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.

The appeal of complex conspiracies isn't just about information; it's psychological. Believing you are at the center of a vast plot makes life more exciting and meaningful. The realization that one is not important can lead to "secondary depression," making the conspiracy narrative preferable to reality.

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.

Viewing the conflict as two rational sides in a misunderstanding is flawed. Both sides see the other as an existential threat and are willing to use extreme violence to achieve their goals. This reframes the narrative from a political dispute to a primal, violent tribal conflict where both sides see themselves as righteous.

This concept describes a psychological state where empathy is completely withdrawn from an "out-group."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.