- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,792
- 16,065
- 136
http://www.thewrap.com/are-hitler-trump-comparisons-fair-a-holocaust-survivor-tells-his-son/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...res-with-adolf-hitler/?utm_term=.677600c9dc86
Taking the above with a few(hundred?) grains of salt there is one point I take home. Just thinking out loud here, no need to light up the flamethrower, critical thought welcome.
I think that the rhetoric is comparable and I think that they are catering to the same demographic, that class of citizen that has experienced a regression in income, livelihood and welfare. Apparently when this happens to a human being this subject gets mad and angry at the world and is somewhat easily swayed by a charismatic leader speaking of a common outer enemy - and thus as sociology predicts it encourages strong group cohesion.
Here is where it tickles my balls, comparing the demographic of then vs. now. The poverty of then vs the poverty of now.
No-one now is poor like they were poor in the 1930's depression.
Enter Maslow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
This tells me that we are talking about perceived poverty rather than actual basic fundamental needs of the body.
So now I am left wondering, how do we avoid this scenario of the angry homo sapiens?
Is it the span between poor and rich? If you can see the riches but cannot reach them they automatically get a place in the pyramid and becomes something you *need*? Is the answer to close the gap between the ultra rich and ultra poor? - I think it could be.
Or is it that any regression in livelihood will incite this "angry" response and given a demographic big enough and you've got your use case? - I think it could be.
Thoughts?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...res-with-adolf-hitler/?utm_term=.677600c9dc86
Taking the above with a few(hundred?) grains of salt there is one point I take home. Just thinking out loud here, no need to light up the flamethrower, critical thought welcome.
I think that the rhetoric is comparable and I think that they are catering to the same demographic, that class of citizen that has experienced a regression in income, livelihood and welfare. Apparently when this happens to a human being this subject gets mad and angry at the world and is somewhat easily swayed by a charismatic leader speaking of a common outer enemy - and thus as sociology predicts it encourages strong group cohesion.
Here is where it tickles my balls, comparing the demographic of then vs. now. The poverty of then vs the poverty of now.
No-one now is poor like they were poor in the 1930's depression.
Enter Maslow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
This tells me that we are talking about perceived poverty rather than actual basic fundamental needs of the body.
So now I am left wondering, how do we avoid this scenario of the angry homo sapiens?
Is it the span between poor and rich? If you can see the riches but cannot reach them they automatically get a place in the pyramid and becomes something you *need*? Is the answer to close the gap between the ultra rich and ultra poor? - I think it could be.
Or is it that any regression in livelihood will incite this "angry" response and given a demographic big enough and you've got your use case? - I think it could be.
Thoughts?
