It became clear in the review of existing literature that research on right-wing terrorism and violence has been impeded by a number of factors, such as the geographical or group and type focus. More importantly however, the confusion regarding the nature of right-wing terrorism stemming from a lack of clear definitions has blurred the lines between arguably different phenomena, such as ‘hate crimes,’ ‘terrorism’ or ‘political violence.’ The majority of previous works on the topic have not differentiated between those terms and treated every hate crime or incident of political violence as right-wing terrorism (see Perliger 2012: 85). In addition, most of these studies have not discussed the potentially essential differences regarding intent, effect, prerequisites, legal implications, strategy and the tactics behind those terms. It is safe to say that every act of right-wing terrorism is a form of right-wing violence, but not every act of right-wing violence can be labeled terrorism. To over-or under-conceptualize the nature of right-wing terrorism can have practical consequences leading to the wrong classification and reporting of incidents, over-or underestimation of the threat posed, wrong evaluations of other forms of terrorism, and the use of ineffective counter-measures. Furthermore, this might lead to terrorism threat risks being amplified or underplayed which can result in misallocation of funding, vis-à-vis the increase or decrease of counter-terrorism budgets. This chapter discusses different aspects regarding the problem of defining ‘right-wing terrorism’ and introduces the working definition of this present study, which understands right-wing terrorism as the use or threat of specific forms of middle to high distance violence (e.g. arson, explosives, shootings) executed on the ideological premise of inequality between human beings and in order to challenge the political status quo, – that is, the monopoly of force – through the act of violence as a form of psychological and physical warfare. Typical additional motives can be to demonstrate the authorities’ weakness, to cause chaos favoring ‘law and order’ based politics, frame left-wing groups and cause a government crack-down, annihilate key individuals of the ‘enemy,’ destroy infrastructure perceived to be vital to the enemy, prove the movement’s stamina to members, and gain political or social power through a reign of fear.