In Germany we went through this, and it didn’t end well. Seeking help from a strongman is a natural impulse from tribal times, but it is not appropriate in our complex world.
What seems to happen is that various figures in the extreme right hallucinate that Trump is their savior, while he is a rather incoherent 78-year old who has a penchant for lies and made up stuff. Christians believe that the ‘orange Jesus’ will create a theocracy, hippies think he will create a better medical system, losers think he is on their side, and men think he will bring back their dominance. Peaceniks believe he is the peace bringer. I don’t really hear this from Trump, he is into drill, baby, drill and cat eating and he loves beating up people who have lost everything. It’s the commentators who make him a savior and see something in him that he isn’t.
I asked AI for parallels between Hitler and Trump and was surprised what came out:
Yes, there are notable parallels between how Hitler and Trump garnered support, though there are also important differences in context, ideology, and outcomes. Both leaders capitalized on the sense of disenfranchisement and fear among various groups, projecting themselves as the strong, singular figures capable of addressing specific concerns. Here’s a breakdown of some of the similarities:
1. Appealing to Economic Anxiety and Job Insecurity: Trump’s rise coincided with widespread economic anxieties, especially in regions hit hard by globalization and automation. Like Hitler in post-World War I Germany, Trump positioned himself as an outsider who would shake up the status quo, promising to “bring back jobs” and revive American manufacturing. His “America First” stance resonated with those who felt left behind by economic shifts.
2. Nationalist Rhetoric and Restoration of National Pride: Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” mirrors Hitler’s appeals to restore German pride and power. Both leaders tapped into nationalist sentiments, framing their agendas as a return to a better past. This type of rhetoric appeals to groups that feel their national identity is under threat, and Trump’s portrayal of America as being in need of rescue aligns with this narrative.
3. Scapegoating and Divisive Rhetoric: Trump often blames immigrants, foreign countries, and elites for America’s challenges. Like Hitler’s focus on Jews and communists as enemies, Trump has emphasized threats from outside groups, portraying them as responsible for the struggles of “ordinary Americans.” This can create a unifying force among those who feel marginalized or fearful, with Trump cast as the one who will “take care” of these perceived threats.
4. Anti-Establishment Persona: Both Hitler and Trump portrayed themselves as outsiders to the political elite, despite both having backgrounds that connected them to powerful institutions. This stance helped them appeal to those who felt betrayed by traditional politics and wanted radical change. By framing themselves as fighters against corrupt elites, they positioned themselves as advocates for “the people.”
5. Authoritarian Leanings and “Strongman” Persona: Both figures cultivated an image of a strong, decisive leader who could bypass “ineffective” democratic processes to get things done. Trump, like Hitler, has often disparaged established democratic norms, including attacking the media and undermining trust in democratic institutions. This appeals to groups who believe that regular checks and balances are obstacles rather than safeguards.
6. Use of Media and Propaganda: While Trump didn’t control media to the extent of a dictatorship, he effectively used social media and right-wing outlets to shape narratives, amplify his message, and dismiss critical coverage as “fake news.” By creating an information loop similar to Nazi propaganda, he could reinforce loyalty among his supporters and maintain his narrative as the only true source of information.
7. Cultivation of a Heroic, Almost Mythic Image: Both figures drew on imagery of themselves as saviors or heroes who alone could protect and deliver people from the “enemies” they identified. Supporters often saw them through this mythic lens, believing that only they understood the “real” problems of the country and would courageously face them. In both cases, this following sometimes led to a sort of blind allegiance that ignored contradictory information.
The critical distinction is, of course, in the outcomes and the severity of their impacts. Hitler led Germany into a genocidal regime and a world war. Trump’s rhetoric and policies, while divisive and impactful, have not led to outcomes of such extreme devastation. Additionally, the U.S.’s democratic institutions—while under strain—have been more resilient than Weimar Germany’s fragile system.
Nonetheless, these similarities underline how populist leaders can use people’s fears, desires, and sense of disempowerment to build broad support, sometimes resulting in an environment where groups project their hopes onto a figure who might not ultimately fulfill them. For some, this kind of “hallucinated salvation” can lead to disenchantment, while for others, it deepens their loyalty, creating sharp divides that often persist even after the leader leaves the scene.
So much from AI.
Indeed, a lot of Germans believed in Hitler for decades after he had destroyed the country. The law there still doesn’t allow the spreading of lies that the right wing crazies come up with, like Holocaust denialism.
Thank you for this post and all the others too. We are each moving in our own unique ways on this together path of growing awareness and embodying higher consciousness. Your motion has continually pointed this out in very helpful ways and I feel and think (the heart/brain intelligence) that the wider and more expansive perspective and point of view that Marianne Williamson speaks about rings true. Many blessings to all of us!
In Germany we went through this, and it didn’t end well. Seeking help from a strongman is a natural impulse from tribal times, but it is not appropriate in our complex world.
What seems to happen is that various figures in the extreme right hallucinate that Trump is their savior, while he is a rather incoherent 78-year old who has a penchant for lies and made up stuff. Christians believe that the ‘orange Jesus’ will create a theocracy, hippies think he will create a better medical system, losers think he is on their side, and men think he will bring back their dominance. Peaceniks believe he is the peace bringer. I don’t really hear this from Trump, he is into drill, baby, drill and cat eating and he loves beating up people who have lost everything. It’s the commentators who make him a savior and see something in him that he isn’t.
I asked AI for parallels between Hitler and Trump and was surprised what came out:
Yes, there are notable parallels between how Hitler and Trump garnered support, though there are also important differences in context, ideology, and outcomes. Both leaders capitalized on the sense of disenfranchisement and fear among various groups, projecting themselves as the strong, singular figures capable of addressing specific concerns. Here’s a breakdown of some of the similarities:
1. Appealing to Economic Anxiety and Job Insecurity: Trump’s rise coincided with widespread economic anxieties, especially in regions hit hard by globalization and automation. Like Hitler in post-World War I Germany, Trump positioned himself as an outsider who would shake up the status quo, promising to “bring back jobs” and revive American manufacturing. His “America First” stance resonated with those who felt left behind by economic shifts.
2. Nationalist Rhetoric and Restoration of National Pride: Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” mirrors Hitler’s appeals to restore German pride and power. Both leaders tapped into nationalist sentiments, framing their agendas as a return to a better past. This type of rhetoric appeals to groups that feel their national identity is under threat, and Trump’s portrayal of America as being in need of rescue aligns with this narrative.
3. Scapegoating and Divisive Rhetoric: Trump often blames immigrants, foreign countries, and elites for America’s challenges. Like Hitler’s focus on Jews and communists as enemies, Trump has emphasized threats from outside groups, portraying them as responsible for the struggles of “ordinary Americans.” This can create a unifying force among those who feel marginalized or fearful, with Trump cast as the one who will “take care” of these perceived threats.
4. Anti-Establishment Persona: Both Hitler and Trump portrayed themselves as outsiders to the political elite, despite both having backgrounds that connected them to powerful institutions. This stance helped them appeal to those who felt betrayed by traditional politics and wanted radical change. By framing themselves as fighters against corrupt elites, they positioned themselves as advocates for “the people.”
5. Authoritarian Leanings and “Strongman” Persona: Both figures cultivated an image of a strong, decisive leader who could bypass “ineffective” democratic processes to get things done. Trump, like Hitler, has often disparaged established democratic norms, including attacking the media and undermining trust in democratic institutions. This appeals to groups who believe that regular checks and balances are obstacles rather than safeguards.
6. Use of Media and Propaganda: While Trump didn’t control media to the extent of a dictatorship, he effectively used social media and right-wing outlets to shape narratives, amplify his message, and dismiss critical coverage as “fake news.” By creating an information loop similar to Nazi propaganda, he could reinforce loyalty among his supporters and maintain his narrative as the only true source of information.
7. Cultivation of a Heroic, Almost Mythic Image: Both figures drew on imagery of themselves as saviors or heroes who alone could protect and deliver people from the “enemies” they identified. Supporters often saw them through this mythic lens, believing that only they understood the “real” problems of the country and would courageously face them. In both cases, this following sometimes led to a sort of blind allegiance that ignored contradictory information.
The critical distinction is, of course, in the outcomes and the severity of their impacts. Hitler led Germany into a genocidal regime and a world war. Trump’s rhetoric and policies, while divisive and impactful, have not led to outcomes of such extreme devastation. Additionally, the U.S.’s democratic institutions—while under strain—have been more resilient than Weimar Germany’s fragile system.
Nonetheless, these similarities underline how populist leaders can use people’s fears, desires, and sense of disempowerment to build broad support, sometimes resulting in an environment where groups project their hopes onto a figure who might not ultimately fulfill them. For some, this kind of “hallucinated salvation” can lead to disenchantment, while for others, it deepens their loyalty, creating sharp divides that often persist even after the leader leaves the scene.
So much from AI.
Indeed, a lot of Germans believed in Hitler for decades after he had destroyed the country. The law there still doesn’t allow the spreading of lies that the right wing crazies come up with, like Holocaust denialism.
Thank you for this post and all the others too. We are each moving in our own unique ways on this together path of growing awareness and embodying higher consciousness. Your motion has continually pointed this out in very helpful ways and I feel and think (the heart/brain intelligence) that the wider and more expansive perspective and point of view that Marianne Williamson speaks about rings true. Many blessings to all of us!