Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
1-23
Political extremism and hegemonic
crisis: the case of far-right militias
in the United States
Extremismo político e crise hegemônica:
o caso das milícias de extrema direita
nos Estados Unidos
Extremismo política y crisis de
hegemonía: el caso de las milicias de
extrema derecha en Estados Unidos
DOI: 10.21530/ci.v18n2.2023.1326
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta
1
Clarissa Nascimento Forner
2
Lívia Peres Milani
3
Abstract
This article contributes to the discussion about the global far-right,
by analyzing the sociopolitical transformations in the United States
observed during Trump administration. The investigation selects
1 Doutora em Relações Internacionais pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação San
Tiago Dantas (UNESP/ UNICAMP/ PUC-SP). Professora Adjunta em Relações
Internacionais na Universidade Federal de Sergipe – Brasil.
(b.motta@academico.ufs.br). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7791-8889.
2 Doutora em Relações Internacionais pelo Programa de Pós-graduação em Relações
Internacionais San Tiago Dantas (UNESP-UNICAMP-PUC-SP). Professora de
Relações Internacionais na Universidade São Judas Tadeu.
(clarissaforner@gmail.com). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5142-5787.
3 Doutora e mestre em Relações Internacionais pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação
em Relações Internacionais San Tiago Dantas – UNESP, UNICAMP, PUC-SP.
Pesquisadora de Pós-Doutorado da Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita
Filho. (livialpm@gmail.com). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4300-205X.
O presente artigo foi realizado com financiamento de bolsa de estudos pela
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (Capes),
no âmbito do Programa Capes-PrInt, processo nº 88887.310463/2018-00,
mobilidade nº 88887.583366/2020-00.
Artigo submetido em 16/02/2023 e aprovado em 31/07/2023.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE
RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS
ISSN 2526-9038
Copyright:
• This is an open-access
article distributed under
the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution
License, which permits
unrestricted use,
distribution, and
reproduction in any
medium, provided that
the original author and
source are credited.
• Este é um artigo
publicado em acesso aberto
e distribuído sob os termos
da Licença de Atribuição
Creative Commons,
que permite uso irrestrito,
distribuição e reprodução
em qualquer meio, desde
que o autor e a fonte
originais sejam creditados.
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
2-23
the cases of three of the most nationally relevant American militias – the Oath Keepers, the
Proud Boys and the Three Percenters – to illustrate how the ascension of far-right groups
and the contestation of liberal values in the United States transcend trumpism itself but
are connected to weakened internal hegemony and the crisis of the liberal international
order. Methodologically, the work relies on content analysis to investigate the manifestos
produced by these organizations.
Keywords: Global new right; Militias; United States; Donald Trump.
Resumo
O artigo visa contribuir ao debate sobre a nova direita global, analisando as transformações
sociopolíticas observadas nos Estados Unidos da América (EUA), durante a administração
Trump. Os casos de três das milícias mais relevantes naquele país – os Oath Keepers, os
Proud Boys e os Three Percenters – foram escolhidos para ilustrar como a ascensão de grupos
de extrema direita e a contestação de valores liberais nos EUA transcendem o trumpismo,
mas estão conectados com a hegemonia interna enfraquecida e a crise da ordem liberal
internacional. Metodologicamente, o trabalho se alicerça na análise de conteúdo para
investigar os manifestos produzidos por essas organizações.
Palavras-chave: Nova direita global; Milícias; Estados Unidos; Donald Trump.
Resumen
Este artículo tiene como objetivo contribuir a la discusión sobre la nueva derecha global,
analizando las transformaciones sociopolíticas en los Estados Unidos observadas durante la
administración Trump. Los casos de tres de las milicias estadounidenses más importantes
-los Oath Keepers, los Proud Boys y los Three Percenters- fueron elegidos para ilustrar
cómo el auge de los grupos de extrema derecha y la impugnación de los valores liberales en
Estados Unidos trascienden el propio trumpismo, pero están conectados con la hegemonía
interna debilitada y la crisis del orden internacional liberal. Metodológicamente, el trabajo
se apoya en el análisis de contenido para investigar los manifiestos producidos por estas
organizaciones
Palabras-clave: Nueva derecha global; Milicias; Estados Unidos; Donald Trump.
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
3-23
Introduction
Trump’s government is in some respects an unusual case in contemporary
American politics because, internally, it has undermined the hegemonic consensus
by contesting election results and, externally, it has impaired the diffusion of
democracy and liberalism as a guide for US foreign policy. Posen (2018, 21)
has interpreted the administration’s grand strategy as an example of “illiberal
hegemony”, meaning that it has sought to maintain US preeminence, but “has
chosen to forgo the export of democracy and abstain from many multilateral
trade agreements”. In this context, analysis considering the connections among
Trump’s administration and the crisis of the liberal international order appeared
(Ikenberry 2018 ; Norrlof 2018; Sanahuja; Burian 2020; Stokes 2018). However,
the questioning of liberal values from the United States (U.S.) transcends
Trump and has roots in social dynamics that predates and continues after
this administration.
Furthermore, the Trump government is part of a phenomenon that transcends
the U.S.: the global far-right movement. The far-right was able to win elections
around the world, but its strategy is also built on a ‘war of position’ aimed at
contesting hegemonic values in the spheres of civil society. Part of the analysis
on the global right builds on the idea of a world order crisis, connecting it to the
crisis of U.S. hegemony, however most analyses are focused on the investigation
of governments practices and discourses. Hence, the analysis of the far-right
movement should not be limited to the investigation of administrations, but
internal groups and their transnational connections must also be investigated –
since world hegemony has an internal dimension.
Hegemony was conceived by Gramsci to analyze relations of domination
and subordination among social forces in a national context. It was thought of
as a form of domination in which coercion and consensus combine, making
the use of force appear legitimate4 (Gramsci 2007). Hegemony, therefore, holds
an ideational dimension, diffused by instruments of public opinion, and is
intended to credibly present class interests as national interests. The internal
4 According to Gramsci: “The 'normal' exercise of hegemony […] is characterized by the combination of force
and consent variously balancing one another, without force exceeding consent too much. Indeed one tries to
make it appear that force is supported by the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of
public opinion – newspapers and associations […]” (Gramsci 2000, p. 261).
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
4-23
hegemony of dominant classes in powerful states may expand globally, and an
international hegemony relates to the creation and leadership of an international
order (Arrighi 1990; Cox 1983). US hegemony – or world leadership, in a
liberal reading – is connected to the creation of the liberal international order
(LIO) in the post Second World War context (Ikenberry 2011). Nowadays, the
crisis of U.S. hegemony connects both to the crisis of the LIO and to internal
phenomena.
We aim to contribute to the literature on the connections between the far-right
movement and the crisis of the LIO by analyzing social and political transformation
in the U.S. which are connected to trumpism, but also transcends it. We argue
that far-right elements and the contestation of liberal values in the U.S. has a
long history and is older and deeper than trumpism, but the strengthening of
such phenomena is related to weakened internal hegemony and the crisis of the
LIO. Following Babic’s (2020) proposition of three levels of analysis to understand
the crisis of the LIO, which are i) global political economy; ii) the state-level
and; iii) society-level, in this article we focus on the second and third levels,
aiming to grasp some of the interconnections among them. With this in mind,
we present some of Trumpism key mottos and analyze the opening manifestos
of the three most known American militias with a national outreach. We have
chosen to analyze the militias because they behave as organizations and have
a hierarchical structure. The Three Percenters, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers
were selected because they are the only nationally relevant militias and there is
empirical material produced by them that is available online. Therefore, among
the extreme-right groups, they have a significant role in the “war of position”
strategy, and it’s possible to analyze their discourses.
These empirical investigations help us to present the liberal order crisis
in broad terms, complementing the literature that evaluates this phenomenon
regarding mainly the international level and presidents’ narratives, and also
showing the grassroots of the liberal contestation in the U.S., through these
groups individually and in their connections with Trump’s key political ideas.
The article is divided into three sections: in the first, the conceptual framework is
presented, as well as the contextualization of the global far-right, in the second,
there is a discussion on trumpism and its social drivers and, finally, the third
one follows a content analysis and discusses the militias in the U.S.
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
5-23
The global new right and the Liberal International Order crisis
Cooley and Nexon’s (2020) description of the components of the liberal
international order helps to organize the analysis. According to them, the
LIO is composed of three pillars: i) political liberal governance (comprising
democratic political systems and human rights), ii) economic liberalism (belief
in free economic exchange), and iii) liberal intergovernmentalism (multilateral
organization and cooperation). The LIO is led by the U.S., but it admittedly
has been “unevenly, or inconsistently, liberal with respect to all three of these
dimensions” (Cooley; Nexon 2020, 23). It has originated in the post-Second
World War context, but, arguably, internal changes occurred in the following
decades, such as the strengthening of financial liberalization – which connects to
globalization and neoliberalism – and the incorporation of ideas relating to gender
equality and multiculturalism. According to critical assessments, US leadership
has instrumentalized the rhetoric on democracy, free trade, and multilateralism
to promote their national interest, moreover, its acting is permeated with racist
and class-based assumptions (Parmar 2018).
Nevertheless, political liberalism, free-trade and multilateralism compose
the legitimization of the LIO . The defense of liberal values and their export has
been relatively consensual in the context of US foreign policy. Hence, the election
of former president Trump caused turmoil since it was based on a political
platform critical to those liberal principles. The former president promoted
economic nationalism and an anti-globalization narrative, as well as praised allied
dictators and authoritarian foreign leaders who ruled in countries adversaries
to the U.S., such as Vladimir Putin. Trump also undermined national traditions
and questioned election results by claiming fraud without presenting evidence.
The Trump administration was not unique, but part of a global movement:
the surge and/or strengthening of new political rights, that are diverse and
heterogeneous but dialogue transnationally and share a critical narrative about
the globalization process. From a liberal perspective, Cooley and Nexon (2020,
p. 139) argue that “the transnational right, however fragmented and diverse,
explicitly opposes important aspects of international liberal ordering”. From an
IPS standpoint, Abrahamsen et al (2020, p. 97) argue that thinkers from the
global right developed a critique of globalization, based on a shared discourse
in opposition to “elites” and global liberalism. From a Gramscian perspective,
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
6-23
Worth (2019) observes many ambiguities and contradictions on the far-right
economic agenda, but clear contestation of cultural and social phenomena
linked to globalization. Drawing from their critique of globalization, Sanahuja
and Burian (2020) propose conceptualizing them as the “neo-patriotic” far-right.
Among the common characteristics is a critique of globalization, based on
the construction of global liberal elites as the enemy (Abrahamsen et al. 2020;
Worth 2019). For their understanding of globalization, culture and identity are
central elements and they oppose multiculturalism and fear a homogenization
of culture. Among the specificities of the far-right in the U.S. is the “fear of big
government”, reflecting a “belief that there was a need to protect the Constitution
from the forces of government”, expressed mainly by armed militias (Worth 2019,
34). In the country there is both fear of the federal government and international
institutions that presumably operate above that government. Therefore, the
global far-right contest especially liberal intergovernmentalism, the third pillar
of the LIO, several far-right groups contest aspects of political liberal governance,
especially when it comes to human rights from diverse minorities, and some of
them also contest economic liberalism.
Far-right movements also promote a similar narrative when it comes to
contesting globalization and multilateral institutions. Their exchanges are established
via study networks, book editing, conferences, and the digital world. They
also share tactics and agendas such as the defense of tradition, a nationalist
discourse, and an aesthetic of their own (Abrahamsen et al. 2020; Drolet; Williams
2022; Mudde 2019; Sanahuja; Burian 2020). Moreover, they represent a form of
reactionary internationalism, rejecting globalization, which in the view of such
groups, promotes decadence of tradition and community (Sanahuja; Burian
2020,
30). They recover a nationalist rhetoric, conceiving the multilateral institutions
as impediments to national sovereignty. Nativism, or ethnic nationalism, is also
part of their shared worldview. It relates to a combination of nationalism and
xenophobia, in which those who are not perceived as natives (such as migrants and
their descendants) are seen as a threat to the nation’s homogeneity (Mudde 2019).
The global far-right is part of the current international order crisis of legitimacy,
a multidimensional crisis involving inter-state and intra-state phenomena. This
crisis is related not only to the decline of US power and the rise of non-Western
states but also to the impairment of norms, values and institutions. Drawing from
a critical perspective, the far-right movement signals an interregnum, meaning a
long period of instability and uncertainty that may extend for decades. Babic calls
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
7-23
us to understand this crisis “as a distinct and decisive period for world affairs”
(Babic 2020, 768). Drawing from Gramsci, he points out that the crisis is defined
not as a shock, but as a process originating in the contradictions of the existing
order and relates to a “mismatch between represented and representatives”,
which surfaces at the election of leaders who contest apparently consensual
values (Babic 2020, 772).
The crisis of authority was discussed by Gramsci as the period of transition,
when the system of rule is declining, but has not been surpassed. According
to a known affirmative by him “the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the
old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of
morbid symptoms appear” (Gramsci 1999, 556). In other words, we experience
a crisis of the LIO, but there is still no replacement for it. The existence of morbid
symptoms does not necessarily represent the end of the liberal world order, but
its increased instability (Worth 2019). According to Babic (2020, 773):
If we translate this pattern to the level of world order, we can see a number
of phenomena—for example, the rise of political leaders who undermine
existing institutions and rules; an open hostility towards principles such as
multilateral cooperation; and an emptying of core values such as democratic
solidarity—as moments of morbidity that cannot be captured by the logic of
the LIO itself. They represent problematic developments that erode the LIO
without offering a new stable equilibrium that could replace the old order.
In addition to helping understand the current crisis, a Gramscian perspective
brings two other relevant contributions: it helps understand the connection between
internal and external issues and it also contributes to analyzing the strategies
of far-right movements. Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks were mainly concerned
with the Italian context, but he made some suggestions about international
relations, many of them reinterpreted by Cox (1983; 1981). One of such ideas is
the deconstruction of a separation between internal and external phenomena.
According to the Italian politologist, the drivers of international relations are in
social relations, therefore international developments cannot be disconnected
from internal politics5. As Cox (1983) pointed out, hegemony was thought of as a
concept to understanding the leadership of dominant classes internally, but this
is internationalized. International hegemony is built through the expansion of
5 As he states: “Do international relations precede or follow (logically) fundamental social relations? There can
be no doubt that they follow.” (Gramsci 1999, p. 398).
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
8-23
ideas and institutions promoted by the dominant classes in an internal context
and involves the construction of an international order (Cox 1983).
Moreover, the concepts of ‘war of movement’ and ‘war of position’ contribute
to understand the strategies of the contemporary global right. A ‘war of movement’
was thought of as a strategy based on ascending to power by taking over state
apparatus, traditionally through a revolution. A ‘war of positions’ is a strategy
based on acquiring ground at civil society institutions, such as the media, schools
and universities, and non-governmental bodies (Cox 1983). It aims to question
the ‘common sense’ and win hearts and minds (Worth 2019).
The global right is following this second strategy, aiming to acquire ground
not only by ascending to executive position, but also diffusing its narrative in the
social apparatus. This is done by appropriating Gamsci’s analysis for their own
ends (Abrahamsen et al. 2020). They aim to contest principles that constitute
the aspects of the world order, by questioning aspects of liberal governance,
globalization and multilateral organization, even when maintaining ambiguity
in their economic agenda. Therefore, studying administration’s actions and
behavior is relevant, but insufficient to fully understand the global far-right, since
this movement also aims to expand its influence and world view via grassroots
movements. In the following sections, we provide a more detailed assessment
of Trumpism and bring a panorama on the US militias.
The structural transformations in the United States
The election of Trump raised profound questions and concerns regarding the
resilience of the LIO. More importantly, it brought serious doubts about American
willingness to preserve its relevant and historical role, as the administration
promoted rhetorical and concrete actions against international treaties and
institutions, such as NATO, the Paris Climate Accords, and the United Nations. In
different contexts, Trump criticized these multiple multilateral organizations for
being, in his words, “obsolete”, “unfair” and, above all things, for imposing costs
and restrictions on US capabilities that ultimately made possible the combination
between what was perceived as the expression of the American decay and the
consolidation of the so called “revisionist” (The White House 2017) powers
such as China and Russia. Trump also diminished the relevance of defending
democracy as an organizing concept for U.S. Foreign policy discourse and has
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
9-23
praised authoritarian leaders. Although one might consider such claims as mere
rhetorical exaggerations, the “anti-globalist” fervor resonated profoundly amongst
Trump supporters.
Many mediatic assessments on the 2016 presidential elections painted Donald
Trump medium voters as a group of nostalgic “left-behind people” – mostly
white, middle aged middle-class men, who supposedly felt excluded from the
main social transformations observed in the country during the last five decades.
However, these individuals cannot be considered as a homogeneous group. As
pointed out by Crothers (2019), what came to be labeled as the “right wing” in
the United States political scenario, especially after Trump’s election is actually
a very “polyglot group” (Crothers 2019, 1) including: i) traditional conservatives
that didn’t feel represented in the Republican party, ii) white supremacists (such
as the so called “Alt-right” movement), and iii) the armed militias.
In such a diverse environment, Trump’s successful political strategy consisted
in organizing elements around which those groups seemed to converge, described
by Restad (2020) as the main pillars of the “America first” foreign policy motto:
a) resistance to globalization; b) opposition to liberal internationalism; c) and
ethnic nationalism. Combined with “anti-globalism”, Trump supporters have
found in globalization their explanation for some of the social “evils” that in
their perspective haunted American society, namely immigration, organized
crime, drug abuse and, more recently, terrorism.
Globalization was also concretely connected to income inequality and the
deteriorating economic conditions, observed since the 1980s and aggravated
after the 2008 financial crisis and one expensive “Global War on Terror”. In more
precise terms, Stokes (Stokes 2018, 146) recently stated that:
[…] income inequality in the United States has grown considerably and
wage stagnation is widespread. The data show that in real terms the
average wage peaked more than 40 years ago, with the top 1 per cent of
wages growing by 138 per cent since 1979, while wages for the bottom 90
per cent grew by just 15 per cent.
In this context, Trump received support from those groups and regions –
mostly in manufacturing states – that felt more deeply affected by the rising
economic competition in global markets and were equally “deluded” by the
unfulfilled Democrat promises of hope and change elaborated during the Obama
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
10-23
administration (2009-2017). These complexities were also portrayed by Stokes
(2018, 147) as it follows:
Among the non-college-educated white working class (the so-called
‘precariat’) Trump won 67 per cent of the popular vote (to Hillary Clinton’s
28 per cent), with one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-
class supporters shifting from the Democrats in 2016[…]. Trump also
received support from those manufacturing states that were most at risk
from outsourcing and increased global manufacturing competition […]
Trump’s discourse explicitly tapped into these voters’ sense of economic
insecurity and their desire to reverse globalization. Americans, he explained,
‘must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our
products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs’: protection,
he asserted, ‘will lead to great prosperity and strength’. In so doing, he
appealed to the rational self- interest of those who have often been left
behind by processes of globalization.
By vaguely promising to restore American national industry, wages and
“glorious” past, Trump did more than just reaching out to the “hearts and minds”
of those socially and economically excluded from globalization. One of the main
triumphs of his political strategy was the instrumentalization of the contradictions
that seemed embedded in neoliberal globalization and the reinforcement of their
connection to the institutions that sustained the LIO.
In the U.S., the debates regarding what international role should America
play are not new. In fact, the most common narrative in US foreign policy
opposes two main political strands, the “liberal internationalist” tradition, and
the “isolationist” one. The former became predominant in the post-1945 context
and represented America’s compromise to the promotion of liberal values and
institutions, perceived as the most efficient way of preserving its international
leadership.
On the other hand, the isolationist tradition, generally interpreted as the
rejection of permanent alliances until the 20th century (Rosati; Scott 2011), has
been sometimes associated to unilateral, protectionist or nationalist sentiments
that became more present in American domestic realm since the 1970s and after
the erosion of the so called “bipartisan consensus”(Kupchan; Trubowitz, 2007).
The consensus was characterized as a tacit agreement between Republicans
and Democrats when it came to foreign policy issues, despite their domestic
differences. In other words, it was the affirmation of the political motto “politics
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
11-23
stops at the water’s edge”, meaning that even when the parties would diverge
in domestic issues, these divergences shouldn’t affect America´s mission abroad
or, more importantly, its liberal inclinations well defined by Restad (2020) as
the “American creed”.
The increasing polarization and the social transformations observed more
intensely after the Vietnam War (1955-1975) brought the end of the bipartisan
consensus and strengthened more dissonant and often extreme political voices
which, in the most recent context, led us to the so called “Trumpism” meaning
that Trump is more a symptom than a cause of these complex historical patterns.
Regarding specifically the LIO, such patterns gradually intensified the domestic
disbelief about its benefits and advantages and nurtured far right conspiracy
interpretations that associated liberal institutions to a phantasmagoric “shadow
government” (Crothers 2019) that supposedly connected America liberal elites
to the international organizations in order to submit the country to the “new
world order”. This idea has been incorporated by groups such as the Alt-right
and QAnon, but also by the armed militia as explained by Crothers (2019, p. 12):
This shadow government is believed to serve the interests of some
“other”- the United Nations, the international banking community (and
thus, according to some militia rhetoric, the Zionist conspiracy of Nazi
ideology), or the preferences of some other international elite. The rulers
of this shadow government have hired the agents of the U.S. government
to enforce their will […] For alt-righters, problems like crime, or illegal
immigration, or global economic competition are the result of policies
and programs actively promoted by liberals and progressives. Liberals
and progressives are believed to be working to undermine the “American
way” in favor of some cosmopolitan, “politically correct,” diverse future.
One last aspect regarding Trump’s “America first” policy and its domestic
consequences should be noted: ethnic nationalism. For Restad (2020), “ethnic
nationalism” contradicts the main liberal principles that have guided US nation-
building since the 20th century such as the ideal of the American society as a
plural, multicultural, multiracial “nation of immigrants”. These principles and
narratives have historically embodied “civic nationalism”, the domestic mirror
for liberal internationalism abroad.
On the other hand, “ethnic nationalism” promoted by Trump and his
supporters represented the rejection of all kinds of cultural and ethnical integration
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
12-23
reinforcing the exclusionary Western and white supremacy. As pointed out by
Restad (2020) even though the tensions between the imagined multicultural
nation and the materially segregated one were always present in American
history, Trump seriously weakened the hegemonic liberal narrative by openly
attacking immigrants, racial minorities and being at the same time complacent
to the white supremacist groups, as illustrated by the presidential reactions to
the Charlottesville violent episodes, in 20176. Conversely, Trump’s actions and
the mobilization of supporters were facilitated by an already existent ideological
terrain in which racism and exclusion were present, even if not openly claimed.
The presidential endorsement for those domestic groups not only disseminated
undemocratic values but also are virtually opposed to all the main pillars which
sustain US hegemony abroad. As interpreted by Restad (2020) these groups
represent a reactionary force against the ideals of progress and modernity usually
associated with liberal values. By defying these ideals, the reactionary movement
violently discloses the contradictions identified in the liberal system (Parmar 2018)
but does so in a clearly authoritarian manner. Ironically, by promoting violence
and ethnically based hierarchies, right wing groups seem to reproduce, openly
and without boundaries, the same violent, unequal and racially based structures
that have sustained the liberal order and US hegemony in the last decades.
When it comes to militia groups, this association is reinforced by Crothers
(2019) who solely affirms that “contemporary militia is not alien or exceptional” in
American political life. The same values and ideologies that have informed militia
actions are the ones that have always been part of the American sociopolitical
fabric, namely the reification of freedom, liberty and the promotion of violence
and self-defense as a private right. In fact, these groups search for justification
for their actions by portraying themselves as the legitimate protectors of the
traditional American values and culture, or of what they think these values and
culture should be (Crothers 2019). For these reasons, we understand the militia
groups to be a useful case of analysis regarding the impacts of domestic factors
and actors in the transformation of hegemonic orders. In the next section, we
will present the main contemporary features of these groups.
6 The episode involved violent clashes between white supremacist groups and left-wing protesters over the
removal of a statue representing the Confederate general Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville, Virginia. On the
occasion, Trump refused to condemn the armed white supremacist groups and affirmed that there were “very
fine people” on both sides.
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
13-23
Militias: institutional distrust, private violence,
and ethnic nationalism
Currently, there are three major militia groups in the U.S. with a national
outreach: the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and the Oath Keepers. To
understand the crisis of LIO and show the interconnections among Trump’s
America First main mottos, here understood as the state-level of analysis, and
the ideas proposed by right-wing militias in the U.S, the society-level of analysis,
we evaluated each of those group’s political manifestos and other statements
made by their founders. The manifestos were selected because they represent
the most important document through which their founders present the group’s
ideas, motives, and raison d’être. Our investigation was held with a content
analysis, in which we map out the groups’ discursive topography and main
antiliberal arguments, utilizing three categories of analysis: the nostalgia of a past
without liberal (political and cultural) values, a distrust towards international and
domestic institutions, and ethnic nationalism, and correlate them with Trump’s
main political mottos, presented in the previous section.
In general, regarding this debate’s specificities, private militias are distinguished
from the other right-wing organizations in mainly two fields: their hierarchical
militarist structure and the promotion of violence as their preferred means for
political action. In the first case, contemporary militia inspiration and origins can
be clearly traced back to the proto-military units established in the American War
of Independence who were responsible for the country’s protection until the late
19
th
century, when the first professionalized military units became predominant.
Contemporary militia resembles the main principles behind the early-stage militia
formations, more specifically, the volunteerism symbolized by the “citizen-soldier”
or, as described in the traditional historical narrative, the “common”, brave and
loyal citizens that, in some circumstances, chose to sacrifice their lives in order to
defend nation’s freedoms and security from the threats coming from the domestic
or external “others” – usually represented by hostile nations, immigrants, black
enslaved communities and native indigenous people.
However, the main difference between the “new” and the “old” militia lies in
the fact that the old formations were governmental organizations, and the new ones
are private structures. Still, the modern paramilitary militia searches for legitimation
by attaching its identity to legendary militia units such as the “Minutemen” who
fought for US independence in 1776. But the historical narrative is not the only
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
14-23
source of legitimacy instrumentalized by the movement: they also rely on the
Second Amendment of the US Constitution which states that: “A well-regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (United States of America 1787).
Even though one might argue that the “well-regulated militia” refers to
the above-mentioned federal units, the modern paramilitary units generally
appeal for the Second Amendment to justify their actions and, more profoundly,
to defend the rights of private civilians to bear in arms to protect individual
freedoms from the excesses of a hypothetical authoritarian government (Rogers
2021). Conversely if the US Constitution does not incentivize the formation of
paramilitary militia, it also does not forbid their existence either.
According to Crothers (2019), the contemporary militia became stronger in the
1990s, and after a long period of political ostracism, began to rise again, during
the transition between Bush and Obama administrations. When it comes to their
social background, militia-member are usually male and many of them have a
past in the armed or security forces. One of the main motivations behind this
“militia re-birth” was the rise of the Tea Party, a far-right political movement that
won political expression in the 2008 presidential elections by electing Sarah Palin
as the vice-presidential running mate for the Republican candidate John McCain.
The other relevant reason was the internet: the social media became the
most prominent recruitment channels for paramilitary organizations; this
relevance became especially clear during the 2020 elections and the Covid-19
pandemic (Thompson-Deveaux; Smith 2020). For instance, members of the
militia organizations that supported President Trump such as the so called “Three
percenters” and the “Oath keepers” used social media not only to spread fake news
about the Democrat candidate Joe Biden but also to disseminate “operational”
plans of action, involving physical training and preparation allegedly aimed against
left-wing political movements such as the Antifa and the “Black Lives Matter”.
Moreover, the same organizations engaged in election monitoring activities after
the several and groundless presidential accusations about electoral fraud in the
2020 vote counting.
Although not all private militias are self-identified to right wing extremist
groups (Rogers 2021), the most prominent contemporary armed organizations
that showed support for Trump administration seem to share with right wing
representatives some relevant political platforms such as: the exclusionary nativism;
the promotion of conservative values and ideals often expressed in nostalgic
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
15-23
claims for the reconstruction of an idealized American “glorious past”; lack
of trust in federal government; and the association between left-wing parties
and traditional liberal elites to what is perceived as the “perversion” of true
American values and ideals (Crothers 2019). The anti-government and anti-elite
populist sentiments were highly mobilized by Trump’s presidency enhancing the
identification between these groups and the Republican commander in chief.
The Proud Boys militia, founded in 2016, is an example of a group that gained
considerable new members after Trump’s presidency. In an article announcing the
founding of the militia in the far-right Taki’s Magazine, its founder, Gavin McInnes,
presented some of the group’s values through its process of membership. The
hierarchical structure and the tasks demanded to evolve in it, thus becoming a
senior – known as third-degree proud boy – reflects some of the aforementioned
political platforms. For instance, to enter the group one must publicly declare to
be a Proud Boy, which means to “make [one’s] Western chauvinism public and
(...) don’t care who knows it”(McInnes 2016). According to McInnes (2016), the
Western chauvinism means longing for “the days when girls were girls and men
were men” and for a time when there were no social justice warriors, constantly
promoting progressive, left-wing or liberal values, such as feminism, civil rights,
and multiculturalism. McInnes (2016) proclaims the members diversity, denying
the accusation of belonging to a “white supremacist organization”, but he is
bluntly open in arguing that the Western culture is superior to other cultures,
and he denies the responsibility of the white men in existing inequalities.
When McInnes mentions in the group’s first manifesto that Proud Boys
have “absolutely no respect for feminists but venerate the housewife so much”
(McInnes 2016) and that to reach a second-degree membership the candidate must
endure a beating until he mentions five breakfast cereals, he not only reinforces
a stereotypical image of men and women imbued in the social construction of
the patriarchy, but also brings the nostalgia of better old days when so-called
modern values had not perverted American and Western society.
This nostalgia is also identified in both Three Percenters, founded in 2008, and
Oath Keepers, founded in 2009, manifestos when they mention specific moments
of U.S. history. For instance, the opening statement of the Three Percenters blog
justify the group’s name by affirming that “during the American Revolution, the
active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than
3% of the colonists” and the group “today identify with this 3% because they
were true patriots fighting for the freedoms the nation we love and honor was
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
16-23
founded upon”(Vanderboegh s.d.). The American Revolution is then epitomized
as a moment of courage and patriotism, in which citizens took in their own
hands the fight for freedom. The Three Percenters objective was to “maintain
their God-given natural rights to liberty and property” (Vanderboegh s.d.) and
because “history itself, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities”, the U.S.
government should not “underestimate the power of a small group of committed
citizens to change the world” (Vanderboegh s.d.). The Oath Keepers recur to the
same point in history to construct their manifesto called “Orders we will not obey”,
also regarding the American Revolution as a glorious moment against tyranny.
In these two groups, this nostalgia is combined with a distrust towards
international and domestic institutions, especially the U.S federal government. In
debates over gun control, all groups not only manifested their contrary opinion,
but also defended violent measures against political figures, or simply against “the
government”. In their view, those laws are unconstitutional and a clear illustration
of an overbearing government that wants to subjugate all citizens by extinguishing
their “natural rights (...) to keep and bear arms” (Rhodes 2009). Whereas Steward
Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder, in the group’s manifesto affirmed the group
would not obey “any order to disarm the American people”(Rhodes 2009), in
the “Doctrine of the Three Percenter” the group declares “we will not disarm”
(Vanderboegh s.d.). This anti-government sentiment comes attached to a sense
of urgency and duty to defend the Republic. For instance, the Oath Keepers
manifesto starts affirming that a time such as the American Revolution “is near
at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the
Courage and Conduct of this Army” (Rhodes 2009).
The right to armed resistance against perceived abuse of power/or tyranny by
the federal government is considered a fundamental right in the Three Percenters
manifesto. It claims the existence of “domestic enemies of the Constitution” while
locating the militia movement as “the guardian of, and the true expression of
the will of, the people.” It also asserts that “we are committed to the restoration
of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any
would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution”
(Vanderboegh 2014). The Three Percenters view politics as a corrupt terrain while
conceiving armed resistance as a way to restore the original Republic. Similarly,
the first order the Oath Keepers promise not to obey is to disarm the population,
arguing that people should be able to self-defend their “natural rights” and retain
“[…] effective final recourse to arms […] in the face of tyranny” (Rhodes 2009).
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
17-23
In this sense, the complex and unfinished debate regarding gun control in the
country transcends the militia organizations, but it seems reasonable to assume
that by defending the private right to the use of force these groups may find
strong margins of support between those sociopolitical movements who oppose
gun control and had also endorsed Trump’s election, such as the National Rifle
Association (NRA). Therefore, the use of force and violence against political
opponents – who are depicted as enemies – becomes one of the most important
features of today´s militia organization, reinforcing its undemocratic nature.
The other one, as mentioned above, is related to its militarist and hierarchical
structure. In some circumstances, the international institutions or a so-called
global elite, formed in the connections between the American political elite with
its international counterparts, is perceived as another enemy. The eighth order
the Oath Keepers assert they will not obey is “to assist or support the use of any
foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to ‘keep the peace’ or
to ‘maintain control’” as they “consider such use of foreign troops against our
people to be an invasion and an act of war” (Rhodes 2009).
Whereas the conservative nature of the Oath Keepers and the Three
Percenters are mainly related to their contestation of political liberalism and
liberal intergovernmentalism, especially in Oath Keepers case, in Proud Boys’
presentation statement Gavin McInnes stresses the cultural and moral conservative
components of the group. To become a second-degree proud boy, besides the
beating, the candidate is only allowed to watch “porn only once every 30 days”
(McInnes 2016). According to McInnes (2016), the “#nowanks” policy is what
mostly improved the life of the group’s members because “it gets young men
off the couch and talking to women […]” (McInnes 2016). This requirement
in combination with the group’s contempt for feminism, civil rights, and
multiculturalism shows their contestation of liberal values and the “globalism”
process that helped spread them.
The ethnic nationalism is another component in these groups’ manifestos
and their founders’ statements, and they appear in multiple formats: from blatant
examples of racism and xenophobia to subtle though problematic ones. Apart
from the emblematic “10 Things I Like About White Guys,” published by McInnes
(2017) at Taki’s Magazine in 2017, the Proud Boys founder affirmed in an op-ed
piece to American Renaissance that “they insist America is a racist hellhole where
‘people of color’ have no future. This does way more damage to Black youth than
the KKK” (McInnes 2014)because when “you strip people of culpability and tell
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
18-23
them the odds are stacked against them, they don’t feel like trying. White liberals
make this worse by then using affirmative action to ‘correct’ society’s mistakes”
(McInnes 2014). Following on his argument, McInnes (2014) complements:
The white liberal ethos tells us Blacks aren’t at MIT because of racism (...)
When Blacks are forced into schools, they aren’t qualified for they have
no choice but to drop out. Instead of going back a step to a school they
can handle, they tend to give up on higher education entirely. Thanks to
the Marxist myth of ubiquitous equality, this ‘mismatch’ leaves Blacks less
educated than they would have been had they been left to their own devices.
Racism is also combined with a fear of the left. This link is usually perceived
by these groups in a chain of cause and effect: as the national elites get in touch
with liberal and Marxist values, they socialize them internally and internationally,
producing not only an international consensus over those values, but mainly a
homogenization of national societies, supplanting traditional values. In Rhodes
words commenting on immigration to the U.S., “this is a military invasion by the
cartels and a political coup by the domestic Marxist controlled left, which sees
open borders and mass-illegal invasion as their ticket to permanent illegitimate
political power” and “This invasion/coup must be stopped” because “This is a
matter of national security […]” (Rhodes 2018). These statements are illustrative
of how the aforementioned three pillars of Trumpism – resistance to globalization;
opposition to liberal internationalism; and ethnic nationalism – are articulated
throughout most far-right American militias. In brief terms, the globalization
and the political elites engaged in this process are perceived as responsible for
advancing liberal and left ideas, thus imposing values that erase patriotic, national,
and traditional values in the name of so-called common international values.
Another interesting characteristic of the Oath Keepers is its requirement for
membership. Differently from the Proud Boys that only accepts men, the Oath
Keepers do not have a restraint on the criteria of sex. Instead, to be a member
one must already have taken an oath to the U.S. constitution when becoming
part of law enforcement or military personnel. This characteristic speaks directly
to the American extreme-right milita’s relation with the use of force and their
hierarchical structure. Even though the internet has increased the horizontality
in such groups, their very nature still resembles the hierarchies observed in
military formations, often presenting military ranks and titles, such as “colonel”
(Crothers 2019) between their members. The militarist traces are intensified by
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
19-23
the fact that, in many cases, militia members are also retired military officials, as
especially in the case of the Oath Keepers. Narrowly speaking, the paramilitary
formations tend to encompass a very specific type of military, mostly special
forces veterans, such as the Green Berets and the Navy Seals.
This distinction becomes relevant if one considers that a growing body of
literature on US armed forces has described the special forces battalions not only
as the leading forces behind America´s “shadow wars” (Scahill 2013) – covert
operations conducted all over the globe allegedly justified as counterterrorism
efforts – but also as the most violent and insubordinate factions in today’s US
military forces. Since special forces are not submitted to the same rules applied
to the conventional troops, their members tend to despise what they interpret as
the bureaucratic inefficiency of traditional military ranks (Murray and Quainton
2014). Therefore, it seems not inaccurate to affirm that special forces units are
designed as paramilitary forces inside US conventional forces. As such, their
shared sense of community and loyalty are strongly directed to their fellow
soldiers rather than to the formal governmental institutions. Uncoincidentally,
the same disdain for federal authorities and faith in “community” that work as
the backbone for the modern right-wing militia organizations.
As presented above, the militias analyzed in this article were created before
Trump’s administration, which indicates that the armed militia is not unique
to the Trump era, but his presidency has certainly provided a new breath for
the paramilitary “renaissance”. More importantly, Trump openly endorsed their
actions, as it became clear at the end of his administration, when many right-
wing protestors (militias included) broke into the Capitol Hill to manifest their
opposition against President Joe Biden. The strengthening of far-right militias
in the last decade show how liberal values, which compose the legitimation of
ruling classes hegemony, are contested internally. They represent some of the
“morbid symptoms” which reflect the crisis of authority in the U.S.
Final Remarks
In this article, we have argued that the crisis of the LIO connects, among
other phenomena, to internal dynamics in the U.S., such as the contestation
of liberal values by political actors and grassroots movements. Even though
these phenomena do not represent a novelty, their empowerment challenges
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
20-23
the legitimacy of the American dominant classes’ hegemony, internally and
externally. Trump’s government benefited from and reinforced anti-globalization
narratives, ethnic nationalism, and opposition to international liberalism. Armed
militias contest the liberal values that legitimize the LIO, such as democracy
and pluralism, and weaken the internal hegemony of U.S. dominant classes by
reproducing an anti-government and anti-institutions narrative.
For instance, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters leaders claim the legitimacy
of armed resistance by a minority against perceived tyranny and promote an
organization that is hierarchized and based on violence, equating liberty to
the right to bear arms. Proud Boys’ leadership reaffirms ethnic nationalism
and contests the cultural and moral progressive values present in the LIO by
reaffirming patriarchal and racist worldviews. The ideas proposed by these
groups as well as some of its members were directly connected to the Capitol
Hill invasion in 2020. With the empirical investigation of each of those group’s
political manifestos and other statements made by their founders, this article
was able to present each group’s key ideas and correlate them with the debate
on the LIO crisis and the wakening of U.S. hegemony.
As a response to the January 6th event and the perception that these group’s
narrative are at the bottom of this phenomenon, the new Democrat administration
issued the first edition of the “National strategy for countering domestic terrorism”
(published in June 2021). The publication refers explicitly to racial-oriented
violence as well as to the fear provoked by white supremacist groups that have
been present in US history such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). In addition, “domestic
terrorism” is defined, among other components, as activities that “appear to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government
by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” (The White House 2021, 8).
Moreover, the Department of Justice has been conducting investigations
on the individuals present in the invasion of the Capitol Hill and on Trump’s
responsibility. One of the most prominent trials was Stewart Rhodes’, the founder
and leader of the Oath Keepers, who was accused of many conspiracy charges
but only convicted of seditious conspiracy. The National strategy for countering
domestic terrorism, plus efforts to charge and eventually convict individuals
present at the invasion, especially the ones that are key members of right-wing
militias, as in the case of Rhodes, show that Biden’s administration is willing to
not let this event go unpunished. The investigation against Trump, however, is
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
21-23
still underway. Although charged with four crimes, no former American president
has ever been indicted for criminal conduct. Plus, even if Trump is convicted,
he might still run for office in 2024.
This political moment’s unprecedented character aside, the new governmental
strategy seems to reinforce the perception that Trumpism goes well beyond
Trump. The same might be affirmed when it comes to the militia organizations
and the other right-wing social movements that despite their differences seem
to share one single clear message: the liberal hegemonic institutions that we
once knew as the main expressions of the US international leadership do not
speak for everyone in the country. What voices will be able to speak loudly and,
more importantly, what kind of visions they will bring regarding the future of
the American power are still a matter for the unknown.
References
Abrahamsen, Rita, Jean-François Drolet, Alexandra Gheciu, Karin Narita, Srdjan Vucetic, e
Michael Williams. 2020. “Confronting the International Political Sociology of the New
Right”. International Political Sociology 14 (1): 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olaa001.
Arrighi, Giovani. 1990. “The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism”. Review
(Fernand Braudel Center), 13 (3): 365–408.
Babic, Milan. 2020. “Let’s talk about the interregnum: Gramsci and the crisis of the
liberal world order”. International Affairs 96 (3): 767–86. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz254.
Cooley, Alexander, e Daniel Nexon. 2020. Exit from hegemony: the unraveling of the
American global order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, Robert W. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501.
COX, Robert W. 1983. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in
Method”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12 (2): 162–75. https://doi.
org/10.1177/03058298830120020701.
Crothers, Lane. 2019. Rage on the right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby
Ridge to the Trump Presidency. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Drolet, Jean-Francois, e Michael C Williams. 2022. “From critique to reaction: The new
right, critical theory and international relations”. Journal of International Political
Theory 18 (1): 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882211020409.
Political extremism and hegemonic crisis: the case of far-right militias in the United States
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
22-23
Gramsci, Antonio. 1999. Selection From the Prison Notebooks. London: Elec Books.
Gramsci, Antonio . 2000. The Gramsci Reader. Selected Writings 1916-1935. New York:
New York University Press.
Gramsci, Antonio. 2007. Cadernos do Cárcere. Maquiavel. Notas sobre o Estado e a
Política. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Ikenberry, John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan. The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the
American World Order. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John. The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, v. 94,
n. 1, p. 7-23, 2018.
Kupchan, Charles A., e Peter L. Trubowitz. 2007. “Dead Center: The Demise of
Liberal Internationalism in the United States”. International Security 32 (2): 7–44.
https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.7.
McInnes, Gavin. 2014. “America in 2034”. American Renaissance. 17 de junho de 2014.
https://archive.is/9glnq#selection-317.0-317.15.
McInnes, Gavin.. 2016. “Introducing: The Proud Boys”. 15 de setembro de 2016.
https://www.takimag.com/article/introducing_the_proud_boys_gavin_mcinnes/.
McInnes, Gavin.. 2017. “10 Things I Like About White Guys”. 2 de março de 2017. https://
www.takimag.com/article/10_things_i_like_about_white_guys_gavin_mcinnes/.
Mudde, Cas. 2019. The Far Right Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Murray, Shoon, Anthony Quainton. 2014. “Combatant Commanders, Ambassadorial
Authority, and the Conduct of Diplomacy”. Em Mission Creep: The militarization
of US foreign policy?, editado por Gordon ADAMS e Shoon MURRAY, 166–91.
Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Norrlof, Carla, 2018. Hegemony and inequality. Trump and the liberal playbook.
International Affairs, vol.94, n.1: 63-88.
Parmar, Inderjeet. 2018. “The US-led liberal order: imperialism by another name?”
International Affairs 97 (2): 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix240.
Posen, Barry. 2018. “The Rise of Illiberal Hegemony: Trump’s Surprising Grand Strategy”.
Foreign Affairs 97 (2): 20–27.
Restad, Hilde Eliassen. 2020. “What makes America great? Donald Trump, national
identity, and U.S. foreign policy”. Global Affairs 6 (1): 21–36. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1734955.
Rhodes, Stewart. 2009. “Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey”. 8 de março de 2009.
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html.
Rhodes, Stewart. 2018. “UNTIL A WALL, A WALL OF TROOPS. AND UNTIL A WALL OF
TROOPS, A WALL OF PATRIOT VOLUNTEERS”. Oath Keepers Site. 4 de dezembro
de 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20181209192327/https:/www.oathkeepers.
org/2018/12/oath-keepers-call-to-action-border-operation/.
Bárbara Vasconcellos de Carvalho Motta; Clarissa Nascimento Forner; Lívia Peres Milani
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1326, 2023
23-23
Rogers, Kaleigh. 2021. “Why militias are so hard to stop?” Five thirty eight. 18 de maio
de 2021. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/militias-pose-a-serious-threat-so-why-
is-it-so-hard-to-stop-them/.
Rosati, Jerel A, e James M Scott. 2011. The politics of US foreign policy. Boston: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Sanahuja, José Antonio, e Camilo López Burian. 2020. “Internacionalismo reaccionario y
nuevas derechas neopatriotas latinoamericanas frente al orden internacional liberal”.
Conjuntura Austral 11 (55): 22–34. https://doi.org/10.22456/2178-8839.106956.
Scahill, Jeremy. 2013. Dirty wars: the world is a battlefield. New York: Bold Type Books.
Stokes, Doug. 2018. “Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international
order”. International Affairs 94 (1): 133–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix238.
The White House. 2017. “National Security Strategy of the United States of America”,
dezembro, 1–68.
The White House. 2021. “National strategy for countering domestic terrorism”. 2021.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-Strategy-for-Countering-
Domestic-Terrorism.pdf.
Thompson-Deveaux, Ameilia, e Maggie Smith. 2020. “How Trump and Covid-19 have
reshaped the modern militia movement”. Five thirty eight. 4 de setembro de 2020.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-and-covid-19-have-reshaped-the-
modern-militia-movement/.
United States of America. 1787. “US Constitution”. 1787. https://constitution.congress.
gov/constitution/.
Vanderboegh, Mike. 2014. “A Brief Three Percent Catechism -- A discipline not for
the faint-hearted”. 29 de junho de 2014. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.
com/2014/06/a-brief-three-percent-catechism.html.
Vanderboegh, Mike. s.d. “The Three Percenters”. Acedido a 9 de fevereiro de 2023a.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130814202144/http://www.thethreepercenters.org/.
Vanderboegh, Mike. s.d. “THREE PERCENTERS”. Southern Poverty Law Center. Acedido
a 9 de fevereiro de 2023b. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/
group/three-percenters.
Worth, Owen. 2019. Morbid Symptoms: The Global Rise of the Far-Right. London: Zed
Books Ltd.
