By John Kennedy
September 16, 2025
The Ascending Crisis
America is rapidly changing; the post-war consensus of 1945 is beginning to break among young conservative Americans. Recently, with the assasination of Charlie Kirk, the rhetoric among the online right and even centrist Americans has boiled over into calls of action. Along with this, there is also a massive Christian element to this rhetoric, more than merely calls to prayer and fasting; Kirk is being seen as a martyr for the Christian faith, the interview where he states he wants to be remembered for his faith if he dies being particularly popular. High-ranking clergy like Bishop Barron also weighed in on the event and asked, "Who are we becoming?" Charlie Kirk's rival, Nick Fuentes, had encouraged his followers to "pray for Charlie Kirk's soul, his young family, and our country" and has made it clear to all his followers that "if you take up arms, I disavow you." The empathy being displayed is noble, but as with most emotional events, facts get muddled, and actions are taken out of emotion rather than sense. It is true that the United States is in a period of political and economic instability; this explains the religiosity. In his 1900 essay, "The Rise and Fall of Elites," Vilfredo Pareto outlines the rise of religiosity during times of ascending political crisis, stating:
"Even a most superficial study shows that among the civilized nations, the religious sentiment has grown in the last years and is still increasing. This has benefited not only all religious forms already in existence, which would be the various Christian denominations, but it has lent vigor mainly to a new order of religious sentiments which manifest themselves in socialism. Moreover, patriotism has risen to new heights and is assuming the form of religion-in Germany, where an authoritative review goes so far as to speak of the"German God."
It is no secret that there has been a rise in traditional religious institutions among the younger generations of Americans and Europeans. A 2024 AP article talks about a sudden shift in the culture of some Catholic parishes, women in lace head coverings, demands for the return of the Traditional Latin Mass, and a heavier emphasis on confessions and penance, all of which steers away from the modernization of the Church following the Vatican II council. However, it would be foolish to take these reports at face value. If it is true that the early 20th century of Europe showed a similar increase in religiosity, then why did the political parties take on the role of clergy and godhood in the midcentury, such as the Nazis and Bolsheviks? Is the young traditional sect of Americans merely a trend? A revolutionary force? Or a passive movement? To answer this and the aforementioned Bishop's question of"who are we becoming,"we must first understand the mindset of the American masses, why the religionists of the country will lose the political battle, the true nature of power, and a confrontation with the country itself.
The Animating Spirit
With so many American conservatives calling for change, struggle, and action to change the downwards course of the country, the animating spirit of the movement can be probed. All nations, whether just established or entering into a new phase in their existence, require an animating spirit that their citizens look towards for inspiration. For modern America, Henry R. Luce had coined the term "American century" in 1941; America would be the leading global superpower and this American exceptionalism was carried with great enthusiasm by American media and the general population during the post-war boom. The animating spirit that seems to be currently establishing itself on the American right is one not dissimilar to the Soviets. After the death of Lenin in 1924, members of the Politburo, such as Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, saw themselves as heirs to Lenin's work towards the proletarian revolution, or at least used that excuse to legitimize their claim to power. Lenin's body was placed in a mausoleum, his body continually embalmed to prevent decay, and he was raised to a deity status. Gorbachev admitted in Vitaly Mansky's film, "Gorbachev. Heaven," that he"still sees Lenin as our God."Decisions that the General Secretary made were cross referenced with Lenin's work.
The point of intersection between the body of Lenin and American conservatives is the martyr status of Charlie Kirk. Ben Shapiro made it clear that they're"going to pick up the blood-stained microphone where Charlie left it."Although many conservatives disagreed with Kirk on many issues, his commitment to free speech and discussion is now met with admiration, but how long will this image last? With still so many reiterating a civil war narrative, future fractures within this new movement can already be seen; this is exactly what happened between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky believed that his goal of world revolution was the true heir to Lenin's mission, but Stalin, more pragmatic, rejected a world revolution as he saw communism struggling to take hold in the new Soviet state. The Moscow trials saw Trotskyists purged from the party and exiled from the country, with Trotsky himself being assassinated in Mexico City. This was required to stabilize the country and consolidate Stalin as supreme leader. The emotional event of Kirk's assasination has united the American right to great fervor, but how long can this last, no movement seeking true power can develop a manifesto so dedicated to free speech. While no definite conclusion can be made on how it all ends, the Christian sect is doomed to fail in American politics.
It is doomed to fail because it is not a revolutionary force, while the Christian churches modernized and became contained by the western secular culture through events like Vatican II, Islam underwent an opposite transformation. During the street battles that emerged during the 1979 Iranian revolution, fighters would often chant slogans reminiscent of the Marxist revolutions, whilst mixed with Islamic proclamations; some include:"God's help and victory is near; death to this deceitful monarchy; we do not live under the burden of oppression; we sacrifice our lives in the path of freedom; worker, peasant, oppressed, sufferer; armed struggle is the road to freedom."This mix of ideas is attributed to the work of Iranian revolutionary Ali Shari'ati, and French Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre. Shari'ati had met Satre in Paris, and after returning to Iran, he would become known as the foundation layer of the Iranian revolution. Britannica explains:
"Shariʿati's teachings may be said to have laid the foundation for the Iranian revolution because of their great influence on the Iranian youth. His teachings attacked the tyranny of the shah and his policy of Westernization and modernization that, Shariʿati believed, damaged Iranian religion and culture and left the people without their traditional social and religious moorings. Shariʿati called for a return to true, revolutionary Shiʿism. He believed that Shiʿite Islam itself was a force for social justice and progress but also that it had been corrupted in Iran by its institutionalization by political leaders."
Shari'ati combined the Marxist ideas of armed struggle with Shia Islam, who up until then had been considered an apolitical group. However, Ayatollah Khomeini had taken this group and organized the multiple sects of Iranian society in overthrowing the Shah, and in the Ayatollah's first sermon, he made this declaration:
"Yes, we are reactionaries, and you are enlightened intellectuals: You intellectuals do not want us to go back 1400 years. You, who want freedom, freedom for everything, the freedom of parties, you who want all the freedoms, you intellectuals: freedom that will corrupt our youth, freedom that will pave the way for the oppressor, freedom that will drag our nation to the bottom."
It is unlikely that Pope Leo, or Patriarch Bartholomew will call upon the faithful to take up arms against the secular western governments. This is the exact reason the growing religiosity of the early twentieth century gave way to the religion of a party apparatus, and with the Christians noble disdain of violence, they're unlikely to commit to any true positions of power.
Rudderless Americans
Among the American masses, there is a paradox on violence that shows itself in full force after recent events in the world. The "Gen Z revolution" in Nepal was met with great enthusiasm in the American sphere. When videos of Nepal's finance minister being stripped naked and chased into the river by an angry mob or when the Nepali parliament was burnt to the ground, Americans responded with Thomas Jefferson quotes on Twitter. Political violence is met with great enthusiasm by Americans when it is done in other countries but is met with shock and disbelief when it happens in their own country. Of course, the situation in Nepal does not matter to America; similarly, the assasination of Charlie Kirk means little to the average Nepali, but it begs the question of what Americans, especially the American conservatives, want. Reuters had recently reported on some of the online dialogue of the American right, with one X poster reportedly saying that the nation was"teetering between a political rupture and civil war; we're past words."
There will be no civil war; the American conservative movement has little to no basis of power within the United States except that of podcasters and independent media, with donors deciding on what is reported and how it is portrayed. The Confederates, for instance, had the backing of large Southern plantations, Democrat politicians, and military men who deserted the Union to fight for the South, such as Robert E. Lee; their secession was backed by legitimate power. Modern American conservatives would be foolish to organize any armed group. Insider had interviewed an undercover FBI agent named Scott Payne, who had managed to infiltrate biker gangs, the KKK, and neo-Nazi groups over the course of a twenty-year career; who's to say any new movement won't face similar moles? Finally, there are the conservatives who continually advocate for prayer and peaceful collective action, but this can only go so far. True change can only come within the confines of power; can these Christian Americans go that far? When the popular Catholic influencer Voice of Reason was revealed to have been texting an adult woman in a sexual nature, he was condemned by the Catholic online sphere. Positions of power often require making sinful decisions; if text messages can cause such a scandal, what would a truly Catholic president be faced with?
The current rebelliousness that conservatives are portraying since Kirk's muder will also face the same problems that the hippies of the 1960s confronted. Their counterculture, far from tearing down the system at which it was aimed, had instead been absorbed and commercialized. Their anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism, and anti-authoritarianism became products of this cultural trend. The colorful dress, long hair, and rock and roll became staples in American culture in the decades following the rebellion. Woodstock is remembered with great fondness, with other concerts commemorating the original being held in 1994 and 1999. The conservatives, in particular the more traditionally minded Christian youth, have already undergone this process. The ideal of the traditional wife manifests itself in online personalities dressing as women from a bygone era; rosary beads become a commercial product with discounts if you use a code given to you by an influencer. The new counterculture, while opposed to the hippies, will also be absorbed by the system, and their rebellion will be sent back to them in the form of products.
Road to Terror
The American conservative lacks the fundamental qualities necessary to produce a leader that will lead to a true change in policy and power. If they were bold enough to attempt a civil war or a coup d'etat, their very own American nature of vanity would lead to its failure. The very foundation of this current movement is also entirely based on empathy for a man who made free speech his career and proposed to live a faithful life; these are qualities incompatible with leaders seeking true change in a country rife with violence. Curzio Malaparte, an Italian writer who accompanied Mussolini on his march to Rome, expertly examined the art of insurrection in his book "Coup D'etat." He references discussions between Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin begins:
If we want to carry out the revolution as Marxists, that is to say as an art, we must also, and without a moment's delay, organize the General Staff of the insurrectional troops, distribute our forces, launch our loyal regiments against the most salient positions, surround Alexandra theatre, occupy the Fortress of Peter and Paul, arrest the General Staff and the members of the members of the government, attack the cadets and cossacks with detachments ready to die to the last man. We must mobilize the armed workers, call them to the supreme encounter, take over the telephone and telegraph exchanges at the same time, quarter our insurrectional staff in the telephone exchange and connect it up by telephone with all the factories, regiments, and points at which the armed struggle is being waged."
Trotsky, however, disagreed with this notion, he replies:
"That is all quite reasonable, but it is too complicated. The plan is too vast and it is a strategy which includes too much territory and too many people. It is not an insurrection any longer, it is a war. One must concentrate on small tactics, move in a small space with few men, strike hard and straight. Hit your adversary in the stomach and the blow will be noiseless. Insurrection is a piece of noiseless machinery. Your strategy demands too many favorable circumstances. Insurrection needs nothing. It is self-sufficient.
American conservatives may argue that they do not want to carry out a revolution like Marxists, that it is Marxist rhetoric, and hate that killed Charlie Kirk, but as Trotsky had explained to Lenin,"Insurrection is not an art; it is an engine. Technical experts are required to start it and they alone could stop it." The Christians will be too passive to begin such an undertaking; the podcasters and media talking heads are outside of the spheres of power; they cannot start an insurrection nor put an end to one.
No Country for Old Men
America is a brutal land; the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska, the assasination of Charlie Kirk, and the mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic school mass are devastating but not surprising. In Cormac McCarthy's 2005 book "No Country for Old Men," Sheriff Bell, a small-town lawman, is unable to deal with the violent wave of crime occurring in his county; he realizes that"this county is hard on people, you can't stop what's coming. It ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity."The warnings in this fictional novel are prophetic; the crimes in the book are no different than the ones seen on local news. The sheriff's understanding of his reality is key to turning this country around:
"Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lotta folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough'd never carried one; that's the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins wouldn't wear one up in Comanche County. I always liked to hear about the oldtimers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can't help but compare yourself against the oldtimers. Can't help but wonder how they would have operated these times. There was this boy I sent to the 'lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. "Be there in about fifteen minutes". I don't know what to make of that. I sure don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, "O.K., I'll be part of this world."
The pitiful revolution, which started in 2016, has undergone multiple phases. The death of Charlie Kirk is not necessarily a turning point, but it is merely a new phase in this revolution. Just as Germany had suffered through phases following the 1918 revolution in the form of the chaos of the Weimar Republic, or the Soviets after the failure of Perestroika, Russia entered the chaotic and pathetic rule of Yeltsin, only for stability to arrive after Putin's rise to power. Indeed. America is entering into a chaotic phase, one that can only be described similarly to William Yeats' poem, "The Second Coming," written at the end of the First World War:
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer, things fall apart, the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Everywhere the ceremony of innocents is lost, the best lack all conviction and the worst are full with passionate intensity. What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem, to be born."
The turmoil facing America is not new; the great fear the Latins faced at the fall of Rome seemed like the end, but it wasn't. Oswald Spengler once described civilizations in the form of seasons. America is in the winter, the final season after spring and summer pass. The conservatives and Christians who are today demanding action, perhaps organizing themselves, or plotting to be president one day must face this question. Do you have what it takes to run a country not meant for old men? The Indians used to scalp frontier settlers; mobsters were gunning each other down during the gangland wars of the 1920s and the Colombo Wars in the 1960s and 1990s; today, the cartels have massive control over Latin America and flood the country with drugs; violent street gangs run wild in many inner cities; and now, innocent people are getting stabbed and shot in the neck. True Power will lie in the hands of those ready to take the positions needed to fix these problems, someone with the cunning of a fox and the strength of a lion, a Machiavellian who silently says, "Ok, I'll be part of this world."