There once was a republican who blamed,
Thought others were causing their pain,
But the truth they would see,
No one else could, apparently—
Peace only comes, when rage doesn’t reign.
Edited by: ElRoyPoet, 2025
How Trump’s incendiary rhetoric has lead to discrimination and violence against migrant communities.
The Stanford Prison Experiment vividly demonstrates that ordinary individuals can commit acts of cruelty when placed in positions of unchecked power within a dehumanizing environment. Conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, the experiment revealed how quickly and intensely behavior can shift under conditions of anonymity, authority, and lack of accountability (Zimbardo, 2007). This underscores that cruelty is not solely the domain of inherently bad or psychopathic individuals but can emerge from well-intentioned people overwhelmed by systemic structures and situational forces. The implications extend beyond individual actions to broader societal attitudes, particularly regarding specific nationalities or ethnic groups.
Understanding the dynamics of power and cruelty requires careful consideration of the rhetoric utilized by influential leaders. Research has shown that the use of dehumanizing language can incite collective punitive behaviors against entire groups. A study by Haslam and Loughnan (2014) demonstrates that employing terms that strip individuals of their humanity (e.g., referring to opponents as “vermin” or “monsters”) legitimizes harmful behaviors against them. This type of rhetoric can create a societal climate where individuals feel justified in punishing entire communities for the actions of a few.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric surrounding immigration exemplifies this trend. His description of migrants as “animals” during a speech in 2018 not only dehumanized these individuals but also emboldened segments of society and law enforcement to act with increased aggression. A 2017 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center documented a significant rise in hate crimes following Trump’s inflammatory comments on immigration, illustrating a direct correlation between his rhetoric and the behavioral normalization of aggression toward whole communities.
In the context of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Trump’s rhetoric has been linked to an increase in aggressive enforcement actions. A report from Human Rights Watch (2020) documented incidents of excessive force used by ICE agents during arrests and operations, coinciding with heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Trump administration. Reports indicated that agents felt empowered to act harshly due to the language framing immigration enforcement as a battle against societal threats. This environment mirrors the dynamics observed in the Stanford experiment, where authority and dehumanization led to cruel behaviors.
During a reelection campaign speech in Michigan in 2024, Trump reiterated his characterization of immigrants who have committed murder as “animals” and “not human.” When confronted by critics, he contemptuously responded: “The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans. They’re animals.'” Throughout his political career, Trump has frequently used harsh language to describe immigrants illegally in the United States, including referring to them as “poisoning the blood of our country” and stating that they’re “the greatest invasion in history”. Such statements foster a mindset where entire communities are punished based on the actions of a few, reinforcing the idea that punitive measures against all members of a group are justified.
Further, a study by Kearns et al. (2018) found that political leaders’ inflammatory language significantly influences followers’ attitudes and behaviors. Various analyses during Trump’s presidency suggested that his rhetoric around border security and immigration fostered cruelty toward migrants, resulting in punitive measures like family separations. This illustrates how inflammatory language can activate a collective punitive response among the populace, encouraging them to seek retribution against entire groups.
The psychological dynamics of surveillance and authority extend beyond formal institutions. The feeling of omnipotence over others, especially when reinforced by groupthink or dehumanization, can lead to sadistic behaviors justified within groups of like-minded individuals. Patterns observed in the Stanford experiment are echoed in reports of police brutality and institutional abuse, pointing to a persistent issue of systemic power corruption rooted in human psychology and social structures.
This influence of rhetoric illustrates how language and political discourse shape societal norms and individual behaviors. When leaders devalue empathy, justify aggressive actions, or portray certain groups as threats, they contribute to a social environment conducive to cruelty. This dynamic mirrors the mechanisms demonstrated in the Stanford experiment, where authority and the environment created conditions ripe for abuse.
Therefore, understanding the roots of cruelty and abuse requires examining both systemic structures and the cultural and rhetorical frameworks that influence behavior. Creating safeguards against systemic abuse must coincide with promoting responsible leadership and discourse—recognizing that words, symbols, and narratives profoundly shape societal attitudes and actions.
In conclusion, while the Stanford Prison Experiment provides critical insight into how systemic and environmental factors can precipitate cruelty among ordinary individuals, it underscores the significance of systemic checks, oversight, and responsible rhetoric. Leaders and societal institutions must remain vigilant against the normalization of cruelty, understanding that language and environment can either inhibit or facilitate the darker aspects of human nature.
Questions and Answers:
- What is the main argument of the article?
Answer: The main argument is that inflammatory rhetoric from leaders, especially when it dehumanizes specific ethnic or national groups, can lead to societal aggression and collective punishment, reflecting behaviors observed in the Stanford Prison Experiment. - How does the Stanford Prison Experiment relate to the themes discussed?
Answer: The Stanford Prison Experiment shows how individuals can commit acts of cruelty when given unchecked power in dehumanizing environments. It highlights that even ordinary people can behave harmfully under certain conditions, which is relevant to how leaders’ rhetoric influences behavior. - What role does dehumanizing language play in shaping public behavior?
Answer: Dehumanizing language, like calling individuals “vermin” or “monsters,” strips them of their humanity and legitimizes aggressive actions against them. This kind of rhetoric creates an environment where collective punishment against entire groups seems justified. - Can you provide an example of inflammatory rhetoric used by Donald Trump?
Answer: A notable example is when Trump referred to migrants as “animals” during a speech in 2018. This language dehumanized them and contributed to aggressive behavior by certain segments of society and law enforcement. - What evidence is presented to show the impact of this rhetoric on society?
Answer: You might consider the 2017 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which documented a significant increase in hate crimes following Trump’s inflammatory immigration comments. This illustrates a clear connection between his rhetoric and heightened aggression in society. - How does rhetoric influence institutions like ICE?
Answer: Trump’s rhetoric has been linked to increased aggressive actions by ICE agents. You can refer to a report by Human Rights Watch that documented incidents of excessive force, indicating that the anti-immigrant rhetoric empowered agents to act more harshly. - What psychological dynamics contribute to cruelty in societal contexts?
Answer: The discussion includes how authority, anonymity, and a lack of accountability can lead to sadistic behavior and collective cruelty, similar to the dynamics seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment. These factors create an environment conducive to abuse. - How does groupthink play a role in exacerbating cruelty?
Answer: Groupthink reinforces collective beliefs and justifies cruel actions among like-minded individuals. When leaders use dehumanizing rhetoric, it can lead to a shared belief that punishing entire groups is acceptable, further normalizing aggressive behavior. - What safeguards are suggested to prevent systemic abuse?
Answer: It’s emphasized that there should be systemic safeguards, oversight, and responsible rhetoric from leaders. These measures can help reduce the risk of cruelty and ensure that people in positions of power are held accountable for their actions. - Why is it important to understand the connection between rhetoric and behavior?
Answer: Understanding this connection is important because it highlights how language shapes societal norms and individual behaviors. By recognizing the impact of rhetoric, you can work towards more responsible leadership and help prevent the normalization of cruelty toward marginalized groups.
How Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans Created a Rhetoric Fire Storm in America
Honest Americans are fed up with conservatives and evangelicals blaming Democrats for all the strife plaguing the nation. This reverse psychology is a false narrative spun by MAGA operatives to divert attention from their role in fostering division. They pursued power by stoking fear, grievance, and anger, using social media and conservative news channels to influence public opinion. Politics has been transformed into a reality-show spectacle, with viewers worldwide tuning in daily to get a play-by-play of who’s ahead and who’s falling behind in the game of one-upmanship between the Republican and Democratic parties—turning civic life into a bloodsport and leaving many voters disillusioned.
The Rise of Incendiary Rhetoric
Trump’s media persona, amplified by years on ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’ and decades of tabloid exposure, normalized brash, confrontational language and spectacle politics. Since launching his 2015 campaign, Trump regularly used loaded language—words chosen to evoke emotional reactions rather than reasoned debate—which research links to increased political polarization and affective hostility. Scholars have documented overlaps between several techniques of modern populist leaders and historical propaganda—scapegoating, repetition, de-legitimizing institutions—even as they caution against literal equivalence to totalitarian regimes. Yet, irrespective of his language, which often resembles that of a gangster boss, he has repeatedly tried to act like an authoritarian. Therefore, reasonable people are justified in calling him a fascist or even comparing him to Adolf Hitler, especially when he speaks in ways that incite violence or hatred. His supporters, many of whom adopt flag-waving, Nazi-like rhetoric, often echo his divisive language, creating a toxic environment that threatens the very foundations of democracy.
Throughout his political career, Trump has demonstrated a penchant for inflammatory statements. For instance, he scapegoated Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals during his campaign launch on June 16, 2015—a statement that fueled their dehumanization. His repeated false claims about widespread voter fraud, culminated in the U.S. Capitol riot—because his cult followers believed the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen—have deepened distrust in the democratic process. These remarks, often delivered with a provocative flair, serve to deepen division and stir up resentment among his base.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences. First Amendment protections guarantee that citizens won’t be arrested for speaking freely, as long as they aren’t guilty of incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, defamation, certain obscenity, or falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Trump’s language and conduct resemble those of agitators who metaphorically shout “fire” in crowded spaces—an analogy often used to describe speech that incites panic or violence. Since 2015, he has used loaded language to stir emotions, often targeting minorities, political opponents, and the press. All activist movements are driven by emotion. Trump’s incendiary rhetoric fuels MAGA fanaticism and radicalizes the resistance. When people become emotionally charged and offended, they often seek to retaliate by punishing groups or individuals they perceive as enemies—through cancel culture, boycotts, or even violence.
Trump’s tendency to act like an authoritarian—calling critics “enemies of the people,” dismissing the free press as “fake news,” and issuing threats to political opponents—fuels a dangerous narrative. When he behaves irresponsibly, spewing incendiary rhetoric without regard for the consequences, his supporters often follow suit, blindly believing that no repercussions will come their way. His cult followers, many of whom are too blinded by loyalty to see the danger, fail to understand that fighting words are not harmless—they are weapons. When wielded recklessly, they can ignite a powder keg of anger, resentment, and violence. Moreover, Trump is arguably the worst “politically correct” offender in America, because MAGA Republicans have allowed him to spew divisive rhetoric and have provided cover for all his lies, making him the pathological liar-in-chief. Hypocritically, these same sycophants also want the government to collectively punish liberals when they feel offended, further fueling division and potential chaos.
When Trump claims he is the victim of a “witch hunt,” and warns that conservatives and evangelicals will lose their country, or suggests that if they can come for him, they can come for you, he is simply trying to manufacture a crisis. His supporters, often echo chambers on social media, amplify these narratives, further radicalizing individuals and increasing the risk of domestic terrorism. Trump has exemplified this dynamic, often dismissing critics as “enemies of the people” and fostering a narrative where political correctness is viewed as censorship rather than respect for diverse opinions.
Historically, similar patterns of rhetoric have led to violence and tyranny. Hitler’s propaganda machine manipulated mass sentiment through emotionally charged speeches and relentless scapegoating, ultimately leading to the Holocaust and World War II. Likewise, Trump’s divisive language—such as mocking political opponents and labeling immigrants as an “invasion and poisoning the blood of our country”—continues to fuel hostility and distrust.
His rhetoric encourages supporters to see political disagreement as a threat to their very existence, escalating tensions that could easily boil over into violence. For example, on August 8, 2019, Trump tweeted that four progressive Democratic congresswomen—often called “The Squad”—should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came,” despite all four being American citizens. This racist and inflammatory comment stirred racial animosity and was widely condemned.
Another example is his campaign rallies, where he told supporters, “We have to beat the hell out of them; knock the crap out of them. I will pay for the legal fees”—referring to protesters and hecklers—an outright incitement to violence. During his presidency, his comments remained equally provocative. For instance, on September 3, 2020, during a rally in North Carolina, Trump told supporters to “liberate” states like Michigan and Virginia, which had Democratic governors, implying they should rebel against government authority. Such language is a clear call to action, emboldening supporters to act violently if they feel justified.
Perhaps most alarming was his conspiracy theory claiming that COVID-19 was “the China virus,” which fueled xenophobia and racism. His language often painted entire communities as threats, further dividing the nation. On October 22, 2020, just days before the presidential election, Trump suggested that voting by mail would lead to widespread fraud, calling it “the most corrupt election in American history,” despite a lack of evidence. Such statements undermine trust in the electoral process and threaten to incite violence or unrest if outcomes are perceived as illegitimate.
Tragically, on January 6, 2021, Trump’s repeated claims that the election was stolen culminated in a speech before the Capitol riot, where he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell,” signaling them to challenge the certification of the electoral college results. His words directly contributed to the violent assault on the security officers of the Capitol building, a moment that will forever be remembered as a dark chapter in American history. His rhetoric about “stolen elections,” “rigged systems,” and “patriots fighting for their country” created an environment where his cult followers believed violence was justified to “save” the nation.
This climate of heightened polarization resembles the dangerous road rage seen in the streets—volatile, unpredictable, and destructive. Partisan narratives are as combustible as gasoline, with incendiary rhetoric increasing the risk of catastrophe. Such narratives act like tinder, easily igniting uncontrollable fires in communities. When conservative politicians and evangelical leaders engage in divisive speech, they play with fire, risking a rapid escalation that can consume everything in its path.
History warns us that such inflammatory language, if left unchecked, can lead to chaos, violence, and the erosion of democratic institutions. The danger lies not only in the words themselves but also in the willingness of followers to act on them. As a nation, it is crucial to recognize these dangerous patterns and reject rhetoric that incites violence and hatred. Only through a commitment to truth, respect, and unity can we hope to preserve the democracy we hold dear—and prevent the fires of division from consuming our entire society.
“Truth can bear any criticism, examination, or argument; it does not need censorship or propaganda to protect it. What needs censorship is propaganda—since it is a lie—and therefore, the vast majority of what MAGA sycophants and their echo chamber are expected to believe is a lie. When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest by attempting to debunk the subject matter experts.”
Op-Ed: “Your suffering is never caused by the person you’re blaming.” Blame is an easy escape, but it never leads to freedom and encases you in a prison of false perception. It’s tempting to believe that suffering is caused by someone else—that their words, their actions, or their choices are the reason for the pain. But what if the real source of suffering isn’t what they did, but the way it is perceived, processed, and held onto?
The mind has a way of creating narratives. It builds stories around pain, assigning fault and attaching emotions to past wounds. But the moment blame is given away, power is also given away. Blame keeps the focus outward, waiting for someone else to change, apologize, or make things right. But what if peace doesn’t depend on their actions? What if it has always been an internal choice?
No one can control how others act. People will make mistakes, they will be unfair, they will disappoint. But what happens next—the response, the emotions carried forward, the way the situation is interpreted—is entirely within personal control. And this is where true strength lies: in realizing that suffering isn’t created by the external, but by the attachment to what cannot be changed.
Personal accountability is not about excusing others—it’s about reclaiming power. It’s the understanding that while pain is real, suffering is optional. It’s the choice to see difficult situations as lessons instead of burdens, to shift perspective from victim-hood to growth. The world will not always be kind, but inner peace is not determined by external forces.
Letting go of blame is not about denying hurt; it’s about refusing to let it define the future. When responsibility is taken for thoughts, reactions, and emotions, life no longer feels like something that happens TO YOU, but something shaped BY YOU.
Freedom begins the moment responsibility is claimed. The choice is always there: to remain bound by blame or to step forward in strength. In the end, the only true control is over oneself, and that is where real peace is found.
“The devil tempts us to bring out the worse in us, but God test us to bring out the best in us.” By: Warren Wiersbe
Commentary: When you perceive that someone is insulting you or saying something offensive, do you become upset because of what you have heard or read? Before anyone opens their mouth or types anything on social media, they must have thought about it first. In reality, the reason you become upset is not solely because of what was said; it is often because of your interpretation of another person’s thoughts. When you say, “How dare they say that,” what you really mean is, “How dare they have such a low opinion of me (or someone I care about).”
If you unfriend someone because of what you perceive they are thinking, it reflects a judgment that your thoughts are somehow more valid or ‘holier’ than theirs. And if you suspect that their thoughts are malicious or evil, you may want to disassociate yourself from them. This is unfair because you have no idea what experiences they have gone through to arrive at their current state of mind. In their life, they might have experienced happiness or endured hardships. Those experiences have shaped their thoughts, and sadly, they might still be struggling with some of them—especially considering the recent interactions they’ve had with you.
My extroverted dad once told me: “When I was younger, I could make friends easily. However, as time went by, people would see something in me they disliked, or I would discover something about them that I didn’t care for (because I would subconsciously profile them). Eventually, every time I met someone new, it would always come down to the same conclusion.” In the end, he realized that when someone unfriends you, it’s usually because they have given up trying to get you to validate them or because they no longer feel appreciated.
Experience has taught me that we need not be offended—that one of the most important signs of maturity is a refusal to take offense. We need not be angry, bitter, or insulted. We need not make our sister or brother an offender for “an inopportune word.” It really is not too difficult to look at a person’s heart—to try to understand what they meant to do, rather than what they did, or what they meant to say rather than what they actually said. Sometimes, this simply requires looking the other way and assuming the best.
“Is there a virtue more in need of application in our time than the virtue of forgiving and forgetting? There are those who would look upon this as a sign of weakness. Is it? I submit that it takes neither strength nor intelligence to brood in anger over wrongs suffered, to go through life with a spirit of vindictiveness, or to dissipate one’s abilities in planning retribution. There is no peace in nursing a grudge. There is no happiness in living for the day when you can ‘get even.’” By: Gordon B. Hinckley
Ultimately, history teaches us that temporary peace achieved through authoritarianism is often an illusion, and the true cost is the erosion of civil rights, individual freedoms, and the rule of law. Democratic societies must remain vigilant, fostering compromise and understanding, even amid polarization. Otherwise, they risk sliding into cycles of authoritarianism, where the promise of stability masks the suppression of dissent and the consolidation of power by a few.“If our democracy dies, the reason won’t be that Americans were too apathetic to save it; it will be that they voted it out of existence.” By: H. Scott Butler
“Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that same liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the ‘general welfare of the people’. Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by [authoritarian] tyrants—to make us bondsmen.” By: Marcus Tullius Cicero
“Tyranny feeds on fear, silencing voices and binding wills; democracy prevails through courage—raising voices and resisting in the shadows.” By: A. Freeman
“Under Trump, we’ve lost decency. We’ve lost civility. We’ve lost respect for the rule of law. We’ve normalized verbal abuse on the internet. We’ve normalized bullying. As much as the woke generation tried to change that, it’s back. Out the window goes character and integrity. Nobody has great things to say about politicians, but ideally, we’re supposed to elect the best of us, not the worst. He embodies everything that’s wrong, not just with America, but with being human.” By: Jeff Daniels
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” By: Pastor Martin Niemöller
elroypoet.blog 