Abordando la Radicalización Juvenil: La Violencia Nihilista
Escape del Vacío: Respondiendo a la Violencia Nihilista Liderada por Jóvenes
Por Pierre SivignonRed Global sobre Extremismo y Tecnología
2 de febrero de 2026
En diciembre de 2025, Canadá designó a 764 y a Maniac Murder Cult como entidades terroristas, en medio de la creciente preocupación internacional por lo que el FBI y el Departamento de Justicia de EE. UU. han denominado Extremismo Violento Nihilista (NVE). También en diciembre de 2025, Nueva Zelanda tomó medidas similares a las de Canadá contra la Orden de los Nueve Ángulos y Terrorgram, dos redes asociadas con el aceleracionismo de extrema derecha y frecuentemente citadas como influyentes dentro de los ecosistemas de NVE.
Estas designaciones reflejan la creciente preocupación gubernamental por el auge de las "comunidades en línea centradas en la violencia", en particular las vinculadas a The Com y sus grupos afiliados. Desde finales de la década de 2010, estas comunidades han proliferado en línea y se han extendido globalmente, con arrestos reportados en al menos 29 países hasta septiembre de 2025, según Marc-André Argentino. Estas comunidades glorifican la violencia y a sus perpetradores mientras participan en prácticas manipuladoras y coercitivas que incitan a los jóvenes a cometer actos extremos de violencia contra otros, animales o ellos mismos.
Los comportamientos promovidos van desde la autolesión y la crueldad animal hasta la producción y distribución de Material de Abuso Sexual Infantil (MASI), agresión, asesinato e incitación a crímenes de odio y terrorismo. Si bien el alcance total de este fenómeno —en adelante, violencia nihilista— sigue siendo difícil de determinar, el creciente número de casos documentados y víctimas subraya la urgente necesidad de respuestas específicas y coordinadas. En consonancia con esta observación, este análisis examina primero las características y los factores que impulsan la violencia nihilista, antes de explorar cómo adaptar las estrategias de prevención e intervención existentes para lograr una mayor eficacia.
Violencia Postideológica: Definiendo la Violencia Nihilista
La violencia nihilista es un fenómeno complejo que ha recibido múltiples nombres, lo que refleja los debates actuales sobre su naturaleza ambigua y su relación con el extremismo violento. Algunos ejemplos incluyen el Extremismo Violento Nihilista y Apocalíptico, la Explotación Sádica en Línea, el Extremismo Violento Memético Participativo y las comunidades de culto en línea.
Violencia Postideológica: Definiendo la Violencia Nihilista
La violencia nihilista es un fenómeno complejo que ha recibido múltiples nombres, lo que refleja los debates actuales sobre su naturaleza ambigua y su relación con el extremismo violento. Algunos ejemplos incluyen el Extremismo Violento Nihilista y Apocalíptico, la Explotación Sádica en Línea, el Extremismo Violento Memético Participativo y las comunidades de culto en línea.
Si bien este análisis no pretende arbitrar estos debates, es importante señalar que considerar la violencia nihilista simplemente como una subcategoría del extremismo violento probablemente oculte sus especificidades, en particular el hecho de que la ideología juega un papel secundario. Por el contrario, el concepto de comunidades en línea centradas en la violencia, propuesto por Leena Malkki y sus colegas, sitúa el fenómeno dentro de un ecosistema más amplio o continuo de subculturas en línea tóxicas y marginales y, por lo tanto, se adopta en este análisis.
En la práctica, un número significativo de estas comunidades, incluyendo algunas de las más influyentes, como 764, No Lives Matter (NLM) y Maniac Murder Cult (MKY), están afiliadas al ecosistema cibercriminal descentralizado conocido como The Com (abreviatura de The Community). Este ecosistema comprende subgrupos y redes con estructura y alcance variables, desde chats grupales informales hasta organizaciones estructuradas. Estas promueven y participan en tres tipos principales de actividades ilegales: ciberdelincuencia, sextorsión y actos de violencia física fuera de línea.
En la práctica, un número significativo de estas comunidades, incluyendo algunas de las más influyentes, como 764, No Lives Matter (NLM) y Maniac Murder Cult (MKY), están afiliadas al ecosistema cibercriminal descentralizado conocido como The Com (abreviatura de The Community). Este ecosistema comprende subgrupos y redes con estructura y alcance variables, desde chats grupales informales hasta organizaciones estructuradas. Estas promueven y participan en tres tipos principales de actividades ilegales: ciberdelincuencia, sextorsión y actos de violencia física fuera de línea.
En lugar de constituir una organización propiamente dicha, estos grupos forman una red fluida: un ecosistema de células semiautónomas y grupos escindidos que compiten y colaboran entre sí. Por ejemplo, casos penales recientes relacionados con 764 han involucrado a subgrupos como Greggy's Cult, 764 Inferno y 8884. Las comunidades centradas en la violencia exhiben varias características y dinámicas recurrentes:
Motivaciones no ideológicas: las motivaciones, objetivos y justificaciones son predominantemente no ideológicos, desvinculados de narrativas políticas o religiosas coherentes, pero anclados en discursos nihilistas y misantrópicos.
Violencia autotélica: la violencia ocupa un papel central y autónomo como medio y mensaje; no es estratégica ni instrumental, sino un fin en sí misma, glorificada por sí misma.
Marcadores performativos de pertenencia: la estética, los símbolos y las prácticas performativas o meméticas suplantan la ideología como marcadores de pertenencia, con una participación impulsada por la manipulación, la coerción y la socialización entre iguales, en lugar del adoctrinamiento ideológico. Participación juvenil: las comunidades están lideradas por jóvenes, y los jóvenes perpetradores y víctimas suelen ser menores vulnerables que enfrentan problemas de salud mental, trastornos alimentarios, acoso escolar y aislamiento social, y que pueden alternar entre los roles de perpetrador y víctima.
Dinámicas y modus operandi multiplataforma: las comunidades operan en múltiples plataformas, principalmente Discord y Telegram, para identificar y dirigirse a usuarios vulnerables, atraerlos a espacios privados y cada vez más transgresores (servidores, chats grupales, canales) y coaccionarlos mediante acoso, sextorsión o amenazas. Por ejemplo, una víctima puede ser contactada primero en una plataforma popular como TikTok o X y posteriormente trasladada a espacios privados en Telegram o Discord.
Jerarquías y búsqueda de estatus: las dinámicas de grupo son coercitivas y jerárquicas, y el estatus se gana mediante la escalada de actos violentos, que se documentan y archivan sistemáticamente como medio para obtener el reconocimiento de los pares y para ejercer control sobre las víctimas. Cultura y lenguaje distintivos: las comunidades cultivan su propio folclore y lenguaje codificado, incluyendo términos y prácticas como "libros de tradición", "firmas de autógrafos", "señales cortadas" o "señales de sangre", junto con otros símbolos específicos de la comunidad.
Un espacio híbrido: Continuidades y rupturas con fenómenos adyacentes
In the late 2010s, violence-focused communities emerged against the backdrop of increasing hybridisation and ideological cross-pollination within extremist ecosystems. These broader dynamics have produced groups, networks, and ideological profiles shaped by multiple, and sometimes contradictory, influences. As a result, many radicalised individuals, particularly in Europe and North America, no longer exhibit coherent extremist belief systems. Scholars and practitioners have described this phenomenon using concepts such as ‘Mixed, Unclear, and Unstable’ (MUU) ideologies, ‘salad bar’ belief systems, ‘fringe fluidity’, Composite Violent Extremism (CoVE), or Hybridized Prefatory Extremism (HYPE).
Motivaciones no ideológicas: las motivaciones, objetivos y justificaciones son predominantemente no ideológicos, desvinculados de narrativas políticas o religiosas coherentes, pero anclados en discursos nihilistas y misantrópicos.
Violencia autotélica: la violencia ocupa un papel central y autónomo como medio y mensaje; no es estratégica ni instrumental, sino un fin en sí misma, glorificada por sí misma.
Marcadores performativos de pertenencia: la estética, los símbolos y las prácticas performativas o meméticas suplantan la ideología como marcadores de pertenencia, con una participación impulsada por la manipulación, la coerción y la socialización entre iguales, en lugar del adoctrinamiento ideológico. Participación juvenil: las comunidades están lideradas por jóvenes, y los jóvenes perpetradores y víctimas suelen ser menores vulnerables que enfrentan problemas de salud mental, trastornos alimentarios, acoso escolar y aislamiento social, y que pueden alternar entre los roles de perpetrador y víctima.
Dinámicas y modus operandi multiplataforma: las comunidades operan en múltiples plataformas, principalmente Discord y Telegram, para identificar y dirigirse a usuarios vulnerables, atraerlos a espacios privados y cada vez más transgresores (servidores, chats grupales, canales) y coaccionarlos mediante acoso, sextorsión o amenazas. Por ejemplo, una víctima puede ser contactada primero en una plataforma popular como TikTok o X y posteriormente trasladada a espacios privados en Telegram o Discord.
Jerarquías y búsqueda de estatus: las dinámicas de grupo son coercitivas y jerárquicas, y el estatus se gana mediante la escalada de actos violentos, que se documentan y archivan sistemáticamente como medio para obtener el reconocimiento de los pares y para ejercer control sobre las víctimas. Cultura y lenguaje distintivos: las comunidades cultivan su propio folclore y lenguaje codificado, incluyendo términos y prácticas como "libros de tradición", "firmas de autógrafos", "señales cortadas" o "señales de sangre", junto con otros símbolos específicos de la comunidad.
Un espacio híbrido: Continuidades y rupturas con fenómenos adyacentes
In the late 2010s, violence-focused communities emerged against the backdrop of increasing hybridisation and ideological cross-pollination within extremist ecosystems. These broader dynamics have produced groups, networks, and ideological profiles shaped by multiple, and sometimes contradictory, influences. As a result, many radicalised individuals, particularly in Europe and North America, no longer exhibit coherent extremist belief systems. Scholars and practitioners have described this phenomenon using concepts such as ‘Mixed, Unclear, and Unstable’ (MUU) ideologies, ‘salad bar’ belief systems, ‘fringe fluidity’, Composite Violent Extremism (CoVE), or Hybridized Prefatory Extremism (HYPE).
Irrespective of the terminology used, this phenomenon reflects an escalating trend in extremist violence, increasingly characterised by an ‘amalgamation of disparate beliefs, interests, and grievances’. Nihilistic violence represents one manifestation of this broader paradigm, exhibiting a dual form of hybridisation: within violent extremist ecosystems, and between violent extremism and other forms of online harm, criminality, and violence.
Violence-focused communities are therefore shaped by multiple influences, drawing selectively from adjacent subcultures and extremist ecosystems, including ideologically motivated ones. The primary influences include far-right or ‘militant’ accelerationism (such as Siege Culture, the Order of Nine Angles, Terrorgram, ‘Saints culture’, etc.), the most extreme subsets of the True Crime Community (TCC), and gore and snuff communities (notably ‘hurtcore’).
Violence-focused communities are therefore shaped by multiple influences, drawing selectively from adjacent subcultures and extremist ecosystems, including ideologically motivated ones. The primary influences include far-right or ‘militant’ accelerationism (such as Siege Culture, the Order of Nine Angles, Terrorgram, ‘Saints culture’, etc.), the most extreme subsets of the True Crime Community (TCC), and gore and snuff communities (notably ‘hurtcore’).
These influences are evident in the aesthetics, symbols, modes of action, and practices of violence-focused communities, as well as in their interactions with extremist ecosystems and related phenomena. Crucially, they function primarily as cultural reservoirs and visual repertoires, rather than as direct ideological drivers.
That said, fragments of ideology, or secondary ideological motivations, can also be observed in some groups, particularly MKY, as well as in individual trajectories. For example, the France-based founder of CVLT, which inspired 764, ran a fascist Discord community called ‘Harsh Reality’, which has since been taken down. Similarly, a MKY leader from Georgia apprehended in 2024 openly adhered to neo-Nazi accelerationist ideology, disseminating a manifesto entitled ‘The Hater’s Handbook’.
That said, fragments of ideology, or secondary ideological motivations, can also be observed in some groups, particularly MKY, as well as in individual trajectories. For example, the France-based founder of CVLT, which inspired 764, ran a fascist Discord community called ‘Harsh Reality’, which has since been taken down. Similarly, a MKY leader from Georgia apprehended in 2024 openly adhered to neo-Nazi accelerationist ideology, disseminating a manifesto entitled ‘The Hater’s Handbook’.
The production of manuals, guides, and manifestos is a common practice among violent extremists and has also been adopted by NLM (‘Manhunt Guide’ and ‘NLM Kill Guide’) and 764. In November 2025, an individual connected to 764 was arrested in the United States; the FBI discovered writings outlining plans for terrorist attacks, including joining the Islamic State and returning to the US to carry them out. The interplay of continuities and ruptures with ideologically motivated extremism and adjacent phenomena positions nihilistic violence within a hybrid space, situated between violent extremism, marginal online subcultures, and (cyber)criminal networks.
Crisis & Affordances: Explaining the Emergence of Nihilistic Violence
It is important to analyse: why did violence-focused online communities emerge in the late 2010s? The following discussion advances a set of hypotheses across three interlocking levels: societal, structural, and individual. This analytical framework is inspired by the work of Lewis Brace and colleagues on MUU ideologies. In summary, the argument is that nihilistic violence emerges from the interplay of three factors: a conducive socio-cultural context (societal level), the exploitation of enabling technological affordances (structural level), and widespread, youth-related personal vulnerabilities (individual level). This framework is not just analytical; it also has practical implications for prevention and intervention strategies, which should address all three levels simultaneously.
At the societal level, nihilistic violence emerged in a specific context, characterised by a ‘crisis of meaning’, a deepening youth ‘mental health crisis’, and a ‘global polycrisis’. The impact of major crises and disruptive events on young people, including the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns, has created a fertile environment for the development of nihilistic worldviews. In this context, nihilistic violence can be understood as one of the most extreme manifestations of generational anxieties, pessimism, and social disconnection.
At the structural level, violence-focused online communities have probably benefited from the ‘technological affordances’ of platforms such as Discord and Telegram. Certain features on these platforms may create an environment conducive to grooming, coercion, and violent behaviour. These include closed or invitation-only groups, persistent and archive-like communication, support for sharing multimedia content, and role-based hierarchies on Discord. Together, these features can do more than simply provide a space; they can actively shape communities.
Crisis & Affordances: Explaining the Emergence of Nihilistic Violence
It is important to analyse: why did violence-focused online communities emerge in the late 2010s? The following discussion advances a set of hypotheses across three interlocking levels: societal, structural, and individual. This analytical framework is inspired by the work of Lewis Brace and colleagues on MUU ideologies. In summary, the argument is that nihilistic violence emerges from the interplay of three factors: a conducive socio-cultural context (societal level), the exploitation of enabling technological affordances (structural level), and widespread, youth-related personal vulnerabilities (individual level). This framework is not just analytical; it also has practical implications for prevention and intervention strategies, which should address all three levels simultaneously.
At the societal level, nihilistic violence emerged in a specific context, characterised by a ‘crisis of meaning’, a deepening youth ‘mental health crisis’, and a ‘global polycrisis’. The impact of major crises and disruptive events on young people, including the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns, has created a fertile environment for the development of nihilistic worldviews. In this context, nihilistic violence can be understood as one of the most extreme manifestations of generational anxieties, pessimism, and social disconnection.
At the structural level, violence-focused online communities have probably benefited from the ‘technological affordances’ of platforms such as Discord and Telegram. Certain features on these platforms may create an environment conducive to grooming, coercion, and violent behaviour. These include closed or invitation-only groups, persistent and archive-like communication, support for sharing multimedia content, and role-based hierarchies on Discord. Together, these features can do more than simply provide a space; they can actively shape communities.
Discord, in particular, is perceived by violence-focused communities as ‘multi-purpose’, supporting all stages of the victimisation process within a single environment. Consequently, since becoming aware of 764’s existence in 2021, Discord has been actively trying to disrupt its activities on its services by investing in moderation tools, teams and techniques. In 2023 alone, 34,000 user accounts associated with 764 were taken down. Furthermore, Discord’s relevant safety policies, including the Teen and Child Safety Policy, Suicide and Self-Harm Policy and Violence and Graphic Content Policy, which were last revised in August 2025, explicitly prohibit CSAM, grooming, sextortion, self-harm, depictions of gore and animal cruelty, and the glorification of mass murderers or serial killers. That said, it is not merely the platforms themselves that matter, but the affordances they offer. These groups could theoretically jump to platforms with similar features as Discord and Telegram.
At an individual level, personal vulnerabilities, including mental health challenges, experiences of bullying and social isolation, are directly exploited by violence-focused communities, especially 764, and during all stages of the victimisation processes. Peer dynamics, personal quests for ‘status’ or ‘significance’, and hierarchical structures reinforce escalation dynamics. Lastly, repeated exposure to graphic and violent content may desensitise some young people to such material and even give them a ‘taste’ for it, laying the ‘groundwork for an identity and social relationships built around the glorification of violence’.
Recommendations: Rethinking Prevention and Intervention
Nihilistic violence is ‘post-ideological‘ and does not stem from indoctrination or coherent belief systems. Consequently, P/CVE approaches focused on ideological disengagement are ill-suited, and mobilisation to violence can occur rapidly, narrowing the window for intervention. This underscores the relevance of a ‘public health approach’ to nihilistic violence, focused on reducing ‘risk factors’ and strengthening ‘protective factors’ at individual and societal levels, rather than on ideology or at-risk groups. It prioritises ‘indicative behaviours’ and social conditions such as isolation, lack of purpose, and weakened belonging, to foster long-term resilience.
Early detection and exit support are critical. Families, teachers, educators, and frontline professionals should be equipped to recognise warning signs – such as ‘obsessive interest in gore, fascination with mass killers, or performative displays of cruelty’ – through targeted training and awareness-raising. The ISD risk assessment framework, covering ‘indicators’, ‘accelerants’, and ‘triggers’, offers a valuable tool for guiding early identification. Given the prevalence of blackmail and coercion, exit pathways must be trauma-informed and supported by specialised services.
Platform-level measures are equally essential. Major platforms have invested in Trust & Safety, including dedicated moderation teams and techniques, automated detection systems, reporting mechanisms, and safety policies, and some, such as Discord, also participate in cross-industry initiatives through their GIFCT membership. However, nihilistic violence reveals gaps in current systems, which are primarily designed to detect content rather than behaviours. Beyond youth safety-by-design measures, tech platforms can reinforce their responses through:
Cross-platform strategies. Because violence-focused communities exploit multiple platforms and their distinctive features, both affected platforms and at-risk platforms should adopt coordinated cross-platform responses. Platform-specific measures are insufficient to address recruitment, group migration, reconstitution, and hybridisation. Only collaborative approaches can disrupt the full cross-platform victimisation cycle. Concrete measures include data-, information-, and hash-sharing, as well as other joint enforcement mechanisms.
Adjacent community monitoring. Platforms should extend oversight to adjacent communities that frequently function as gateways or recruitment pools (such as extreme true crime, gore, gaming, and mental health–related spaces). Particular attention should be paid to recruitment tactics and outlinking practices across affected and at-risk online environments.
Behavioural risk detection. Content moderation should be complemented by behavioural analysis to identify patterns of recruitment, grooming, coercion, and escalation. In this respect, Discord’s use of machine-learning models based on metadata and network dynamics is particularly relevant, as addressing nihilistic violence requires systems that move beyond explicit content violations to detect subtler behavioural signals.
Targeted capacity-building. To support the identification of grooming dynamics, coded language and coercive group structures, platforms should invest in bespoke training for moderators, supported by long-term partnerships with researchers, NGOs and frontline practitioners.
Finally, societal-level interventions must address the ‘crisis of meaning’ characteristic of our digital age, as well as the existential void exploited by violence-focused online communities. Initiatives that foster digital literacy, social (re)connection, and meaningful offline engagement can likely reduce the appeal of these communities.
At an individual level, personal vulnerabilities, including mental health challenges, experiences of bullying and social isolation, are directly exploited by violence-focused communities, especially 764, and during all stages of the victimisation processes. Peer dynamics, personal quests for ‘status’ or ‘significance’, and hierarchical structures reinforce escalation dynamics. Lastly, repeated exposure to graphic and violent content may desensitise some young people to such material and even give them a ‘taste’ for it, laying the ‘groundwork for an identity and social relationships built around the glorification of violence’.
Recommendations: Rethinking Prevention and Intervention
Nihilistic violence is ‘post-ideological‘ and does not stem from indoctrination or coherent belief systems. Consequently, P/CVE approaches focused on ideological disengagement are ill-suited, and mobilisation to violence can occur rapidly, narrowing the window for intervention. This underscores the relevance of a ‘public health approach’ to nihilistic violence, focused on reducing ‘risk factors’ and strengthening ‘protective factors’ at individual and societal levels, rather than on ideology or at-risk groups. It prioritises ‘indicative behaviours’ and social conditions such as isolation, lack of purpose, and weakened belonging, to foster long-term resilience.
Early detection and exit support are critical. Families, teachers, educators, and frontline professionals should be equipped to recognise warning signs – such as ‘obsessive interest in gore, fascination with mass killers, or performative displays of cruelty’ – through targeted training and awareness-raising. The ISD risk assessment framework, covering ‘indicators’, ‘accelerants’, and ‘triggers’, offers a valuable tool for guiding early identification. Given the prevalence of blackmail and coercion, exit pathways must be trauma-informed and supported by specialised services.
Platform-level measures are equally essential. Major platforms have invested in Trust & Safety, including dedicated moderation teams and techniques, automated detection systems, reporting mechanisms, and safety policies, and some, such as Discord, also participate in cross-industry initiatives through their GIFCT membership. However, nihilistic violence reveals gaps in current systems, which are primarily designed to detect content rather than behaviours. Beyond youth safety-by-design measures, tech platforms can reinforce their responses through:
Cross-platform strategies. Because violence-focused communities exploit multiple platforms and their distinctive features, both affected platforms and at-risk platforms should adopt coordinated cross-platform responses. Platform-specific measures are insufficient to address recruitment, group migration, reconstitution, and hybridisation. Only collaborative approaches can disrupt the full cross-platform victimisation cycle. Concrete measures include data-, information-, and hash-sharing, as well as other joint enforcement mechanisms.
Adjacent community monitoring. Platforms should extend oversight to adjacent communities that frequently function as gateways or recruitment pools (such as extreme true crime, gore, gaming, and mental health–related spaces). Particular attention should be paid to recruitment tactics and outlinking practices across affected and at-risk online environments.
Behavioural risk detection. Content moderation should be complemented by behavioural analysis to identify patterns of recruitment, grooming, coercion, and escalation. In this respect, Discord’s use of machine-learning models based on metadata and network dynamics is particularly relevant, as addressing nihilistic violence requires systems that move beyond explicit content violations to detect subtler behavioural signals.
Targeted capacity-building. To support the identification of grooming dynamics, coded language and coercive group structures, platforms should invest in bespoke training for moderators, supported by long-term partnerships with researchers, NGOs and frontline practitioners.
Finally, societal-level interventions must address the ‘crisis of meaning’ characteristic of our digital age, as well as the existential void exploited by violence-focused online communities. Initiatives that foster digital literacy, social (re)connection, and meaningful offline engagement can likely reduce the appeal of these communities.
