Moderated Trump announces new concentration camps

To be fair, Mr. Trump did take out a full page ad in the NY Times specifically referring to the Central Park Five that said in all caps to "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY."

Note that I believe that the hand-wringing about Trump's election bringing about genocide, the end of democracy, etc., etc., is ridiculous and overblown.
 
No, it's not genocide, it was an aside to point out how ridiculous prestige looked.

The central park five was brought up specifically to support the claim of incipient genocide. It has no other relevance. theprestige didn't forget that, but you appear to have.

My example was forcibly and systematically separating thousands of children from their parents with no possible means of reuniting them, and with no evidence that this is necessary for the well-being of the children. That is getting very close to genocide.

There are plenty of possible means of reuniting them, the government has concerns besides just the well-being of children of illegal immigrants, and your definition of "very close" must be a strange one indeed.
 
"Round up the undesirables" is quite common. That second step, "kill them all," is quite rare. Which means that taking the first step isn't really evidence that the second step will occur. And there's no other evidence that the second step would, and plenty of reason to think it wouldn't. This incipient genocide narrative all just paranoia. It's stupid and counterproductive, and makes the people pushing it look like fools.

Curiosity: what would you consider a sign that "kill them all" is on the horizon? What kind of events would make you think that it's coming?
 
Curiosity: what would you consider a sign that "kill them all" is on the horizon? What kind of events would make you think that it's coming?

There has to be an ideology which consistently blames some vulnerable minority for all of society's problems. Trump doesn't really have an ideology, and who he's blaming for what shifts from day to day, sometimes in contradiction to previous statements.
 
Curiosity: what would you consider a sign that "kill them all" is on the horizon? What kind of events would make you think that it's coming?

Here is one take:

http://genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html

1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The Catholic church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide.

2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies”, or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980’s, code words replaced them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, where the government refused to supply enough yellow badges and at least eighty percent of Jews did not wear them, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews.

3. DISCRIMINATION: A dominant group uses law, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups. The powerless group may not be accorded full civil rights or even citizenship. Examples include the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany, which stripped Jews of their German citizenship, and prohibited their employment by the government and by universities. Denial of citizenship to the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma is another example. Prevention against discrimination means full political empowerment and citizenship rights for all groups in a society. Discrimination on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion should be outlawed. Individuals should have the right to sue the state, corporations, and other individuals if their rights are violated.

4. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.

5. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility (the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or decentralized (terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda.

6. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators’ own group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d’état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.

7. PREPARATION: National or perpetrator group leaders plan the “Final Solution” to the Jewish, Armenian, Tutsi or other targeted group “question.” They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as “ethnic cleansing,” “purification,” or “counter-terrorism.” They build armies, buy weapons and train their troops and militias. They indoctrinate the populace with fear of the victim group. Leaders often claim that “if we don’t kill them, they will kill us.” Prevention of preparation may include arms embargos and commissions to enforce them. It should include prosecution of incitement and conspiracy to commit genocide, both crimes under Article 3 of the Genocide Convention.

8. PERSECUTION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is often expropriated. Sometimes they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part of a group. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or the U.N. Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees to come.

9. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. (An unsafe “safe” area is worse than none at all.) The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response Force, or regional forces -- should be authorized to act by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N. should intervene. If the U.N. is paralyzed, regional alliances must act. It is time to recognize that the international responsibility to protect transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If strong nations will not provide troops to intervene directly, they should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene.

10. DENIAL is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunals, or an international tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or an International Criminal Court may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some may be brought to justice.
 
No, it's not genocide, it was an aside to point out how ridiculous prestige looked.

My example was forcibly and systematically separating thousands of children from their parents with no possible means of reuniting them, and with no evidence that this is necessary for the well-being of the children. That is getting very close to genocide.

Broadly it is a tactic for some forms of ethnic cleansing. But that isn't genocide so no problem. Like when the jews were fleeing germany in 1938, the holocaust hadn't started yet so we were right to send them back to end up in the gas chambers. Conservatism 101.
 
There has to be an ideology which consistently blames some vulnerable minority for all of society's problems. Trump doesn't really have an ideology, and who he's blaming for what shifts from day to day, sometimes in contradiction to previous statements.

Trump, no. But there's been a pretty consistent anti-other narrative in right-wing news and other sources over the last few years, wouldn't you say?

Any other criteria?
 
There has to be an ideology which consistently blames some vulnerable minority for all of society's problems. Trump doesn't really have an ideology, and who he's blaming for what shifts from day to day, sometimes in contradiction to previous statements.

I think that immigrants from south of the border and the Middle East have been consistently demonized in "Trumpism", especially with policies crafted by Steven Miller.
 
They might be, but in this reality, they're five people who spent years in jail for a crime that they were later shown to be unrelated to by both the confession of the actual criminal, as well as DNA evidence, and your description of them actually matches Dolt 45's view of them - he has repeatedly said that they should still be in jail despite being cleared beyond any reasonable doubt.

And from this you infer that the CPF believe Donald Trump desires genocide?
 
Neither was the Holocaust until they started the actual killings.

Donald Trump is in his 70s. Whatever he was going to become, it's already happened. Adolf Hitler was a successful dictator and genocidal maniac by the time he was in his 40s. He was on that path for at least a decade or more, leading up to that apotheosis.

You want to know what kind of president Donald Trump will turn out to be? Look at the kind of man he was 30 years ago. He's still pretty much the same man today, just older and dumber. And that man is not a genocide.
 
Trump, no. But there's been a pretty consistent anti-other narrative in right-wing news and other sources over the last few years, wouldn't you say?

Every highly partisan group always attacks the "other", not just the right. The left just has a different set of "others" than conservatives. And no, it hasn't been pretty consistent. The identity of the "other" of concern, and what they're to blame for, changes depending on who's doing the talking and even when they're talking. The illegal immigrants are taking your jobs, but the transgenders are invading your bathrooms, the atheists are corrupting your schools, the environmentalists are stealing your land, etc, etc. It's not even close to monolithic. That diffusion of concerns doesn't suffice to motivate genocide, which cannot be carried out by a few lone nuts but requires broad support ans systemic organization..

Compare that to Nazi Germany, and it was all Jews, all the time, about everything. Same with Rwanda: the anti-Tutsi propaganda became all-encompassing. There's simply nothing like that in American politics these days. You have to ignore or invent a whole lot of stuff to believe otherwise.
 
I think that immigrants from south of the border and the Middle East have been consistently demonized in "Trumpism", especially with policies crafted by Steven Miller.

But only as one of many problems. That isn't enough to motivate genocide. It's totally reasonable to be concerned about mistreatment of immigrants, but genocide is a whole different ballgame. It doesn't happen by accident, it doesn't happen casually, and it doesn't happen without a hell of a lot of effort and focus. And nobody is expending that effort with that sort of focus. Not even close.
 
How would you support that statement?

I would support it by all the comments Trump has made characterizing the groups, the alarm with which he describes their attempts to immigrate, the policies he has put in place to restrict travel by such groups, and Steven Miller's own statements regarding such groups.

"****hole countries"
 
Every highly partisan group always attacks the "other", not just the right. The left just has a different set of "others" than conservatives. And no, it hasn't been pretty consistent. The identity of the "other" of concern, and what they're to blame for, changes depending on who's doing the talking and even when they're talking. The illegal immigrants are taking your jobs, but the transgenders are invading your bathrooms, the atheists are corrupting your schools, the environmentalists are stealing your land, etc, etc. It's not even close to monolithic.

It's consistent enough in blaming minorities in general, which was my point.

Clearly that criterion is insufficient. What else?
 
Compare that to Nazi Germany, and it was all Jews, all the time, about everything.
  • Last time I was in Berlin, I visited the memorial to the persecuted homosexuals just north of Potsdamer Platz. https://imgur.com/gallery/3kbck#IN1Jeo4 Next to the Tiergarten ...
  • The Nazis murdered a quarter of a million mentally ill and "defective" people via involuntary euthanasia in Aktion T-4, a program named after the Reichchancellory address Tiergarten-4.
EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

Lifetime cost of this person with a hereditary defect: 60,000 marks - fellow citizen, that's your money!
source:wikipedia

  • Polish Catholics
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Gypsys
  • Slavs
  • Freemasons
  • etc.

...
 
"Round up the undesirables" is quite common. That second step, "kill them all," is quite rare. Which means that taking the first step isn't really evidence that the second step will occur.

Do you have evidence, or even anecdotes to back up this claim Eg. Can you give us some examples where a government has rounded up “undesirables” without many of those undesirables ending up dead.
 

Back
Top Bottom