An Introduction to Militant Accelerationism
By Matthew Kriner on behalf of the ARC Steering Committee
In the past two decades, the militant accelerationism movement has been responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks worldwide. Despite the rapid growth of this phenomenon, no definitional consensus exists which can situate and contextualize militant accelerationism today. This gap has complicated efforts to craft effective policy responses and leverage proper law enforcement mechanisms, and has limited the efficacy of research streams seeking to explore this complex problem set. In this article, we offer a straightforward, approachable definition of militant accelerationism and explain why that definition requires a network-based analytical model. This definition serves as the foundation upon which future research can accurately take into consideration the nuances of militant accelerationism’s digital presence, network structure, terroristic manifestations, ideological origins, and more.
Accelerationism as a philosophical and social concept is most broadly understood to be a recognition that modernity, liberalism, and capitalism’s inherent flaws are the source of their own inevitable and accelerating demise. Militant accelerationism, however, embraces political violence and/or terrorism in pursuit of the destruction of the physical manifestations of these concepts. The use of the term militant accelerationism is not arbitrary, as individuals have begun self-identifying as such in recent years. While militant accelerationism retains a similar critique of capitalism’s inherent contradictions with liberalism as other philosophical forms of accelerationism – such as the technology-centric visions of Nick Land and the anti-colonial liberationist theories of left-accelerationists – adherents of militant accelerationism believe they can and should expedite the collapse of capitalist and liberal civilization. To these actors, their role is not to sit and wait for some accelerating convergence of technology and humanity, or for liberalism and capitalism to collapse under their own weight. Instead, adherents see a militant path as the only viable option for achieving social rejuvenation. Based on this understanding of militant accelerationism, we offer a basic definition:
Militant accelerationism is a set of tactics and strategies designed to put pressure on and exacerbate latent social divisions, often through violence, thus hastening societal collapse.
Over time, this set of tactics and strategies grew to include various ideological currents, the most dominant of which is neofascism. Individuals in this milieu that embraced neofascist accelerationism soon coalesced into an in-group identity that acknowledged their adherence to social collapse and in doing so built ideological structures around their shared embrace of militant accelerationism’s tactics and strategies (e.g., SIEGE culture). Today, a dualistic dynamic exists with respect to militant accelerationism wherein an explicit self-identification as accelerationist (e.g., Atomwaffen Division) exists alongside an implicit adherence to the tactics and strategies without a strict identification as accelerationist (e.g., Boogaloo).
Implicit versus Explicit Militant Accelerationism
Individual adherents' involvement in the militant accelerationism landscape (often driven by specific tactics such as insight roles, infiltration, incitement, and more) is best viewed as a spectrum ranging from inspired to overt self-identification, or more simply put an implicit versus explicit endorsement of militant accelerationism. Good examples of the explicit nature of militant accelerationism are Atomwaffen and the Base, while two examples of implicit militant accelerationism are the Proud Boys and the Boogaloo movement.
Figure 1. Proud Boys Telegram post illustrating openly discussing militant accelerationism.
Figure 2. Maryland-DC Proud Boys Chapter at January 2022 March for Life rally in Washington, DC
A January 2022 mobilization of the DC-MD Proud Boys chapter illustrates the implicit nature of militant accelerationism. Skull masks, popularized by Atomwaffen Division, are a strong indicator of potential adherence to militant accelerationism. Despite the visible skull masks on the Proud Boys pictured above, it is difficult to determine whether the presence of the skull masks is an aesthetic choice derived from consuming neofascist content, which is common in Proud Boys digital ecosystems, or if it points to an implicit association with militant accelerationism. A deeper evaluation of the chapter’s Telegram channel showed that the group regularly wears both skull masks and Proud Boys’ branded clothing and openly discusses accelerationism. As such, we can say that this chapter is implicitly accelerationist, though does not explicitly identify as accelerationist in the same manner as Atomwaffen, the Base, or Feuerkrieg Division.
ARC’s Network-Centric Framework
Militant accelerationism is a fractal, diverse movement that is decentralized but deeply interconnected. In many respects, it is the best example of emerging post-group, post-organizational dynamics within violent extremism more broadly. Actors within this landscape are increasingly engaged in loose coalitions that do not always fall into neat categories based on membership within a hierarchical group. Instead, militant accelerationist actors embrace a strategic organizing approach of collapse, reshuffle, and re-emergence - a tactic that numerous transnational cells which adopted the Atomwaffen, Base, Feuerkrieg, or other skull mask brands, displayed without any meaningful structural links between them and the original core network of organizers.
As such, at ARC, we use an analytical approach that emphasizes the significance of networks rather than groups. This analytical framework provides a stronger understanding of the organizing dynamics exhibited by accelerationist actors today, wherein they operate as something more nebulous than discrete organizations. By conceptualizing ‘groups’ like Atomwaffen as brands that can be adopted and dropped for expediency, researchers, practitioners and law enforcement can develop more accurate assessments of movement dynamics, mobilization, radicalization pathways, and more.
A historical precedent exists for examining neofascist terrorism (the dominant strain of militant accelerationism today) through a network-based approach in post-WWII Italy, a period of severe civil unrest known as the Years of Lead. Here, the similarities to today’s neofascist accelerationism are stark. Far-right neofascist groups, such as the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (NAR), leveraged armed spontaneity or stragismo (terrorist bombing campaigns)1 with the intention of instigating a collapse of the government and thus paving the way for a neofascist assumption of state control. According to historian Franco Ferraresi, armed spontaneity “consisted of a loose collection of overlapping and interacting groups forming for the purpose of a particular action and then disbanding just as quickly, highly violent but impermanent and poorly organized by design.”2
Ferraresi called this phenomenon the “archipelago strategy,” and illustrated how it is centered on “the notion of a ‘scattered attack’ against the system, one that ostensibly rejected the traditional conspiratorial model of the Right based on a double (covert and open) level of action.”3 This strategy resonates significantly with two pillars of far-right violent tactics that have found a home in militant accelerationism’s ideological pantheon: Louis Beams’ leaderless resistance and James Mason’s anti-systems views enshrined in SIEGE.
Figure 3. A visualization of the archipelago strategy.
Mobilizing Concepts
Today’s militant accelerationists are opportunists, seeking to leverage extremists of all stripes – including but not limited to neo-Nazis, neofascists, fundamentalist Christians, anarchists, Black liberationists, anti-government extremists, ethno-nationalists, eco-radicals, jihadists, and even cultists. While success in each targeted milieu has varied significantly, adherents of militant accelerationism believe that such a wide-reaching and inclusive framework of recruitment and engagement will provide the best chances for instigating a runaway feedback loop of social conflict aimed at collapsing American and Western liberal democracy. In this respect, the short-term goal of collapsing liberal democratic societies is more important than a longer term ideologically-derived outcome, such as administering a post-democracy government.
Despite a diversity of actors in this particular landscape, those who adopt militant accelerationist tactics and strategies are often motivated by the same set of grievance narratives and target outgroups: Jewish people, liberal democracy, globalism, capitalism, and the United States.4 At the same time, the militant accelerationist landscape contains varied worldviews that are seemingly at-odds with one another. To understand how these divergent ideologies can coexist in the same spaces, we look to the “mobilizing concepts” framework offered by Dr. Cynthia Miller-Idriss and Dr. Brian Hughes. Miller-Idriss and Hughes posit that mobilizing concepts provide diverse and even conflicting ideologies a shared vessel or mechanism by which to advance support around a set of abstract virtues or beliefs that cut across traditional ideological boundaries.
Because mobilizing concepts can address a “wide range of ideological frames or justifications” and build “cross-ideological support around a concept, rather than an ideology” it presents a stronger model for finding an analytical through-line in the diverse and obscured scope of activity in the militant accelerationism landscape. Like group versus brand, mobilizing concepts better positions the field in responding to the dynamics presented by actors that no longer adhere to “traditional ideological frameworks.”
This framework is also more relevant for understanding the radicalization pathways of what we consider to be racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE) and ideologically-motivated violent extremism (IMVE), as it aligns more accurately with the real world manifestations of amorphous movements like Boogaloo and QAnon that transcend narrow group or ideological boundaries. A good example of this phenomenon in practice is the statement made by a former leading figure in the Boogaloo movement’s Patriot Wave faction, which concurrently displayed militia and Boogaloo aesthetics beside Norse pagan and neofascist iconography. He claimed that his network started as a digital meme page on Facebook then moved into offline activity, mobilizing under its American Revolution iconography and symbols and ultimately stating to the media that “we are the memes.”
Figure 4. Boogaloo faction Patriot Wave members at the 2020 Virginia Lobby Day event wearing skullmasks.
The Central Roles of Neofascism and Traditionalism
Despite diverse ideological representation at the broadest levels of the militant accelerationism landscape, both its origin and its dominant ideological strain today are neofascist in nature: “The accelerationist movement encompasses much more than just neo-Nazi and neo-fascist activists, but neo-fascist groups represent its most violent, dangerous, and extreme core.” Additionally, embracing J.M. Berger’s understanding of ideology in that it is “a collection of texts that describes who is part of the in-group, who is part of an out-group, and how the in-group should interact with the out-group,” the body of literature and texts within the neofascist current of militant accelerationism presents a loose ideological structure we refer to as neofascist accelerationism.5
Neofascist accelerationism’s ideology is characterized by a belief that the destruction of modern civilization will usher in a new age of rejuvenation and glory, premised on a social structure of caste-like hierarchy and traditional values. To return society to a structure of tradition and hierarchy, neofascist accelerationists endorse the tactic of seemingly random acts of terrorism to attempt to spark chain reactions of social upheaval and violence.
Figure 5. Telegram post illustrating how some neofascists view militant accelerationism
Neofascism and militant accelerationism are strongly influenced by Traditionalism, a school of thought initially founded by French reactionary and esotericist Rene Guenon. Traditionalism was later co-opted and given a militant flavor by neofascist icons Julius Evola, Savitri Devi, and Miguel Serrano. According to ARC Research Fellow H.E. Upchurch, neofascist accelerationism’s ideological core derives from:
“a political-religious hybrid based in large part on the work of the philosopher Julius Evola. Evola mixed fascism with ‘Traditionalism,’ a syncretic 20th century religious movement that combines Hermetic occultism with the Hindu doctrine of cyclical time and a belief in a now-lost primordial European paganism. Adherents of this blend of doctrines, which can be termed ‘Traditionalist fascism’ believe that a caste-based, racially pure ‘organic’ society will be restored after what they believe to be an ongoing age of corruption, the Kali Yuga, is swept away in an apocalyptic war, and that it is their role to hasten the end of the Kali Yuga by generating chaos and violence.”
Indeed, neofascist accelerationism is thus aimed at accelerating the inevitable conclusion of the current age, the Kali Yuga. Traditionalist fascists believe that spiritual violence, in conjunction with the innate chaos of the modern world, can tip the cosmic scales into a state of total war. In their view, this war is between the forces of evil that define the current era (often Jewish or non-white people) on one side, and Aryans and other avatars of salvation (variously called Kalki, Vindex, or Man Against Time) on the other.6
Figure 6. Surf the Kali Yuga meme
Perhaps the most definitive venue through which to evaluate the ways in which militant Traditionalism informs neofascist accelerationism is the now-defunct Iron March forum. While active, the Iron March forum acted as a town square, incubator, and digital backbone for the so-called “skull mask” network, which included terrorist entities such as National Action, the Base, Atomwaffen Division, and Feuerkrieg Division, among others.
As is true with other violent extremist movements, not all individuals in the neofascist accelerationism fold are ideological true believers. Some may simply engage with the ideological landscape of neofascist accelerationism as passive consumers. Others may mobilize in the skull mask network or in their own milieus and mimic the aesthetics and iconography of brands in the network, such as Atomwaffen, the Base, and Order of Nine Angles. Conducting analysis on these acute expressions of militant accelerationism is necessary, but the sheer volume of shared membership and porous boundaries between the so-called groups requires a network-based approach to fully understand the mobilization in and around those brand names.
Looking Ahead
Recent history shows that adherents of neofascist accelerationism and militant Traditionalism are increasingly perpetrating violent actions. Our research also indicates they are more frequently represented in broader far-right extremist networks. Terrorists responsible for multiple high-profile, high-casualty attacks have held clear associations with neofascist accelerationism. These terrorists are extensively celebrated within online militant accelerationism communities. For example, sympathizers have created scoreboards to track the number of murders committed by each shooter and the shooters are frequently “sanctified” and celebrated as heroes. Consistent across the mobilization to violence by these terrorists is a sense of existential threat, a perceived loss of viable political solutions, and a belief they must act urgently and violently.
Much of the militant accelerationism influence on far-right violence and political violence in general remains dangerously under-studied. For example, hardened militant accelerationists have sought to assassinate sitting politicians in the United Kingdom, encouraged and perpetrated indiscriminate violence during the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, and skull mask wearers have been observed engaging in violence against law enforcement during the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Individuals, chapters, and leaders in the Proud Boys have displayed clear markers of implicit militant accelerationism. And militant Traditionalists and accelerationists were at the core of the organizing for the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, in August 2017.
Perhaps most concerning is the influence of Evola’s Traditionalism on geopolitical power brokers Steve Bannon and Alexander Dugin. Too little attention has been paid to Alexander Dugin’s defined links to American far-right figures like Matthew Heimbach (an organizer of Unite the Right) and Joshua Caleb Sutter, the founder of the America-based Order of Nine Angles (O9A) cell Tempel ov Blood. The esoteric fascist movement Order of Nine Angles is one of the least understood entities within the militant accelerationism landscape, yet it is likely the purest expression of Evolian Traditionalism and militant accelerationism in existence. Its deeply esoteric nature and heavy reliance on insight roles and infiltrations into preexisting violent extremist infrastructure (e.g., O9A infiltration and subsequent assumption of control over Atomwaffen division in 2017) presents practitioners and researchers a persistent set of challenges surrounding attribution, disruption, and more.
A crucial component to understanding this threat is leveraging analytical and research frameworks that look beyond the traditional understanding of violent extremism and terrorism as dependent upon groups or organizations. Ultimately, militant accelerationism demands a new approach that can adequately address its nebulous post-organizational, ideologically-agnostic nature. By approaching the topic with an approach that puts network analysis and mobilizing concepts at the forefront of its methodology, we can begin to properly respond to a threat that likely presents one of the single greatest evolutions in terrorism and political violence in history.
References:
Anna Cento Bull, “Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation,” Berghahn Books, 2012.
Franco Ferraresi, “Threats to Democracy: The Radical Right in Italy After the War,” Princeton University Press, 1996, pg. 139.
Franco Ferraresi, “Threats to Democracy: The Radical Right in Italy After the War,” Princeton University Press, 1996, pg. 161; see also, Michael Loadenthal, “The Politics of Attack: Communiqués and Insurrectionary Violence,” Manchester University Press, 2017.
This is not an exhaustive list of targets, but rather represents a particularly common selection.
JM Berger, “Extremism,” MIT Press 2018, pg. 26.
Benjamin Teitelbaum, “War for Eternity: The Return of Traditionalism and the Rise of the Populist Right,” Harper Collins, 2020; and Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, “Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity,” NYU Press, 2003.
Teitelbaum, 2020.
