the mental state was a potential disqualifier as the mentally disturbed can be set off by what's around them rather than following their ideology into the insanity itself. In a case where a plot was foiled, the body count in the tuple will, of course, be zero. In that situation, the Z variable in the tuple should contain only the number of people arrested in the prevention.

G: Understood. I will compile a list of politically motivated violent acts or foiled plots in the United States from 1990 to the present, classifying them as left-wing or right-wing according to the detailed rule set you've provided. Each entry will include the date, location, number of people killed (or 0 if foiled), and a notation indicating perpetrator outcome or number arrested.

I'll begin the research and let you know when the categorized lists are ready.

G:

Right-Wing Political Violence Incidents (1990–2025)

(Right-wing incidents are driven by ideologies such as white supremacy, anti-government militias, anti-abortion extremism, anti-Semitism, nativism, and related hate-based beliefs, per the classification rules【21†L1077-L1085】【45†L205-L213】.)

Left-Wing Political Violence Incidents (1990–2025)

(Left-wing incidents are driven by ideologies such as anarchism, anti-racism/black separatism, anti-capitalism, radical environmentalism, or anti-fascist beliefs. Per the classification rules, these acts showed clear ideological motives – e.g. retaliating against racism or opposing government policies – distinct from personal grievances【55†L185-L193】【59†L171-L179】. Incidents without clear ideological intent or primarily driven by the perpetrator’s mental illness were excluded in accordance with the guidelines.)