Muskan Sangwan“The New Crusade”: What the San Diego Attackers’ Manifesto Reveals About Contemporary Radicalisation
On 18 May 2026, 18-year-old Caleb Vazquez and 17-year-old Cain Clark carried out a mass-casualty…
Claire BirchThe Montreal Manifesto: An Attempt to Intellectualise Incel Ideology
On the morning of 22 June 2026, police responded to a report of a gun…
Jake KalenderExtremist Music Communities and Online Radicalisation: The Case of the Antioch High School Shooting
On the 22nd of January 2025, Solomon Henderson (17) opened fire inside Antioch High School.…
Daniel MadsenTerrorgram’s ‘Main Voice’: Lessons From a High-Profile Danish Trial
On 20 April 2026, a Danish‑French man named Jérémy Meilhac (J.M.) was convicted in a…
Heath N. LandressBetween Meme Culture and Warning Behaviour: Interpreting Nihilistic Violence Aesthetics in Online Extremist-Adjacent Spaces
Trust-and-safety teams, school-safety staff, and prevention practitioners are increasingly asked to make sense of online…
Michael VargaThe Counterterrorism Blind Spot: AI as a Radicalisation Environment
Counterterrorism officials have learned to look for extremists across the numerous online channels they operate.…
X
An analysis of the San Diego Attackers' Manifesto by Muskan Sangwan highlights four themes: the evolving role of manifestos, symbolic identities versus organisational membership, the influence of fandom and internet culture, and emerging technologies.
In the wake of the 2026 Montreal shooting, Claire Birch examines the perpetrator's manifesto, revealing how it reframes online incel-related extreme misogyny to present it in more sanitised terms.
Today, Jake Kalender investigates the music community on SoundCloud linked to the radicalisation of Antioch High School shooter Solomon Henderson, adding to a growing body of work demonstrating the intersection between extremist art and extremist violence.
Reflecting on the April Terrorgram trial in Denmark, Daniel Madsen explores the perpetrator's role in disseminating propaganda via Terrorgram and addresses why the court chose to treat the case as a terrorism matter.