ON RADICALIZING RHETORIC

FEAR

What is placing our world at great risk is new type of tactical weapon, radicalizing rhetoric.  I believe Pope Francis is correct in saying we are currently engaged in World War Three, but this world war is proving to be far more insidious by employing a new type of warfare that renders the conventional understanding of warfare ineffective.

As a such, the civilized world must adapt in order to defeat those waging it without costing millions, if not billions of lives.  More than any other time in our collective history, people who care about life and care about this planet must give careful consideration to what they say and how they say it in order to defeat radicalized terrorism.

The target of terrorist radicalization is squarely aimed at destroying the concept of liberty and the sacredness of individual dignity and human worth. Terrorism by its very nature is effective because of the fear it creates.  It is effective because unbridled fear distorts reason, and putting a bridle on fear is no easy task.

Even intelligent individuals can succumb to its effects. If fear becomes endemic in a given society, mass hysteria results and fear will rule the day, and where fear rules human existence is at risk.

THE WEAPONIZED HUMAN BEING

Radicalization as a tactical weapon and tool of warfare has demonstrated its capability of taking an individual and turning that individual into a weapon of mass destruction.

Hate groups of various types have at their disposal an impersonal pathway, the internet, to spread their message without question and present it with all the features of a cinematic or internet gaming event.  There is no need to personally know the people who will succumb to such rhetoric. Those who spread their message of hate and fear have no personal interest in the person they will exploit.

Those who do this, do so passively but aggressively by inviting an individual who feels marginalized in some way and offering that individual a false sense of transcendence by assuring a certain glorious outcome, a glory that ironically overrides the individual's sense of personal safety to the point of seeing her or his self as some sort of transformed powerhouse that can destroy other humans at will. The momentary benefit such individuals gain is in the realization of that transcendent sense of glory experienced in the brief moment of exercising power over life in the act of destroying others and themselves.

This experience has been repeatedly described as "surreal," a word we hear from those who witness and survive such events; a word that connotes a sense of dark transcendence; the hellish feeling of terror.

In essence, such dispossessed individuals become easily weaponized, and those who create and conjure forth such monstrous effects on these, "the least of" our human family, represent the presence of evil in human form.

While groups like ISIL certainly come to mind, a greater concern is the spreading and utilization of this type of warfare by homegrown, terror-minded groups in the United States and other nations who have nothing to do with radicalized Islamic terrorists, but share the same goal of destroying liberty and the sacredness of individuality and human worth.

RADICALIZING RHETORIC IN POLITICS

Even more disturbing is the radicalizing, fear-based rhetoric being used by some present-day politicians to garner support for their presidential nomination bid and who  have ready access to the news media and crowds of fear-prone, angry people who are looking for a quick fix to their problems, which such politicians and their audiences largely project as being caused by people who don't look like them or are of a different religion or ethnic background.

While most intelligent people understand that such rhetoric plays into the hands of foreign terrorist groups, its use by political pundits to garner votes in an age where people quickly receive such messages and act on them because a public figure seemingly agrees that their fear is justified is a new twist on the political scene. Politicians who use such rhetoric appear to be unaware that they are radicalizing and weaponizing such individuals.  Their carelessness in speaking is done under the guise of being straightforward and not having to be "politically correct" in the use of language.  The fact is politically correctness is a language art form that makes a politician think before speaking, to realize the power of language, and the need to present ideas civilly so that people are not radicalized into doing violent acts. 

During a general election, politicians easily fall subject to the lure of popularity. As they see their stars rise or fall, the temptation is to the read the tea leaves of fortune in order to find the quickest path to being nominated.  Thus far the leaves have pointed to the rhetoric of fear as the quickest way to win the hearts of some voters, since fear is also the quickest way to bypass their minds, but fear is viral and has a life its own, and those who play with it have no idea what they are toying with.

The Republican Party in the United States is a prime example of this. It has largely served as a petri dish for spawning viral fear about our own government.  In fact, it has become a victim of its own fear-based, deconstructive approach to governance and it seems clueless about the danger it poses to this country in its approach on winning elections no matter what the cost to this nation's wellbeing.  It does not, as yet, seem to realize that it has opened the door to radicalization.

All of this party's frontrunners have expressed plans to address outside threats; such as, closing our boarders to keep out the bad people and sending our troops to kill the bad guys in their own backyards, but such individuals offer no civil and substantive plans beyond their firecracker rhetoric.

Mostly, they have, with a good amount of prompting by the news media, spent their time attacking each other with a vehemence that would suggest the Republican Party is the only option the citizens of this nation have when it comes to electing our next president.

It is not.

You wouldn't know that, however,  if you listened to televised news media which has spent an inordinate amount of air time on the Republican Party's verbal boxing matches and granting free air time in the form of interviews to the most outrageous contenders, as if that's the most newsworthy event taking place during this election season.

Fortunately, not all Republicans seeking the presidency are deconstructionists, and a few actually possess the essential attribute of statesmanship in seeking the highest office in the land; such as,  Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said this past week that if Mr. Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate, it would be better for the party to lose the presidency than to see the highest office fall into the hands of a demagogue.

Senator Graham is a rare person in the Republican Party, nowadays, a person who actually cares about this nation and the road we take. There are others, but none, including Senator Graham, are any where close to being the frontrunner at the moment.

"BREAKING NEWS"

Freedom of the press is sacrosanct in the United States. The press and other news outlets have a responsibility to report the news, however, such reporting is more motivated by their bottom line than keeping the public well informed.

Anymore, the major networks treat the news as entertainment rather than providing a straight forward delivery of information.  For instance, every tragic event is assigned background music that reflects the mood we're supposed to have. Political issues are set to a backdrop of patriotic or military music.  They have created a crisis mentality in this nation with the term "Breaking News" which is played over and over again even after the fact that the news they are reporting is no longer new or breaking.

Major networks readily jump into speculation rather than simple fact telling by inviting armchair experts to speculate for them.  This may look like honest reporting, but it isn't.  There's an agenda in this to keep viewers wrapped into "staying tuned" and keeping that network's ratings up.

Speculative drama is addictive, and the public is prone to dramatic effect.  In fact, most large news media outlets are addicted to their own drama. For example, the "Trump Phenomenon," as it's called by the news media, has most news outlets hypnotized by the fact that, no matter what outrageous things Mr. Trump says, his poll numbers keep rising.

They act as if they don't get it. They should.  It's called marketing.

I suspect they are fully aware that they are fueling the "phenomenon."  They are, after all, into the marketing business and know that as Mr. Trump's poll numbers rise they have an opportunity to up their ratings. They have a commercial interest in keeping Mr. Trump in the presidential playing field for as long as they can.

What is disturbing is that, with or without intention, the major news outlets are spreading the virus of radicalizing rhetoric when they veer from straightforward, informative reporting.  The "Press" has a choice in what they report and how they report it. They know that they can generate news by what they report and televise.  In a time where radicalization is pervasive there is a need by the press to avoid sensationalized rhetoric and take measured, sober approaches to keeping the public well informed by limiting knee-jerk responses to crises in the form of armchair speculation as to why this or that event happened or what it means before there is information to back such hypotheses. Above all, they need to be cautious in what they say about those who are diligently figuring things out.

RADICALIZED POPULISM

We are subject to a new zeitgeist that contains familiar elements but which act in unfamiliar ways to most U.S. citizens.  Populism is one such element.

When frustration and fear are present, populist movements are likely to emerge in democratic countries. When segments of a majority population in any democratic country feels that their lifestyle is being threatened, there is a tendency to listen to anyone who openly addresses such fears in a seemingly direct fashion.  Populism's appeal is largely fueled by radical rhetoric rather than substance.

The person who sounds the strongest and appears most capable of offering the public rhetorical solutions, gets the vote.  In essence that is how populism works. Substance and function are largely ignored by people enmeshed in their personal fears and enamored by populist rhetoric.

People subject to populism are not worried about the road ahead, they just want to know there's a road leading away from their current fears. They are not, at the moment, concerned where that road leads. They just want someone who will lead them down it, to tell them where to go, and how to think.

IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD...

People in the United States have always maintained a healthy skepticism when it comes to someone telling us they have the power do to make our lives better. The adage that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true has always made us wary of the quick fix.  Considerable segments of the voting public in the United States seem have forgotten that adage.

For example, any politician who says the solution to immigration is building a fence around our borders or who says that we can keep ourselves safe from weaponized human beings by prohibiting any Muslims from entering this country and telling us that our lives will be "so" much better off if he or she is elected to the highest office of the land is attempting to subject us to unsupportable, radicalized rhetoric.

RADICALIZING RHETORIC AS A RUSE

This nation's forefathers understood the concept of tyrannical democracy when constructing this republic and writing its constitution, with its system of checks and balances.  The world has witnessed within the last one hundred years the results of democratic processes leading to tyrannical rule.

Most people have forgotten that Hitler was voted into power on a populist agenda, whose speeches and inflammatory rhetoric were just what the majority thought they needed to hear; a virtuous path from  their frustration and fear that would lead to a much better life and would dispense with those perceived as bothersome types, such as, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses,  homosexuals, or the mentally and congenitally disabled.

Sound familiar?

There are some people in the United States who never give our nation's Constitution serious thought, who think it is there to protect their personal interests, and it does. What they don't consider is that The Constitution, itself, needs protection against those who would make it subordinate to their own populist views or tyrannical whimsy.

Something for those who yearn for the leadership of a strong man or woman to consider is the road ahead. A public personality who targets a religion, a culture, a race, or ethnic group as questionable and gives reasons to exclude them from our soil is in league with tyranny and is a tyrant in the making.

SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER

Consider that a public personality who gets away with using radicalizing rhetoric to target a theistic religion could also get away with doing so to your church, synagogue, temple, charitable organization, or your social club.

Consider that radicalizing rhetoric can weaponize any marginalized person to serve an unspoken agenda aimed at eliminating those targeted, as demonstrated in the case of those who have recently attempted to intimidate Muslims attending a Mosque by surrounding it armed men in military fatigues,  by setting fire to a Mosque, shooting people in a church because they're black, or shooting people at a Planned Parenthood clinic. There also seems to be an increase in homophobic hate crimes committed in certain parts of the nation as a result of those who are appealing to an evangelical backlash to garner votes.

The people who do such things are not insane (at least no more than others who commit capital crimes). What is obvious it that they were weaponized by the radicalizing rhetoric of politicians, armchair political pundits, news personalities, and preachers who targeted these groups in broadcasted speeches and interviews they made.

If a politician or a news personality starts fingering whole religious, racial, or ethnic groups as a problem to our national security, and if someone acted on that information, as has occurred recently, they should be considered radicalized by what that political, religious, or news media personality said.  Although there are laws against inciting people to violence, we seem to have granted immunity to political, religious, and news media personalities who do so.

Consider, for a moment, that a public personality who would have mosques or any religious facility monitored on the basis that he or she is keeping an eye out for the bad people is just as likely to take your guns away or nationalizing the gun industry in order "to protect the majority" if such a would-be demagogue begins to feel personally threatened by the public having such possessions.

Once faith is placed in a demagogue to solve our problems, that demagogue is capable convincing the masses to give up any and all rights for fear of being perceived as not being on the right side of power. It's happened before. (HINT: Nazi Germany)

* * * * * * * * * *                                  

It is unlikely that any current foreign power could deprive the people of the United States their sense of liberty and the sacredness of individuality and human worth.  The biggest threat to these foundational principles is from within, from the demagoguery being displayed by radicalizing news media personalities, armchair pundits, and the current frontrunners for the Republican Party's presidential nominee.

Consider that, and consider that if it sounds "sooo" good to be true, it probably is to good to be true.


Until next time, stay faithful.