When Rhetoric Threatens a Nation

In the wake of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure and strong advocate for Christian values, a powerful and deeply unsettling narrative quickly seized a significant portion of the right-leaning media and political landscape. The response wasn't merely condemnation of violence, but a declaration, a rallying cry that reverberated across airwaves and social media: "This is war." 

Here are some of the comments that exemplify this rhetoric:

Steve Bannon: On his influential program, War Room, Bannon declared, "Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country. We are." His words were a direct call for a hardened stance, framing the event as a battle line crossed. 

Jesse Watters: The Fox News host echoed this sentiment, stating, "They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. What are we gonna do about it?" His questioning hinted at a need for action, implicitly beyond mere political discourse.  

Chaya Raichik (Libs of TikTok): With immense reach, this influential account simply posted, "THIS IS WAR," a concise and potent message that instantly spread the narrative to millions.

Mollie Hemingway: The editor-in-chief of The Federalist described critical rhetoric against conservatives as "assassination prep rhetoric," claiming, "We have a very serious problem with the media and other prominent Democrat activists prepping the ground for open season on and assassination of conservatives."

Donald Trump: In a video statement, Trump lauded Kirk as a "martyr for truth and freedom" and blamed "the radical left" for what he termed "terrorism," further solidifying the narrative of targeted political violence.  

Nick Freitas: The Republican Virginia state delegate and commentator suggested a profound shift, writing, "It's not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It's a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another."  

This rhetoric of "war" is not merely hyperbole, it is a dangerous escalation with profound implications for the country and its societal fabric. When a political assassination, as some have framed it, is met with calls of "war," it signifies a fundamental breakdown of the democratic process, where political differences are no longer debated but fought.

The potential for more violence becomes horrifyingly real when such language is normalized. When one side declares itself to be "at war," it subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, legitimizes aggressive, even violent, responses. It fosters an environment where the "enemy" is dehumanized, making it easier to justify actions that would otherwise be unthinkable. 

This is about the broader cultural and political atmosphere that emboldens such acts. When the media, political leaders, and influential figures continuously hammer home the message of an existential struggle, they are, wittingly or unwittingly, laying the groundwork for further conflict. Basically, they want it!

This alarming trend demonstrates a deeply concerning breakdown of American society, drawing unsettling parallels to historical periods of escalating political extremism. Consider the rise of Hitler in Germany: it wasn't a sudden, cataclysmic event, but a slow, insidious erosion of democratic norms that played out over years. Thousands of small skirmishes, of shouting matches, of hate-filled rhetoric, of promoting that hate, slowly chipped away at the foundations of civility and mutual respect. 

Propaganda and a funnel of misinformation allowed millions of like-minded individuals to gather, reinforcing their grievances and validating their animosity towards the "other." The continuous repetition of a singular, often distorted, message created an echo chamber where dissent was stopped, and extreme viewpoints became mainstream. This insidious process, built on manufactured outrage and the constant demonization of opponents, ultimately led to unimaginable societal collapse.

We are witnessing a similar, albeit uniquely American and modern process unfold. The consistent messaging across a curated media landscape, which some have termed a "misinformation funnel," aggregates millions of individuals who consume a steady diet of grievances and perceived injustices. 

Within these echo chambers, the idea of an external threat - "the radical left," "globalists," or "deep state"  - becomes an undeniable truth, and the political opposition transforms into an enemy. This sustained psychological conditioning, delivered through a constant stream of outrage and fear, fuels a collective identity built on opposition rather than commonality.

The cumulative effect of this "war" rhetoric, this constant barrage of hate and division, is a profound societal fracturing. It creates a landscape where empathy disappears, where shared reality evaporates, and where the very idea of a unified nation begins to feel like a distant memory. When trust in institutions, in the electoral process, and even in basic facts is systematically undermined, and there exists a large part of the population that believe the message, then the bonds that hold a diverse society together fray.

The ultimate consequence, if this trajectory continues unchecked, is a potential for a total breakdown of order and, horrifyingly, the possibility of a civil war. Not necessarily a civil war fought on traditional battlefields, but a more insidious, decentralized, and equally devastating conflict characterized by widespread political violence, societal fragmentation, and a complete loss of faith in a shared future. 

The echoes of "war" are growing louder, and the time to heed their warning is now. We need to find a way to de-escalate this rhetoric, to bridge divides, and to reaffirm the principles of democratic discourse before the the present moment becomes a tragic reality.

Thanks for reading. Abrazos.

Diego Rojas