I agree with your second paragraph. But I think the comparison with Black Speech has driven you a little off the mark about what people actually say about real

I agree with your second paragraph. But I think the comparison with Black Speech has driven you a little off the mark about what people actually say about real languages. I don't think anyone says that you can't say anything pretty in a so-called "ugly language." They only mean that some tend to sound less pleasing than others. So with your 99 Luftballons example, nobody ever said that nothing in German can ever be nice sounding. And for the latter, I think you're conflating beauty with moral value. Personally, I don't know what Mussolini's speeches actually sounded like, so I can't comment. Again, I cannot see how this is a difficult position to accept: some sounds sound worse than others. Spoken languages are made up of sounds. So why is it so hard to accept that some languages contain more pleasing sounds than others. Of course, as I've already agreed, there can be a lot more at work than this, including racism. But as a general proposition, I don't see how you can hold that judgments about what languages are ugly are fundamentally racist. I also don't see how you've addressed the issue that the categories of people that we regard as speaking an ugly language only weakly correlate (if at all -- obviously this is not a mathematical exercise so I cannot be too precise here, unfortunately) with groups to which we have broad racial biases. I suppose I can't rule out that there are people out there in the U.S. or western Europe who would tell you, as a general proposition, that African and Middle Eastern languages are ugly. If so, those people are, I agree, letting their racial biases drive their aesthetic judgments about the qualities of language. But I don't think this is the typical case.