How do the powerful get others to kill? How do they influence an agenda of violence and war?
They dehumanize the enemy, supposed or real.
I certainly don't profess to be an authority in the strategies of war, psychology or psychiatric behaviors. But I understand dehumanization.
Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration.
Dehumanization isn't the only way to legitimize wars or killing. But it works hand-in-hand with the rest of war propaganda.
Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.
I see striking similarities between dehumanization and racism. Maybe that is why I recognize dehumanization when I see it. It smells just like racism.
Most times racist behaviour doesn't result in death; almost always, though, dehumanization for war results in extreme violence and/or death.
We are continually being manipulated into dehumanization. We are manipulated on the playground, in the office, at our social events, at our houses of worship, by our media, and, by our leaders.
Our opponents are labelled as terrorists, guerrillas, or gooks. Racial divides, via dehumanization, produce names like kike, raghead, camel jockey, spic, nigger, or cracker.
It is all about manipulation.
And, it is about the lack of meaningful discussion, communication and negotiation.
Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.
When there is no common ground, conflicts are harder to resolve. Wars are harder to end. It is more difficult to get both sides to come to the table. Each side sees the other as inhuman with little to no moral character.
This is occuring with the conflict in Gaza. Both sides have fallen victim to dehumanization.
Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.
So the circle of violence, war, death and despair continues. And it continues for both sides until the most courageous step up to the plate and announce they have had enough.
Enough.
I leave you with words of wisdom from a man I admire very much.
No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.
Elie Wiesel