Monday, January 17, 2011

The politics of hatred

The politics of hatred is pretty easy to describe. It is when people and politicians are blaming various minorities and their supporters for whatever perceived trouble a country or society has, and even more so when such a blame game is tipping over and results in violence and aggression against a given group. It’s often, very often mixed with nationalism and religion. Members of a given minority are painted as enemies of a given nation or religion.

Without nationalism, in any form or religion, in any form the world would most certainly be a better place, lacking two of the main incentives of totally unfounded aggression.

Recent immigrants or groups belonging to the same ethnic group as recent immigrants are very popular hate objects. They are evidently «ruining the country» (whatever that means). The racist hate groups are speaking a lot about defending or taking back their country, a country that was never really theirs in the first place.

There’s a thoroughly eerie and insane line of thought these people display.

Racism is quite common all over the present world. It’s displayed by most majority groups, and even in some minority groups, but most of all in those clinging to nationalism and religion.

Bashing vulnerable people and minorities are useful. It’s a great tool when you want to be an elected official in some or other capacity. It’s also very handy for the tyrants in a given country when they want to set groups against each other, to better control the poor and huddled masses.

Most countries have fairly popular far right groups. Sadly the far right isn’t the only show in town peddling to the racists, or there wouldn’t truly be much of a problem. Center right, center and center left of the political spectrum have all their own muddled tendencies. Very few politicians and elected officials take a stand against racism. The popular current double speak version of racism is to say that a person is «against immigration», while the obvious truth is that anyone opposed to a multicultural society is a racist, filled to the brim with bias, prejudice and intolerance for any alternative lifestyle.

The fairly respected French government threw out all the gypsies on what were clearly triumphed up «charges», and even though there was outrage, it wasn’t very loud. This is just one example of many, where the authorities make what is called a popular decision to distract from their own troubles.

We saw demonstrated the inevitable result of the politics of hatred in Tucson, Arizona, USA recently. Jared Lee Loughner, after listening to the aggressive hate speech of Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and countless others for years decided to off United States Congress representative Gabrielle Giffords. He shot her and many others. Among the dead was Christina Taylor-Green, a nine year-old girl.

Palin and the other conservatives in the so-called Tea Party movement have been very defensive, and attempted strenuously to evade blame for their obvious complicity, but their guilt is obvious, really. They should even be charged with incitement and could just as well have stood behind the shooter and cheered him on.

I can't say that every member of the tea party is bad, since I haven't met all of them or heard all of them speak, but those I have met and heard speak are raving, dangerous lunatics.

They are beyond guilty scum, and «hardly human» in my eyes, and it’s about time we all took a stand against them and their like, in all countries on Earth.

PS I have deliberately left out mentioning the United States haters’ gun terminology, since I don’t really believe it is about that, isn’t about pro guns or not. My view is that people who want to get a gun, want to kill people usually succeed in doing so. Europe and other areas haven’t the same insane availability of guns that the United States has, but there are still many similar smaller and bigger cases all over the world.

The beyond aggressive rhetoric and acts of the intolerant mind has a long history in civilization in general.

2 comments:

Elly said...

if you call people 'scum' and 'hardly human' arent you contributing to the language of hate?

Amos Keppler said...

I kind of expected that question...

As you probably know I didn't call them hardly human. If they weren't human it would be easier to explain their horrible behavior, but they are, even though they don't act like it. I do call them scum, though, because they are. for quite some time, now, I have believed in calling it like it is, and not soft-speaking realities. A person embracing all his or her worst qualities will always be told it like it is by me.

There are too little honesty in this world and that is part of the problem. do I want some kind of compromise with those we are speaking about here? Absolutely not!!!I believe in confrontation with the horrific parts of humanity and not appeasement.

Today we are appeasing them, and we see the result.

I use the word deliberately, since it's my conviction that there are way too few today using it about these "people".