Method AND Power COMPARISON 1933 - 2025

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Adolf Hitler's Speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 and Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech as President of the United States on 20 January 2025: A Comparative Analysis
This analysis focuses on recurring themes, tone, and proclaimed objectives.

Comparison of Main Themes

Theme	Adolf Hitler (1933)	Donald Trump (2025)
National Unity	Call for moral and political unity to overcome economic and social crises.	Call for a renewal of American greatness and unity against decadence and threats.
National Security	Emphasis on a strong state to restore order and discipline.	Declaration of a national emergency at the southern border to enhance security.
Blame of Enemies	Rejection of Weimar’s democratic experiments as the cause of crisis.	Designation of drug cartels as "terrorists" and criticism of past policies.
Appeal to God	Explicit mention of God's help in fulfilling the national mission.	Invocation of patriotic and religious values to justify new policies.
Sacrifice for the Future	Demand for immediate sacrifices to secure future prosperity.	Announcement of difficult measures for the "salvation" of future generations.

Comparison of Tone and Intentions

• Deceptive Unifying Tone:
• Hitler adopted a moderate, unifying tone to justify total power concentration, promising to solve unemployment while preparing repression.
• Trump used populist rhetoric focused on strong and immediate action, rejecting compromise to combat "internal and external enemies" (cartels, immigration).
• Criticism of Previous Institutions:
• Hitler blamed the weaknesses of parliamentary democracy to justify the need for authoritarian government.
• Trump criticised the previous administration and invoked "failed policies" to justify radical changes.
• Messianic Vision:
• Both speeches present their leadership as providential answers to national crises, positioning their governments as the only saviours of the people.

Although the historical contexts differ profoundly, similarities are evident in rhetorical strategies. Both leaders use promises of national renewal, the designation of enemies to consolidate power, and pseudo-protective discourse to mobilise the populace. This illustrates how political language can manipulate public opinion by playing on fears and hopes at different times.

The comparison between Donald Trump's and Adolf Hitler's behaviour raises questions about power usage, emotional manipulation, and implicit or explicit expansionist objectives. While acknowledging vastly different historical contexts, parallels emerge in rhetorical strategies, economic visions, and geopolitical stances.

Worldview and Expansionism

• Trump: Trump mentioned in his 2025 speech a desire to "flood the world with American oil" and strengthen the United States' economic dominance. Although he does not explicitly discuss military conquest, his statements align with global economic domination strategies. His policies are based on economic nationalism (such as "America First"), protectionism, and using natural resources as geopolitical tools.
• Hitler: In his early speeches, Hitler did not explicitly announce a desire for world conquest. However, his ideology, as outlined in Mein Kampf and subsequent addresses, centred on Lebensraum (living space), justifying territorial annexation and the domination of so-called inferior peoples. Economic resources, including control of raw materials, were pivotal in his strategy.
• Comparison: Trump uses economic language to discuss conquest—market domination and resource exports—where Hitler employed racial and territorial justifications. Both seek hegemony, albeit through different means.

Use of Democracy as a Tool of Legitimacy

• Trump: He invokes democracy and the American people to justify unilateral policies, positioning himself as the nation’s saviour against a "corrupt elite" while attacking press freedom, judicial institutions, and the electoral process when unfavourable.
• Hitler: Hitler rose to power using the democratic structures of the Weimar Republic, which he quickly dismantled with emergency laws, presenting himself as the legitimate people's representative.
• Comparison: Both leaders use democracy as a pretext rather than a goal. Hitler abolished democracy outright; Trump undermines it by attacking checks and balances.

Internal and External Enemies

• Trump: Trump identifies external enemies (China, Iran, Mexican cartels) and internal adversaries as threats. He frequently labels opponents as "traitors" or "anti-American," fostering division and eroding democratic dialogue.
• Hitler: Hitler swiftly labelled internal enemies (Jews, communists, trade unions) as responsible for Germany’s woes, orchestrating hate campaigns that led to systematic crimes.
• Comparison: Both use enemy figures to unite their base. Trump’s targets are primarily political and economic; Hitler’s were ethnic and ideological.

A Worrying but Nuanced Parallel

Trump's economic ambitions and rhetoric do not imply extermination policies. However, his methods of societal division, calls to force, and attacks on democratic institutions recall early 20th-century dangers. If Trump weakens international structures, his economic nationalism could resemble Hitler's expansionist militarism without racial ideology.

The diplomatic or populist disguise of radical intentions is a common strategy for leaders implementing discriminatory policies without immediate public or institutional backlash. Comparing Trump's language with Hitler's reveals troubling similarities despite different end goals and contexts.

Diplomatic Language for Radical Policies

• Trump: He uses phrases like "protecting Americans," "securing borders," or "restoring greatness" to justify restrictive immigration policies, describing migrants as potential criminals or security threats. Euphemisms like "extreme vetting" mask aggressive actions.
• Hitler: Hitler initially used moderate language to gain popular and elite support, planning extreme measures. Words like "purification" and "national renewal" masked systemic violence and genocide.
• Similarity: Both leaders frame unpopular policies with acceptable language. Trump uses security and prosperity to limit immigration; Hitler used stability and racial purity to justify persecution.

Dehumanisation of Immigrants and Minorities

• Trump: Portraying migrants as "rapists," "drug traffickers," or gang members, Trump fosters fear and mistrust, justifying mass expulsions and border walls.
• Hitler: Hitler depicted Jews and minorities as parasites and national corruptors, setting the stage for persecution and extermination.
• Similarity: Dehumanisation prepares the ground for human rights violations. Trump frames it in security terms, Hitler in racial ideology.

Fear as a Political Engine

• Trump: Fear of migrants, "others," and foreign powers (like China or Iran) drives his policy. He portrays imminent danger, presenting himself as the only solution.
• Hitler: Fear of communism, Jewish conspiracies, and hostile powers mobilised Germans behind increasingly extreme measures.
• Similarity: Both legitimise extraordinary actions through fear, uniting loyalists and marginalising opponents.

Similar Political Strategy, Different Consequences

Trump and Hitler share rhetorical strategies, using fear, dehumanisation, and euphemism for radical policies. However, Trump operates within democratic boundaries with checks and balances, whereas Hitler eliminated all opposition.

Democratic vigilance is crucial to prevent populist leaders from crossing into totalitarianism. While Trump’s language resonates with Hitler's, current safeguards remain vital.

Relationship with Economic and Financial Elites

• Trump: A billionaire businessman, Trump immediately gained elite support, with backing from figures like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and Peter Thiel. His policies favour deregulation, corporate tax cuts, and traditional energy industries.
• Hitler: Initially lacking elite support, Hitler appealed to industrialists by promising anti-union policies, communist suppression, and economic militarisation.
• Comparison: Trump represents oligarchy in politics; Hitler courted elites to consolidate power. Both dynamics highlight alliances that shape authority.

Influence of Modern Tech Titans: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos

• Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos: In contemporary political landscapes, figures like Musk and Bezos hold significant economic and technological influence, shaping public discourse, policy, and global markets.
• Musk’s and Bezos’ Role:
• Economic Power: Both have built vast empires—Musk in automotive, space exploration, and technology (Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter) and Bezos in e-commerce and cloud computing (Amazon).
• Political Leverage: Musk’s control over communication platforms and Bezos’ ownership of The Washington Post demonstrate how billionaires influence media narratives and public opinion.
• Comparison with Trump: Trump’s direct involvement in business mirrored the growing influence of entrepreneurial figures. Musk and Bezos, although not political leaders, wield soft power that parallels the elite support Trump leveraged. Unlike Hitler, who sought elite backing, these modern titans often act independently, reshaping industries and governance norms without direct political office.
• Democracy and Wealth: The concentration of power in few hands raises concerns about democratic erosion when corporate interests dominate policy decisions.

The Power of Economic Support as a Catalyst for Power

The key difference lies in the fact that Trump did not need to convince elites to support him, as he was already one of them. This gave him immediate economic and media leverage, allowing him to bypass certain regulatory mechanisms with well-funded campaigns and international influence networks. In contrast, Hitler had to build this relationship through political and economic concessions, particularly by crushing the political left.

A Democracy in Danger? Trump's close alliances with wealthy elites and media conglomerates allow him to manipulate public discourse in a way that, although different from Hitler’s approach, can prove equally dangerous. The concentration of wealth and power within a narrow group aligned with a populist leader poses a significant threat to democracy, as it weakens traditional checks and balances.

In this context, it is critical to monitor:

1.    Pressures exerted on the free press and judicial institutions.

2.    Political campaign financing and the influence of large corporations on government decisions.

3.    The use of economic power to shape foreign policy, as Trump did with economic sanctions.

4.    The role of influential entrepreneurs like Musk and Bezos in shaping societal values and technological control.

What should world society fear or protect itself from in order to bring democracy, freedom and fraternity?

This is a significant and sensitive question. To prevent any leader from becoming a modern version of authoritarian figures like Hitler, world societies need to be vigilant and proactive in safeguarding democratic values, freedoms, and social cohesion. Here are key aspects to fear and actions to protect democracy, freedom, and fraternity:

1. Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Fear: Weakening of judicial independence, electoral integrity, and parliamentary oversight.
Protection:

• Strengthen Checks and Balances: Ensure that the separation of powers remains robust.
• Empower Independent Institutions: Support a free judiciary, transparent election processes, and a strong legislative branch to counterbalance executive power.

2. Control over Information and Media

Fear: Manipulation of media narratives, censorship, and attacks on press freedom.
Protection:

• Support Independent Journalism: Defend freedom of the press and encourage investigative reporting.
• Combat Disinformation: Educate the public on media literacy to recognize and resist propaganda and fake news.

3. Vilification of Minority Groups

Fear: Policies or rhetoric targeting specific ethnic, religious, or social groups as scapegoats.
Protection:

• Promote Human Rights: Advocate for laws protecting minority rights and anti-discrimination policies.
• Foster Social Inclusion: Build community programs that encourage diversity and cross-cultural understanding.

4. Concentration of Economic and Political Power

Fear: Alliances between political leaders and wealthy elites to undermine democratic competition.
Protection:

• Enforce Fair Campaign Financing: Limit the influence of money in politics with transparency regulations.
• Strengthen Anti-Corruption Measures: Establish watchdogs to prevent cronyism and corruption.

5. Nationalism and Expansionist Rhetoric

Fear: Policies prioritizing aggressive economic or military dominance at the expense of global cooperation.
Protection:

• Promote International Cooperation: Engage in multilateral organizations to solve global challenges.
• Encourage Diplomacy: Prioritize peaceful conflict resolution over militaristic approaches.

6. Fear-Based Governance

Fear: Leaders using fear of external and internal threats to justify repressive policies.
Protection:

• Defend Civil Liberties: Resist laws that curtail freedoms under the guise of security.
• Encourage Rational Public Discourse: Use education to promote critical thinking and reduce reactionary politics.

7. Undermining of Fraternity and Social Cohesion

Fear: Division among people based on social, racial, or economic lines.
Protection:

• Foster Solidarity: Support movements and institutions that promote equality, inclusion, and mutual respect.
• Encourage Community Engagement: Empower citizens to participate actively in civic life and governance.

Democracy, freedom, and fraternity require constant vigilance, education, and active participation. Societies must prioritize human rights, the rule of law, and open dialogue while resisting fear-driven policies. By protecting these pillars, we prevent the rise of authoritarianism and nurture a world where liberty and justice prevail for all.

SAISI

Do illnesses have a meaning? Conscious healing

 

Relationship to Societal Disease

CC = Advisory Committee

PTI = Vise à s'assurer de la cohérence et de la bonne articulation des politiques publiques et initiatives conduites par le Conseil départemental et ses partenaires

CEP = Multidisciplinary Team Council

This work was done between 2019 and 2022 by 13 people who belong to the CC, PTI and CEP of Hérault, France

 

In summary:

It would be for the CC to develop the frame of a workshop to be tested internally first, then to export it to the other CCs, then more widely to other interested structures.

The purpose of this workshop would be to get people to express themselves on their relationship to the disease and to seek together how to get out of conditioning and beliefs, in order to acquire more autonomy. Simultaneously, to bring to light the structural problems in society that induces conflict that can result in illness, such as endemic unemployment, the deterioration of human relations within employment, etc.

The main idea is that our health is first of all our responsibility, individual and collective. But to be able to take on this responsibility, collective work is needed to change the common cultural narrative. (as we did for "work")

This approach is not “against” or “on the sidelines” of medicine and health practitioners. It aims, on the contrary, to relieve them of the enormous burden which consists in having to manage what should be managed by the patient: the “taking charge” of his own internal conflicts and of the conflicts induced by the social organization. The doctor can only really "help" the one who helps himself first, and he cannot resolve socially induced conflicts and illnesses on his own.

Starting from observations of the lived reality, made both by recipients and by social workers, the CC of Béziers proposes to broaden its reflection and its proposals (2018-2022) on "work vs employment and representations" to the dimension of the physical and mental health of recipients in particular, and of people in precarious situations in general.

Indeed, the problem of "health" is generally approached by the institutions, within the framework of integration, "from the angle of the difficulty or the obstacle to employment, as a strictly medical problem calling for a response curative care. (PTI 2017-2021 ) The discussions during the work of the PTI 2017-2021 have changed this trend and given rise to a different orientation: "The reflections undertaken within the ad hoc groups have led to a change of posture, which now consists to apprehend the person in the process of integration as a whole, taking into account his environment, and to rely on his abilities and skills to promote his development, within the framework of social progression. (PTI 2021-2025)

• Findings

The current social organization around employment, and the representations resulting from it, contribute to precipitating more and more people into precariousness (even while having a job), into unemployment or into the RSA system.

The responses at the national institutional level are based more on increased control and repression vis-à-vis recipients than on proposals for new ways or permanent solutions to avoid non-employment.

Recipients suffer from both isolation and a lack of social recognition. Not everyone has the same capacity for resilience in the face of these two problems. Many are then forced to find in the status of “sick” a means of escaping both the pressure exerted by institutions and the pressure they impose on themselves to acquire a recognized social status. They don't fake it: they develop real illnesses. The status of "sick" justifies not being able to respond to pressure from outside, in the eyes of the institution which then releases the pressure, and in the eyes of the recipient who can attribute the reason to his illness. The inability to register in employment (= a recognized social status) which he encounters and thus discharge his feeling of guilt. The disease then constitutes a shield of protection essential to the psyche to resist: it is then necessary and useful.

The statistics of state organizations that monitor health are also formal: the unemployed and precarious have a life expectancy much lower than the national average age:

“Not only have scientists discovered that unemployed people have a higher suicide mortality rate than working people, but also that the loss of work promotes the onset of cardiovascular pathologies. The unemployed thus have a risk of stroke and heart attack increased by 80% compared to the assets. They are also more likely to die of cancer. The finding is the same for women and men. » (..)

“there is a specific effect associated with unemployment independent of other risk factors,” emphasizes Pierre Meneton, public health researcher at Inserm. An excess mortality that is not well explained, probably linked to the psychological dimension of unemployment, with phenomena such as depression or lack of sleep." As the epidemiologists write, in conclusion of their study, " Killing jobs means killing people, figuratively and literally."

Paradoxically, while the demand for care is increasing, we are simultaneously witnessing the dismantling of the health service in France, particularly in rural areas where the medical deserts are widening, and the hospitals - which must consequently absorb more patients - are increasingly deprived of means and personnel.

Being sick therefore becomes a “luxury” that soon few will be able to afford.

Consequently, dealing with the question of the disease appeared to us to be essential. Our role is NOT to assume its individual medical dimension (role of doctors and psychologists), it is the collective cultural dimension of health and illness that concerns us.

• What does the “collective dimension” of health and illness mean?

We are conditioned, in our Western culture, to think that illness is individual, and therefore to treat individuals. At a certain level of reality this is quite true: if Mr X develops diabetes, the whole collective does not have diabetes. But at another level of reality, Mr X's diabetes, Mr Y's cancer, Mr Z's alcoholism, etc... are possibly linked to a common factor which may be, for example, anxiety and the loss of a recognized social identity, due to unemployment.

Similarly, many diseases are caused by the consumption of junk food, itself caused by common factors, industrial agriculture, precariousness, or by inherited cultural habits.

Another common cultural heritage is a fear-based relationship to illness and death. Decades of efficient social security and health care systems in France have led the French to question themselves less and less about the intimate relationship they have in the face of illness and death. When you were sick, you just had to go see the doctor or go to the hospital to be “taken care of”, while being reimbursed. As these systems break down and are being privatized, this total “ownership” is more and more lacking. This means that the most precarious will often have to face their illnesses alone. Learning to manage fear will therefore not be superfluous.

The “collective dimension” of health and disease therefore concerns both the identification of the systemic processes that induce disease and the development of a new individual and collective culture of responsibility and autonomy.

• What does this mean concretely?

Any culture is first based on a common “narrative”. Any transformation requires a change of narrative. Any change of story goes through meetings, to form the new story, then writings, videos, etc... by all means of dissemination. This change also involves experimenting with the new narrative and feedback.

The current bases that the CC can provide to initiate this narrative are questions and reflections around:

 

• A social system based strictly on employment (see previous works) inevitably generates suffering and disease on a large scale.

• Since it is not possible for individuals, at their level, to change the system, what can they change to suffer less and not get sick?

• It is in their individual power to change what they think and feel, and to share this with others.

• It is in their power to explore their individual capacity to stay healthy and to take care of their minor ailments themselves.

• It is in their individual power not to harbor the fear of disease and death

• It is in their individual power to regain self-confidence and not to “need” the disease to “have the right” to exist socially.

•        Etc...

Nous pensons que la mise en commun de ces interrogations et réflexions pourrait déboucher sur l'organisation d'un groupe chargé d'animer des rencontres locales vers les publics chômeurs/RSA/précaires afin de tisser une culture de la responsabilité et de l'autonomie indispensable en temps de crise.

Work support

Ken Loach's film "Me, Daniel Blake" (2016) can serve as a support for opening a discussion.

https://www.allocine.fr/video/player_gen_cmedia=19564084&cfilm=241697.html

Synopsis: For the first time in his life, Daniel Blake, a 59-year-old English carpenter, is forced to call on social assistance following heart problems. However, although his doctor forbade him to work, he was told by the job center (equivalent to Pôle Emploi) that he had to look for a job under penalty of punishment. During his regular appointments at the job center, Daniel will cross paths with Rachel, a single mother of two children who has been forced to accept a job 450 km from her home.

Daniel Blake has completely identified with his paid job, which he has held since his youth: he “is” this man who earns his living by his own activity.

The serious illness comes to crash into this identity by obliging him, since he no longer has a salary, to ask for social assistance. A situation that will lead him to confront the representation that institutions have of unemployed people. He is not treated as a sick person whose job has been withdrawn, but as a person to be put back on the "right path" of employment. As if he was a delinquent in rehabilitation. But Daniel Blake is 59 years old, that is to say that he has passed the expiration date of employability. However, he will be subjected with renewed violence to paradoxical injunctions imposed without mercy by employees of the job center: to look for a job when his doctor tells him to rest, to find a job when there is no offers available, etc.

This systemic institutional violence does not only affect job seekers. It is exercised in the same way on the employees who work within the institution through the precepts and methods of new management in application since the 2000s. The employees only reproduce it on job seekers. These methods induce the psychic disintegration of the individuals who undergo them, and the psychic disintegration always leads to barbarism. As Voltaire wrote, “Those who can make you believe nonsense can make you commit atrocities. »

All employees within companies and institutions (and even the “self-employed”) and all recipients of social minima (unemployment, RSA, etc.) can testify to the trauma experienced and the paths of resilience in the face of this trauma. On both sides, illness is one of these paths. When the psychic pressure is intolerable, the body says “stop”, one way or another.

Recognizing institutional violence as such, learning to identify the phenomena of psychic disintegration and their consequences, recognizing the trauma experienced, accepting illness as a way of resilience, are individual steps that are essential to the recomposition of living collectives.

Physical and mental health does not only depend on medicine: it also depends on the collective need to rebuild society. It also depends on the ability of each person to have a sense of continuity and meaning in their existence, and on the degree of awareness: when the conflict is made aware, it is less costly psychically for the subject; if, on the other hand, he remains unconscious, the cost to health can be high.

RSA recipients who are still alive have, through their experience, knowledge and know-how to overcome the psychic disintegration that threatens the whole of society.

SAISI