Trial by Trial
The idea of having a trail at all, in which an accused person may respond to accusations and present his own defense, because the court is interested in punishing the guilty and is mindful about being unjust to the innocent who is wrongly accused.
This is entirely undesirable to the totalitarian, who does not concern himself with justice - it is not about fairness, but the administration of his will. For that reason, the courts of a totalitarian regime are not about giving citizens a fair hearing, but are about enforcing the totalitarian's rule. They are a mechanism by which the will of the ruler is inflicted on the people.
The Institution of Injustice
Tyranny itself is the contradiction of justice - it does not consider the rights of all (merely the interests of some) and it does not treat people fairly (it is exploitative). The tyrant places himself above judgment, above the need to be fair, above fundamental assessments of right and wrong. The courts of a tyrant are not where citizens expect justice, but where they are made to accept injustice.
In any trial, weapons of intimidation are used, particularly by the prosecution, to persuade the jury to rule in their favor. Arguments are constructed to distort the truth as each side attempts to "win" and the jurors must sort out the fact from the fiction. Simply by controlling the rules of the engagement, restricting the kinds of evidence and arguments that each side can present, the state skews the outcome. So even in an allegedly free society in which individuals are permitted the opportunity to defend themselves, the state can control the forum to bias the jury to the will of the state.
Congressional hearings, for example, are a modern form of inquisition in which a person is called in for questioning. No charges are being leveled, and there is less control over the procedure: the citizen is called out in public to face a firing squad, words are flung like bullets, and the person's dignity and credibility is destroyed. And when these proceedings are made public, it is a method of intimidation.
In essence, the drumhead trial of a totalitarian government is a ceremony undertaken to demonstrate and execute its power over the individual. It may also be an attempt to give its behavior an air of legitimacy ("due process of law" does not mean law is just), but this is entirely incidental.
Ceremony and Ritual
Historically, ceremonies and rituals have been used to create a sense of power and importance. They are extensively used in religion, from shamanism to the modern day, to create a sense of awe and wonder that commands respect and obedience. Political "rallies" use much the same spectacle and grandeur to elevate themselves beyond the ordinary, and to command the respect and obedience of the people. Speeches and trials are themselves events in which ceremony and ritual are leveraged.
It's even suggested that such events create a form of "mass hypnosis" that causes people to put disproportionate significance on what they witness, and it makes them susceptible to suggestion. People cease to become individuals when they are members of a crowd, and cease to think but instead get swept away in emotion. They become united in their gullibility and obedience.
Crowds leverage social instincts. People cease to think of themselves as individuals and become part of the crowd. They place going along with the group above doing what makes sense. They accept what the group accepts - which in ceremonies is the appointed master and director of the crowd.
The demagogue is an expert in working the crowd, lulling it into a state of boredom through long speeches and physical discomfort, planting a suggestion, then stirring the group to action. The political rally is a kind of theatrical performance that engages the suspension of disbelief and appeals to the lowest motivations.
Mass Media as Mass Hypnosis
Radio and television have largely replaced public gatherings, and have the potential to reach a much broader audience. While they audience is not assembled as a crowd and does not succumb to crowd psychology, these media still have the power to hypnotize and control the audience.
The author mentions the 1938 broadcast of "War of the Worlds," a fictional account of an alien invasion of Earth. The broadcast created widespread panic as people tuned in to their radios, believed what they heard to be journalistic reporting, and behaved as though the threat were real. These were not particularly gullible or stupid people, but perfectly normal and rational ones acting under a sort of mass hypnosis.
It's suggested that while a person listening to a radio may be physically alone, he feels himself to be united with the rest of the audience - he imagines many are listening to the same broadcast at the same time, and while they are not physically present there is an unconscious tendency to identify with them, to feel that one is part of a group even though there is no physical presence. There is the tendency to believe because there is an assumption that other people listening will believe. There is a tendency to obey because there is the assumption that others will obey. The mass media is assumed to be an expression of social norms, to which the individual feels compelled to conform if he is to be considered a member of society.
There's a brief mention of the demagogue, who thrives on attention and panders to the media. Even negative attention is positive, because the fact that others attack him suggests that he is important enough for them to be worried about. The attention they direct toward him can be redirected in his favor. The only thing that harms him is indifference and anonymity - to be dismissed or ignored, or treated as an insignificant nuisance.
(EN: This continues for a bit and gets totally off the rails, focusing more on tactics used to sway public opinion rather than the media through which it is done.)
Trial as Intimidation
Aside of taking direct action against those who pose a threat to the authority of the state, trails serve to intimidate the people. Where political trials are given widespread attention in the media, there is an intention to use the trial as an example of what will be done to anyone who opposes the authority of the state.
The media also has the ability to influence public opinion, or at least to provide topics for everyday conversation, so as such the pressure to conform (and the threat against nonconformity) becomes pervasive. The individual who feels uneasy about the behavior of his government is given the distinct impression that he is alone in a sea of supporters, and that it would be dangerous for him to state his dissent.
Coupled with scapegoating, the publicity of trials can effectively deputize the entirety of a population and make them accomplices in the suppression of dissent. Accusing others becomes fashionable, and blaming others is comfortable - it is the only way to express dissatisfaction when the real culprit, the state, cannot be blamed.
Congressional Investigations
In western democracies, there is a careful separation of the powers of state, but this separation is undone when legislative bodies engage in investigations. Allegedly, these investigations are done in order to gather information that will be used to pass laws, and because they are not meant to be accusatory, those who are summoned to "testify" to congress are not afforded the same protections as individuals who are being prosecuted by the judicial system.
Psychologically, the simple fact of being publicly interrogated has a coercive influence - there is an inherent fear of public speaking and a squeamishness about public scrutiny that make the process of testifying in front of a legislative body quite terrifying. And because the inquiry is entirely one-sided, with no defense against a hostile and aggressive interrogation, the victim has no ability to represent himself fairly or defend against accusations.
There is a diversion about self-consciousness and the way in which a person who is attempting to convince a doubtful person of his honesty often behaves in ways that seem suspicious (because those who wish to deceive are also self-conscious and also wish to project confidence) and attempting to seem poised under pressure makes a person seem calculated. When subjected to scrutiny, an individual recognizes that he is not merely being judged for what he says, but for who he is - and simply because he is being interrogated there is the sense that he is being perceived negatively and must struggle to regain credibility.
Subjective Testimony
It is commonly seen that prisoners of war, returned to their home nations, have recanted statements and testimony that was made when they were in the hands of their captors - but the author also mentions instances in which an individual has escaped and been recaptured, who recanted and then recanted is recantation. It seems impossible to sort out the truth, particularly when a person has become conditioned to saying whatever he expects others wish to hear in order to avoid punishment.
In general, we find that those who are most dramatic in their statements are often the least reliable. The truth is expected to be accepted at face value, and those who speak it can do so in a calm and level voice - it is only when we are lying that we resort to histrionics in order to appear to believe firmly in what we are saying. The same can be said about complex arguments and copious justification: the truth is simple and needs no elaboration or ceremony, whereas a lie requires a great deal of sophistry to appear true. And so, the ideology about which a person seems most passionate is likely the one in which he feels the least genuine belief.
There is some suggestion that vacillation of this sort may be evidence that an individual is no longer certain of what he really believes as a result of having switched back and forth so often. However, it is more likely that it is his pretensions rather than his beliefs that have become intertwined. In general, individuals strive for consistency, though their egos make it difficult for them to admit to having made mistakes, and the confusion of the turncoat is a reflection of an attempt to reconcile two irreconcilable sides of an argument into something that is consistent and will be palatable to both his masters.
The Right to Be Silent
The right to be silent, to refrain from testifying against oneself or even one's family, is respected in free societies because it is recognized that loyalty to the community and the state is often secondary to loyalty to oneself and the people with whom a person has close connections - and it's expected that an individual will perjure himself to defend such people, so compelling him to turn against them is pointless.
The totalitarian state, meanwhile, can abide no competition - and in this environment betraying friendships is a sign of loyalty to the state. People who are alienated from one another can form no alliances against their oppressors, so the betrayal of social confidences is of great value to the state, not only because the individual who confesses is breaking his allegiance to others, but also because those against whom he testifies break their allegiance to him, and all who witness this recognize the state is to be served regardless of personal loyalties.
In general, it is not necessary for an individual to betray his other allegiances in order to join a group. He may regard his former ideology as a mistake, and embrace his new ideology without becoming an enemy of his former colleagues. But again, the totalitarian state thrives on conflict among all people so that their sole allegiance is to the state.
Mental Blackmail
An individual who feels no power over himself often also believes that others are constantly exerting power over him, and is in a constant state of society. Whether it is by means of radio waves or subliminal messaging, they believe that they are being constantly assaulted by brainwashers. The author even notes receiving "several letters" from lawyers seeking him to testify on behalf of clients who wished to sue their imaginary brainwashers.
While it is true that most people attempt to influence the behavior of others, it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that it is brainwashing or any form of mental control. And it is clear that the plaintiffs in these instances are suffering from a multitude of psychological disorders and their attorneys are simply shysters seeking to use threats of brainwashing to blackmail organizations into paying settlements. But it seems inevitable one of these cases will make it to court, and will be escalated perhaps even to the Supreme Court.
The paranoia about brainwashing has also rendered the psychiatric profession vulnerable to unreasonable attack. To address dysfunction requires modifying thought and behavior, and there is a fear that the psychiatrist will use this "power" for nefarious purposes. Coupled with the fact that they work with mentally unstable individuals, the psychiatrist is in a precarious position when a patient levels an accusation of malicious influence. Criminal law deals with intent, and latitude is given to members of the medical profession or even everyday Samaritans who do harm while having good - but the civil courts can still address these matters as negligence.
In general, courts tend to focus on physical matters: to cause someone physical harm is taken seriously, but to cause them to have bad feelings is not. Deceit or intimidation is not a concern in itself, unless it has physical or financial consequences for the victim. The very notion of blackmail is fraud or compulsion - it is not criminal to divulge unflattering information, but it is criminal to threaten to do so unless the other person takes some action. The author traces the legal roots of the term to a form of extortion practiced in England, in which payment was made to privateers in return for refraining from pillaging a farm.
In a totalitarian state, mental blackmail is reserved to the state itself - it is the means by which the state controls the people.