When Communication Creates Its Own Threat
This text does not describe the characteristics of particular people or political groups, but a communicative structure. It does not have to be consciously planned or strategically deployed in order to be effective. Precisely because it can be experienced as authentic, it stabilises itself. The focus, therefore, is not on the motives of individuals but on the feedback loops between language, perception and social dynamics.
There is a pattern that can be observed without attributing intention to it. It unfolds in two steps that depend on one another but are rarely described together.
In the first step, the tone changes. Language becomes harsher, labels more sweeping, opponents become enemies, criticism becomes betrayal. This shift does not happen overnight but gradually—word by word, post by post—until what would have been considered beyond the pale a few years ago now passes as a legitimate opinion. In this sense, language is never neutral. It defines what can be said and, through repetition, shifts the boundaries of what is regarded as normal.
In the second step, something happens that initially appears paradoxical. The very distance created by this communicative escalation is now experienced as an attack from the outside. One is no longer seen as contributing to the escalation but as its victim. The rejection one encounters is not interpreted as a response to one’s own behaviour but as evidence of a hostile environment—of “the elites”, “censorship”, or a “dictatorship of opinion”.
One’s own communication contributes to the escalation, while the resulting distance is subsequently interpreted as an external threat.
This is not merely a rhetorical oversight. It is a functioning structure precisely because it sustains itself. The harsher the language, the greater the distance. The greater the distance, the more convincing the feeling of being under threat. The more convincing that feeling becomes, the more legitimate the next escalation appears. A system that reinforces itself without requiring anything new from the outside.
Why It Works
The effectiveness of this structure can be identified at three points.
First, it replaces arguments with a state of being. Within this structure, the justification of one’s own position gradually gives way to demonstrating one’s own sense of being under threat. Defending one’s existence replaces examining one’s claims.
Second, it changes the social position of the speaker. Presenting oneself as disadvantaged can generate attention, solidarity and legitimacy, regardless of whether the underlying disadvantage actually exists or how it came about.
Third, it becomes resistant to criticism by turning every criticism into further evidence of the threat. Anyone who disagrees merely confirms that “people like us” really are under pressure. The circle closes without leaving an opening through which an argument could still pass.
What Remains Unnoticed
The most remarkable aspect of this structure is that no one has to choose it consciously. There is no need to devise a strategy in order to use it. One only has to communicate within its logic, and the rest follows almost automatically. That is precisely what makes it difficult to challenge. No hidden intention is required. The structure functions even when everyone involved experiences their perception as entirely sincere. That is exactly how it stabilises itself.
Self-victimisation appears as an authentic experience rather than a calculated tactic, and this is precisely where its persuasive power lies—even for the person expressing it.
This dynamic is not confined to any particular political fringe. The pattern of presenting oneself as the victim of an environment one has helped to shape can be found wherever belonging is created through escalation. Only the vocabulary and the perceived enemies change. What can be observed is not a statement about a specific group but about a form—a form that emerges wherever language becomes a weapon while one’s own vulnerability simultaneously becomes an argument.
Perhaps this is where meaningful criticism should begin: not by refuting individual claims, but by making the structure itself visible—by showing that a position can simultaneously be both the cause of a development and its alleged victim.
Afterword
The structure described here is not limited to political conflicts. Similar dynamics can be found in escalating relationships, organisational disputes, or online communities. Wherever every response is primarily interpreted as confirmation of the original narrative, communication loses its openness and begins to move in circles. That is why this text is directed not at particular people or groups but at a form of communication that can arise wherever feedback loops become stronger than the willingness to question one’s own perspective.
Precisely because this structure can function without conscious intent, no one is fundamentally immune to it. Those who describe it are not outside it either. The analysis of communicative feedback loops is itself part of communication and is therefore subject to the same possibility of self-confirmation. For that very reason, it too must remain open to contradiction and correction.
Written on 1 August 2026 at 13:15. © 2026 Whisper7. All rights reserved.