Historically, murderous ideologies like those of Mao and Stalin gained traction by hiding behind benevolent promises ('free stuff'). This benign messaging makes them more deceptively dangerous than overtly aggressive ideologies like Nazism, which clearly signal their malevolence and are thus easier for the public to identify and reject.

The tendency to blame a single entity for disparate negative events isn't about logic but about satisfying a deep psychological need for order and control. This "derangement syndrome" provides a simple, pre-made narrative that assigns blame and creates a sense of understanding, regardless of evidence.

Persecution of successful minority groups often arises during economic hardship. The majority stops seeing the group's success as a result of skill or community focus and instead frames it as a zero-sum game where the minority is 'taking from us,' fueling resentment and justifying aggression.

Violent acts are not random; they often represent the logical conclusion within a person's specific frame of reference. If an ideology convinces someone they are fighting a Hitler-like evil, then assassination becomes a moral duty, not a crime. The danger lies in these justifying belief systems.

This psychological mechanism flips a switch, intensifying love for one's in-group while enabling murderous hatred for an out-group. It recasts political rivals as existential threats, making violence seem not just acceptable, but morally necessary for the group's survival.

This concept describes a psychological state where empathy is completely withdrawn from an "out-group." This allows individuals to justify and even celebrate violence against perceived enemies, seeing it not as murder but as a necessary and righteous act in service of their in-group.

In the aftermath of political violence, the targeted group often mirrors the very dehumanizing tactics they condemn. While correctly identifying an attacker's ideology, they risk escalating the conflict by applying labels like 'evil' to the entire opposing side, thus perpetuating the cycle of radicalization that fuels violence.

Using the 'horseshoe theory,' the analysis posits that the far-left and far-right often meet on extreme issues, such as antisemitism. This convergence serves as a critical litmus test for dangerous ideas. When ideologies from opposite ends of the spectrum align, it signals a significant societal risk.

The public sentiment towards minority groups, particularly historical scapegoats, can function as a canary in the coal mine for a nation's economic health. When fear and economic anxiety rise, society seeks a focus for its anger, making the "temperature on the Jews" a critical, if grim, socio-economic indicator.