Thursday, January 30, 2025

“Aliens” and “Animals”: Language of Hate Used by Trump and Others Can be Part of a Violent Design


 January 29, 2025
Facebook

Animals,” “aliens” and “people with bad genes” – President Donald Trump and his supporters often use this kind of dehumanizing language to describe immigrants.

In the 2024 presidential debate between Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, Trump falsely referred to Haitian refugees in Springfield, Ohio, as “eating the pets of the people that live there.” And in his Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address, Trump spoke of “dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions,” who have illegally entered the U.S. “from all over the world.”

Using hateful, polarizing language to gain a political advantage or make an argument against a group of people, like immigrants, is not unique to the U.S.

The use of this language is associated with populist shifts in many parts of the world.

I am a scholar of international human rights who has studied the language associated with mass atrocities. I have also written about how social media can amplify misinformation and hate speech.

Some observers and analysts who follow Trump dismiss his hateful language against immigrants as empty bluster or performance art.

The implication is that Trump will not act on his most extreme promises and follow through on what he has called “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

In the first few days of the new Trump administration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers began raids to detain immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and increased their number of arrests and deportations of immigrants, including those without violent criminal records.

Tom Homan, the U.S. border czar, has said that the government’s mass immigration deportation plans – which he said could include raids on schools, churches and other places previously considered havens – is “all for the good of this nation.”

My hate speech research shows that, as the world has seen to its horror again and again, words that slander and strip people of their voices and humanity are often a first step toward discriminatory and violent policies. At its most extreme, speaking of people as dirty and polluting and saying they lack humanity makes it easier to kill them.

Echoes from the fascist past

There is nothing new about the hateful political rhetoric that has become common today.

In the lead-up to and during World War II, fascist leaders in Europe targeted Jews, Roma, gay people and other groups as sources of “social pollution,” as beyond being human, while describing themselves as noble and decent, embodying a pure, uncorrupted nation.

In 1920, well before the German Nazi Party came to power in 1933, its platform declared that “Only someone of German blood, regardless of faith, can be a citizen.”

Viktor Klemperer, a literary scholar who was a close observer of Nazism, wrote in a diary published posthumously in 1995 that the Third Reich’s demonizing language against Jews and other marginalized groups helped create its culture and justify its mass killings. Nazis consequently assumed the mantle of liberators as they killed those whom they saw as corrupting the “pure race,” in accordance with ideas of “racial hygiene.”

The Nazis murdered more than 12 million people.

The Nazis’ hateful language was not limited to Europe. Fritz Kuhn, a German Nazi activist, served in the late 1930s and early 1940s as leader of the German American Bund, an organization of ethnic Germans and Nazi sympathizers living in the U.S. He addressed a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City in 1939.

Kuhn said during his speech that American citizens with American ideals are “determined to protect ourselves, our homes, our wives and children against the slimy conspirators who would change this glorious republic into the inferno of a Bolshevik paradise.”

The U.S. government stripped Kuhn of his U.S. citizenship in 1943 and deported him to Germany in 1945 because of his pro-Nazi allegiance.

Italy’s far right shifts from words to violence

Italy offers another example of how hateful speech can lead to discriminatory or violent policies. Right-wing politicians and policies have grown more popular and powerful in the past few years in Italy.

In 2018, Matteo Salvini, then the deputy prime minister who now holds the same position, denounced the Roma people, an ethnic minority. He called for their removal through a “mass cleansing street by street, piazza by piazza, neighborhood by neighborhood.”

These were not empty words.

Salvini’s call was accompanied by mob violence, mass evictions and demolition of Roma informal camps set up in the streets. The Roma people continue to face discrimination and racial profiling.

Salvini has directed his most virulent language, however, toward the tens of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers, mostly from Africa, who attempt to reach Italy via the Mediterranean Sea.

Salvini has frequently called the arrival of migrants a “flood” or “surge”. This kind of dehumanizing language makes it easier to provoke alarm about an abstract, unwanted mass of people.

The claims behind Salvini’s alarmism, however, are not borne out by facts. Since the peak of migrant sea crossings, when a few hundred thousand migrants entered Italy from 2014 through 2017, the country’s crime rate has fallen significantly.

Salvini, perhaps more than any other populist leader in the world, has turned his hateful language and use of misinformation into action. Italian authorities under Salvini’s direction have detained ships working to help rescue migrants who are in danger at sea, preventing them from carrying out those rescues.

This obstruction violates European Union law, which ensures the legal right to help anyone found in distress at sea.

In September 2024, an Italian prosecutor requested a six-year jail term for Salvini, accusing him of kidnapping 147 migrants by preventing them from landing at a port in Italy for several weeks.

Salvini said he was defending Italian borders by keeping the migrants aboard a Spanish migrant rescue ship.

Salvini was acquitted of kidnapping and dereliction of duty charges in December 2024.

What to Expect

We can’t be certain at this point what Trump’s and his supporters’ hateful language against immigrants, minorities and political opponents will yield.

Judging by Italy’s example and other instances, it’s possible that laws will be broken in implementing Trump’s immigration and asylum policies.

A federal judge temporarily halted Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order that told federal agencies to not process identification documents for babies born to parents who are living in the country illegally, among other scenarios.

It’s not clear how these policies will continue to unfold. What is clear is that words of hate have been used in many times and places as a justification for illegal arrests and, in some cases, as a prelude to state-sanctioned mass violence.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ronald Niezen is a Professor of Practice in Sociology at the University of San Diego.


The Meaning of Life in a Secular World


 January 29, 2025
Facebook

Image by Aaron Burden.

Reincarnation is a core belief of the Hindu faith. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains that changing one’s body is like changing one’s clothes. I accept that possibility as I accept the idea of a Christian afterlife. Both speculations are fascinating.

But I am far more amazed by the life I live. How is it that this unique assemblage of trillions of atoms and molecules which compose my body came to be at all? And how is that I am consciously aware of my physical body as though it is simultaneously both me and something apart from me. These questions I find far more profound than reincarnation.

But my existence is a fact. Renee Descartes’ deduction, “I think, therefore I am,” is proof enough. The possibility of future or past lives may fascinate but are only speculations.

Religions claim to know more and answer the profound questions about existence and the meaning of life. But Christianity’s answers rely on circular arguments, and its message is conflicted. The loving god of the New Testament is at odds with the vengeful god of the Old Testament, and the preaching of love and forgiveness is at odds with stoning promiscuous daughters to death.

The relevance of the Bible to today’s society is questionable. It was written early in human history and rewritten over and over. Still, Christian fundamentalists insist that it is the word of God and must be taken literally. But much of the bible is fanciful. Science has shown that humankind did not descend from the Garden of Eden but evolved along with the other creatures of the earth; the earth orbits the sun and is 4.5 billion years old. And Jonah and the Whale, Noah and the Ark, and the Virgin Birth are fictional. And we also know homosexuality and gender dysphoria are natural inclinations, natural variations of human sexuality.

The Bible may have some value allegorically, but it is certainly not factual. Science on the other hand is a product of our rational minds. It is a search for truth and understanding that is based on factual evidence. Science is not a belief system and does not compete with religion.

The doubt that surrounds organized religions, coupled with the fact that there are 10,000 of them, implies that religion is a human creation, a compilation of mythical stories that are passed down from generation to generation. Furthermore, the concept of a supreme being who created our 93 billion light-year wide universe, yet listens to our prayers, challenges imagination, and still leaves the fundamental question unresolved…who created the creator? Humankind may never comprehend the true nature of a god or fully understand the cosmos. The notion that one can know the mind of an almighty God and believe he or she is doing his work is delusional, and the idea that an all-powerful god needs the help of mere mortals is irrational.

How then does one cope with a need to understand? If the world in which we live is unknowable, is life absurd and meaningless as concluded by Camus? No, not at all. Sartre, a contemporary of Camus, gives a better interpretation. – I can think; I have a rational mind. Whether this is a gift from the gods, or a result of natural selection is irrelevant. The fact that I have a mind obliges me to reason, to make sense of the world and to make my life meaningful.

Every day we make choices, practical decisions, and moral judgments, which affect the people we know and love and impact on the physical world that surrounds us. We can choose to make things better or worse. We can be kind or mean spirited, generous or selfish. But we are constrained to choose rationally and compelled to choose for the better. There is an underlying need in us to make our world a better place, to create, to build, to invent, to paint, to write, and to improve our surroundings.

Of course, people can be misguided or overcome by greed, ambition, and narcissism. That increases the obligation of those who are not.

Take climate change. Fundamentalists believe that God designed a self-correcting environment that enables humankind to flourish. They may also believe that, because they are living in the end times and will be saved by the Second Coming and the Rapture, there is no need to be concerned about the future of the planet. I can choose to accept that mystical world view or accept climate science, which says we must act to protect the planet for our children. The only rational choice is to accept climate science. By compelling one to act, it brings meaning to life.

Everyone must enjoy this right to choose rationally. Apart from reason and evidence, there is no logical framework by which that right can be denied. No one can insist that their personal beliefs are preferred. One can compromise on an interpretation of evidence but nothing more. And so, there is no justification for the fundamentalist’s insistence that everyone conform with their beliefs.

Christian doctrine conflicts with America’s democratic principles, for it denies the right to choose. Moreover, it bars the agency necessary to bring value and meaning to our lives.

The Enlightenment thinker Baruch Spinoza explained why democracies are superior to theocracies. The first priority of a theocracy is satisfying a mythical god. The needs of people are secondary. The theocratic Republican party will now control our government. It will not satisfy the needs of the people.

Consider the choices Mike Johnson will make. A Christian fundamentalist and dispensationalist, he believes that teaching evolution is the cause of mass murders. He also believes that God condemns abortion and LGBT+ rights. Johnson may be sincere, but lacking objectivity he will choose to enact legislation that pleases his God rather than furthering the rights and welfare of the American people. He will attempt, for example, to pass a nationwide abortion ban, knowing that the overwhelming majority of Americans are against it.

And consider the irrational choice that Christian fundamentalists made in the last election. Without their backing Trump would not have won then or in 2016. They chose him, believing that he will support legislation and appoint court justices that favor the Christian world view. The hypocrisy is palpable. Trump is a convicted felon and a con artist, the polar opposite of the Jesus that Christians profess to love. The essence of Christ’s message, “love thy neighbor” is an embrace diversity and inclusion, which Trump and the MAGA Republicans vilify. Christ taught us to feed the hungry; give water to the thirsty; care for the sick; clothe the naked and shelter the homeless. Trump and the MAGA Republicans want to eliminate programs that help the poor and disadvantaged. If Jesus were alive today, would he approve?

For our lives to have meaning, freedom of choice is a necessity. We need a strong democracy. But with theocratic Republicans in control of government, democracy is in jeopardy, and the success of the last four years will be squandered, all in the name of God.

And the oligarchs are smiling.

Bob Topper is a retired engineer and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.