Michael Savage’s Concept of a One-Way Civil War, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on September 12, 2025, conservative radio host and bestselling author Michael Savage described the assassination of Charlie Kirk as a stark indicator of a society in decline, asserting that the United States is already embroiled in what he terms a "one-way civil war. This discussion explores Savage's idea, its cultural and political implications, and the broader context of his warnings about escalating political violence and societal decay.
Savage frames the murder of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, as a pivotal moment that reveals the depth of America's cultural and spiritual unravelling. Kirk, described by Savage as a "young Christian leader" dedicated to restoring faith and meaning, was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University. The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, reportedly inscribed the anti-fascist anthem "Bella Ciao" on his bullets, a detail Savage links to decades of Left-wing rhetoric that he believes has radicalised individuals into viewing conservatives as existential threats.
Savage argues that Kirk's death is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a broader "fetish for death" and a loss of spiritual grounding in the West. He points to the celebration of violence on social media, where some praised Kirk's assassination, as evidence of a fractured moral landscape. This erosion of values, he contends, stems from the decline of religion, family, and loyalty, leaving individuals untethered from a shared sense of purpose.
Central to Savage's thesis is the concept of a "one-way civil war," a conflict where one side, the political Left, systematically targets and silences the Right through violence and intimidation. Quoting Sen. Thomas Corwin's 1861 warning to Abraham Lincoln, Savage suggests that modern political discourse mirrors the prelude to the Civil War, where "treason goes by the name of patriotism." He argues that the Left's rhetoric, which frequently labels conservatives as "fascists" or "Nazis," dehumanises them and incites violence. The assassination of Kirk, in Savage's view, is a direct consequence of this inflammatory language, which blurs the line between ideological disagreement and physical elimination.
Savage's claim of a one-way conflict is rooted in his observation that conservatives face disproportionate hostility. He cites the fear many feel about expressing their views publicly, driven by the threat of physical or social repercussions. This asymmetry, he argues, distinguishes the current unrest from a traditional civil war, where both sides engage in mutual combat. Instead, Savage sees the Right as being "hunted in daylight," with little recourse to respond without escalating the cycle of violence.
Savage attributes the escalation of this conflict to a confluence of cultural and technological factors. He points to the desensitisation caused by endless wars abroad, such as in Ukraine and Russia, and the constant exposure to violence on social media, which he believes numbs the conscience and diminishes the value of human life. This "numbing of conscience," as he describes it, is exacerbated by technology, particularly smartphones and platforms like Instagram, which foster narcissism and a false equivalence of opinions. Savage's critique of the iPhone as turning individuals into "stars behind their bars," underscores his belief that technology amplifies self-absorption, undermining critical thinking and dialogue.
Moreover, Savage highlights the role of video games in blurring the line between fantasy and reality. He notes that many games cast players as heroes fighting oppressive regimes, often depicted as fascist. This narrative, he argues, can seep into real-world perceptions, leading individuals like Kirk's shooter to view conservatives as legitimate targets. The inscription of "Bella Ciao" on the bullets reinforces this connection, linking the act to a romanticised narrative of resistance against perceived tyranny.
Savage also critiques the education system and media for their roles in this societal breakdown. He argues that schools no longer teach logic or critical thinking, resulting in a generation unable to discern truth from propaganda. This intellectual void, combined with media outlets that Savage accuses of "fomenting hatred and violence," creates a fertile ground for radicalisation. Specifically, he targets MSNBC, suggesting that its rhetoric contributes to a culture of animosity. Savage proposes that decisive leadership, such as President Trump leveraging the FCC to revoke licenses of networks promoting hate, could curb this trend, though he acknowledges the legal and practical challenges of such a move.
When asked how conservatives should respond without resorting to violence, Savage sees the need for strong leadership to counter the repression of free speech and the incitement of violence. He suggests that Trump could use executive powers to defund organisations driving this repression or pressure media outlets to moderate their rhetoric. However, Savage's tone is pessimistic, warning that Kirk's death is "not the end but the beginning of more unrest." He raises unanswered questions about the shooter's motives, weapon, and potential accomplices, suggesting that the full scope of the assassination remains unclear.
Michael Savage's depiction of a one-way civil war reflects a deep anxiety about the state of American society, where political violence, cultural decay, and technological amplification of division threaten the fabric of the nation. The assassination of Charlie Kirk serves as a grim focal point for these concerns, highlighting the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric and the erosion of shared values, as America unravels, spiralling into, not merely a one-sided civil war, but two-sided one.
Comments