Report on Nihilistic Violence and Its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction to Nihilistic Violence

Recent violent incidents, including school shootings in the United States and stabbing sprees in Sweden, have brought the concept of nihilistic violence into public focus. This form of violence is characterized by the absence of an overarching ideological motive, distinguishing it from ideologically driven extremism. Instead, perpetrators are often motivated by misanthropy or a desire for notoriety within online communities.

Distinguishing Nihilistic Violence from Ideological Extremism

At the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), research identified at least eight mass violence incidents in the U.S. linked to nihilistic violence subcultures, resulting in twice as many deaths as ideologically motivated attacks. Accurate differentiation between nihilistic and ideological violence is crucial for effective prevention and policy-making.

1. Nihilistic Violence: Motivated by personal grievances, misanthropy, or social acceptance without political or ideological goals.
2. Ideological Violence: Driven by political, religious, or social ideologies aiming to effect change or promote a cause.

Case Studies Highlighting the Differences

• Finland School Stabbing: A 16-year-old attacker livestreamed a stabbing with motives centered on seeking significance and excitement, lacking political rationale.
• Wisconsin Double Murder: A 17-year-old with white supremacist motives planned political assassination, demonstrating ideological violence.
• Palm Springs Fertility Clinic Bombing: Motivated by anti-natalist ideology (efilism), rejecting human procreation, representing ideological extremism.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Understanding and addressing nihilistic and ideological violence is vital for advancing several SDGs:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – Preventing violence reduces injury and death, promoting mental health and safety.
• SDG 4: Quality Education – Protecting schools from violence ensures safe learning environments.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – Accurate classification and prevention of violence strengthen justice systems and promote peaceful societies.

Challenges with the Current Labeling of Nihilistic Violence

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) uses the term “Nihilistic Violent Extremism” (NVE), defined as violence driven by hatred of society and a desire for collapse through chaos. This definition has been criticized for:

• Contradicting the non-ideological nature of nihilistic violence by implying ideological goals.
• Being overly broad, encompassing many extremist groups with political motives.
• Confusing accelerationism tactics with nihilistic violence.

Misapplication of the NVE label risks obscuring true motivations, hindering targeted prevention efforts.

Impact on Law Enforcement and Prevention Strategies

Misunderstanding the drivers of violence complicates prevention and enforcement:

• Mislabeling ideologically motivated attacks as nihilistic can obscure the role of extremist ideologies such as white supremacy or anti-natalism.
• Dismissing nihilistic violence as insignificant ignores the real and frequent threat posed by non-ideological mass violence.
• Effective responses require tailored approaches including prevention programs, interventions for high-risk individuals, and intelligence-led policing.

Examples of Nihilistic Violence Affecting Vulnerable Populations

• School shootings linked to the True Crime Community, which glorifies mass killers without ideological motives.
• Activities of the 764 network, promoting violence and self-harm without a coherent ideological framework.
• A 2024 Wisconsin school shooting by a 15-year-old girl motivated by personal grievances rather than political ideology.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

1. Refine definitions distinguishing nihilistic from ideological violence to improve clarity and response effectiveness.
2. Develop prevention and intervention programs aligned with the specific motivations behind violent acts.
3. Enhance law enforcement training to recognize and address different types of violence accurately.
4. Promote community engagement and mental health support to reduce drivers of nihilistic violence.
5. Integrate violence prevention efforts with SDG targets, particularly SDG 3, SDG 4, and SDG 16.

Conclusion

Addressing the complex landscape of nihilistic and ideological violence is essential for advancing sustainable development and ensuring peaceful, inclusive societies. Accurate classification and understanding of violent acts enable effective prevention strategies that protect vulnerable populations and uphold the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Featured Image: The logo of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at the Los Angeles Federal Building during a press conference on the investigation of the May 18, 2025, fertility clinic bombing in Palm Springs, California.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article discusses mass violence, including school shootings and bombings, which directly impact physical and mental health and well-being of individuals and communities.
2. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • School shootings and attacks on educational institutions threaten safe learning environments and access to education.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article focuses heavily on violence prevention, law enforcement, and the importance of accurate classification of violent acts to improve justice and security.
   • It highlights the role of government agencies like the DOJ and FBI in addressing violent extremism and nihilistic violence.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article touches on extremist ideologies related to racism and white supremacy, which are forms of social inequality and discrimination.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment, and promote mental health and well-being.
   • Target 3.7: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, relevant in context of attacks on fertility clinics.
2. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 3 Indicators
   • Indicator 3.4.1: Mortality rate attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease.
   • Indicator 3.4.2: Suicide mortality rate (implied by discussion of mental health and self-harm in violent communities).
   • Indicator 3.7.1: Proportion of women of reproductive age who have their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods (relevant to attacks on fertility clinics).
2. SDG 4 Indicators
   • Indicator 4.a.1: Proportion of schools with access to safe and non-violent environments.
3. SDG 16 Indicators
   • Indicator 16.1.1: Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age.
   • Indicator 16.2.1: Proportion of children aged 1-17 years who experienced any physical punishment and/or psychological aggression by caregivers in the past month.
   • Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms.
   • Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services.
4. SDG 10 Indicators
   • Indicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on grounds of ethnicity, religion, or other status.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: justsecurity.org