Totalitarian Dictatorship
The author asserts that there actually exists such a thing as mass brainwashing - and it's readily evident in political speech, religious rituals, and advertising. These are all attempts to send a powerful message to a large number of people that will cause them to alter their behavior - and it quite often can be successful. A mob or an army can be excited to murder and destroy by a rousing speech. But the application of this technique is limited and short-lived.
The would-be totalitarian seeks a method of mass control that is more long-lasting, that enables him to give specific commands, and that leverages more than the basest and most destructive of emotions. But this is not in the nature of crowd psychology. Historically, crowds have been incited to kill and destroy, but not to nurture and build. Inciting productive behavior requires a slower and more intensive program, more like education that inspiration, to impart a system of beliefs and values that will provide general guidance for behavior.
The author intends to explore the "totalitarian process" that can be seen under conditions of dictatorship. History provides ample examples of masses of people who give themselves completely over to madmen, and given his own experiences in Germany before the second world war, he has quite some insight on the subject.
The Robotization of Man
The totalitarian's major objection to humanity is individualism: people have free will, and decide to do what they feel is in their own best interest rather than doing as they are commanded. The totalitarian's work would be much easier if people were like robots, and would follow commands without objection. And more, if they were all exactly the same, then there would be no messiness.
(EN: This is also the totalitarian's greatest defense. When his plans do not work out, he claims it is because people didn't do his bidding perfectly, and therefore he is not to blame. Were people robotic, he would have to accept the blame for his own incompetence - which is the last thing a totalitarian wants.)
Totalitarianism is not the sole demesne of any political philosophy or economic policy. A democracy can be just as totalitarian as a dictatorship. Totalitarianism is about having total control over a people, regardless of what goal that control is intended to achieve.
That said, there are systems that are more compatible totalitarianism than others, namely those in which there is a call for central control. A socialist dictatorship is more likely to become totalitarian than a capitalist democracy because decision-making is more centralized, hence there is greater need for there to be a single leader and many submissive followers for such a system to work.
There's a loose bit where the author compares the totalitarian to an infant - one who wants his demands fulfilled, does not consider the requirements or the consequences, and will not accept any personal responsibility for the outcome. It is the frustration that a child feels that he is being denied something to which he is entitled, behind a specious ideological facade.
The need to have power over others, in any normal person, is considered a dysfunction - but it is quite common among totalitarians, whose concept of leadership is merely esteem and control, rather than an urge to achieve anything specific. Where there is an agenda, it is a desire to have things accomplished without applying any personal effort. When laziness, irresponsibly, and lust for power combine in one person, they are an aspiring dictator. It should then follow that totalitarianism must be considered a disease of human society.
Cultural Predilection for Totalitarianism
If certain personal traits make an individual prone to megalomania, then there are likely cultural traits that make a society vulnerable to totalitarianism. The idea that one person can to take control of an entire nation against the will of the people is unrealistic - dictatorship, just like democracy, is by the consent of those governed. That is, a dictator cannot seize control unless the people are willing to tolerate a dictator.
In western culture, there generally tends to be a strong ethic of individualism that prevents dictatorship from taking hold for very long. We maintain that if a person is responsible for his actions, he must be in control of them - and such a person is not the puppet of another. If we develop children to have a sense of responsibility and personal integrity, they will not be likely to tolerate a dictator. It is only if we coddle children, create them as entitled and irresponsible, they are easily ruled in their adult lives.
Eastern culture, meanwhile, stresses the importance of "one-ness" with a group, sacrificing personal interest for the good of the family or the community, subordinating oneself to others. To think of one's own interests is considered rude and uncivilized, and happiness is in serving a purpose, even a menial and degrading one, in society. Those who are born into poverty are taught to accept their condition rather than attempting to improve it, and those who are born into a low rank are taught to accept dominance by others without question. (EN: What's not mentioned is the manner in which such cultures select their dictators: if all are encouraged to follow, who will lead them?)
However, individualism and collectivism are extremes that seldom exist in their pure forms. In every culture, people draw a line between what of themselves they wish to preserve rather than sacrifice to the group. What is seen in the contrast of west and east are cultural tendencies toward one end or the other. But even in the west, individuals are willing to compromise their personal freedom for the benefits of collaboration (hence dictatorships rise in the west) and even in the east, people have a sense of their rights as individuals (hence dictatorships are deposed in the east).
This tendency also waxes and wanes within a given culture, depending on the climate of the times. In the wake of a disaster that leaves many helpless, there is great willingness to trade personal liberties to anyone who will render assistance. In times of productivity and wealth, there is a greater demand to enjoy the benefits of one's own labor without interference. Generally, the poorer a people, the greater their will to subordinate to anyone who offers material reward.
It's also suggested that the converse is also true. Man's greatest strength is his diversity of talents and his willingness to undertake hardship for reward. A totalitarian government ignores the differences among men and compels them all to be the same, and it seizes the reward of any effort, discouraging citizens to apply themselves to productive tasks. In that way, totalitarianism creates and perpetuates poverty and desperation.
It's mentioned that totalitarian governments often foster the illusion that everyone is part of the government, and that the people are ruled by themselves. There can be no rebellion against the state when the people are the state. But in reality the ordinary citizen has very little input how he is ruled - leadership decisions are made by a ruler, a ruling class, or a ruling party to whom others are subject. Where any man is subject to the will of another and must comply without complaint for fear of retribution, there is no self-rule.
The Totalitarian Leader
The author returns to the totalitarian leader, who possess an unusual "mental structure" that would be diagnosed as sociopathic in the rank and file. They obviously possess an overwhelming need to control other human beings, coupled with a marked indifference for their welfare. The project an image of power, but this is often an overcompensation for deep-seated feelings of anxiety, incompetence, and inferiority. Their interest in ideology is merely as a means to dominate others.
The author presents various anecdotes about some of the leaders of the Nazi party, which are like a catalog of mental disorders and perversions. The common factor is an inflated sense of self-importance combined with a contempt for other people, particularly those who do not obey, flatter, or otherwise acknowledge the superiority of the totalitarian.
It's also suggested that any form of leadership will gradually corrupt the ego, particularly when an individual seeks to remain in power for a long period of time. Being a leader means carrying great responsibility for the lives of others, and being saddled with expectations that cannot possibly be met, and over time this stress can lead to dysfunctional patterns of thought and behavior. Those who were not driven by perversion to seek power often find that they become perverted by having power placed in their hands.
The Final Surrender of Humanity
The author suggests that the common man in a totalitarian culture loses his humanity. He cannot value anything because his personal values are subordinate to that of the ruler; he cannot develop warm relationships with others because his sole loyalty is to the ruler. He is plagued by the pains and desires he feels as an individual, but is forbidden to consider his own needs - and if ever he does, he must feel guilt and paranoia that this disloyalty will be discovered and punished.
This seems a grim exaggeration, but these characteristics are quite common under totalitarian rulers of various societies - people are devalued as individuals and estranged from one another, and generally live in fear. Even those who are loyal to the party must fear they are not doing enough, and that their favor may be changed at the whim of the ruler. Uncertainty is the hallmark of totalitarian societies - a person can never be certain of the correct thing to do or the acceptable thing to say because this changes constantly.
The author compares the mentality of the subject of a totalitarian regime to that of the patient who shows schizophrenic withdrawal: both are confused and unable to make sense of things, are fearful of the negative consequences of taking any action, and so do nothing - withdrawing for social life, and even becoming catatonic.
It's observed with some irony that ideologies that proclaim their intention to create a more perfect brotherhood among men tend to instead destroy the bonds of attachment among men. Where total loyalty is to the ruler, there can be no loyalty to anyone else - and worse, individuals become competitors for the favors of the state, jockeying for position against one another.
The author refers to the "retreat to automation" as a defense against an arbitrary ruler: the person who only obeys, and who does not think for himself, is safe from punishment because whatever the outcome he has shown his loyalty by doing exactly as he was told, no more or no less.
There's also a parallel to infantilization: the citizen of a totalitarian state is utterly dependent on the state to provide for his needs, and is utterly forbidden to question his orders - he must do what he is told regardless of whether there is a logical relation between his actions and the consequences. He is as a child who is provided for and exploited by the same hand. Men treated as cattle soon become cattle - there is no correlation between what they do and what they receive in terms of reward or punishment, so they are unable to decide on any course of action.
The author mentions a few instances of mental breakdowns in individuals who are liberated from totalitarian states: placed in a free society where they are able to think for themselves and pursue their own interests, they find they are incapable of doing so. They have never developed the cognitive skills to consider alternatives and make decisions, and have a very real need for someone to direct them. They must be educated to live in a free society, taught the various skills that most people who live in free societies take for granted (because they have been socialized since birth to do these things).
This is true even of the initial victims of a totalitarian state. While they were quite capable of thinking and making choices before they were subjugated, not all of them bounce back after they have been traumatized and re-educated to live in a strictly ordered and controlled society.
The Womb State
The allure of totalitarianism is to escape from the fearful realities of life. In a free society, a person must choose and bear the consequences of making the wrong choice. The totalitarian society promises him that he will never have to make a decision and will never be to blame as a consequence. It does not promise him prosperity or even comfort - he may live in squalor and starve, but at least it will not be his fault.
This may at first seem perverse, but it is often seen that even in free societies men gladly abdicate their freedom in order to escape the burden and responsibility of making decisions. In particular, religions free men of the burden of morality - so long as they obey, they are not to blame for the outcome, and religion offers forgiveness to the faithful no matter what harm they do. But it is not merely in mysticism and superstition, as men also abdicate their freedom to science: the patient of any doctor agrees to accept his judgment and follow his advice - so long as they obey, they are not to blame for their own illness, infirmity, and even death.
The promise of the totalitarian state is to provide for its citizens, but it often fails to do so. As with a bad employer, the state demands much and gives little in return. Citizens must then maintain an "artificial split-mindedness" that enables them to support the state that neglects them, like children to an abusive parent, this often results in psychological schisms that enable them to tolerate and even advocate for a harmful and largely parasitic relationship.
The author strays from the illusion of protectionism to a number of other behaviors of totalitarian states: being constantly watchful of citizens, scapegoating and exploiting some groups for the sake of others, creating a constant state of worry about external and internal enemies who are blamed for sabotaging the system, using propaganda to create a false sense of progress, etc.