Fear as a Tool of Terror
All of human emotions, and as a consequence all of human motivations, are based on two basic responses: fear and desire. Desire is often considered to be an extension of fear - the fear of stasis, or the fear of missing an opportunity - hence fear is the basis of all human emotion. Even if the theory that desire is borne of fear is not accepted, it has been well established that fear is a stronger motivator than desire, so it remains the more significant of the two.
During early childhood, it is beyond our power to sustain ourselves - we are dependent on adults, and feel no sense of control or ability. As man matures, he gains the ability to provide for himself, but is always at the mercy of factors beyond his control. Whether it is seen as nature, fate, god, or happenstance there is always some unknown force more powerful than ourselves that can interfere with our plans.
This principle also applies to man's situation in society: each of us is essentially alone in a sea of hostile strangers. We have few friends and supporters, and suspect that even they will abandon or betray us to serve their own self-interest. Cooperation requires effort, and competition is expected to be the norm. As such, society is just another unpredictable force that constantly threatens to harm us.
Totalitarian leaders make good use of this fear - by offering protection and threatening abandonment, they speak directly to the deeply-ingrained childhood fears of men. By turning people against one another and offering salvation, they can exploit man's distrust of his fellow man and his desire to be protected. By threatening to interfere in our plans, they become the only means to accomplish our goals. Totalitarianism is an assault on man's integrity, and the emotion of fear makes easy targets of us all.
But totalitarianism is by hoist by its own petard: human strength comes from our diversity and independence of thought, in our desire to achieve more, and in our willingness to break from common practice to experiment, learn, discover, and improve. It is for this reason that totalitarian societies are often in a state of constant degradation, in which nothing gets better and everything grows slowly worse. Without freedom there can be no growth, and without growth there can only be decay. And while the degradation of living conditions causes people to become ever more desperate and dependent, there is a level beneath which society is not sustainable, at which point a crisis and revolution are inevitable.
Back to fear: the most common fear reactions are hysterical and short-lived - we cry out, jump, and flee when we sense danger. But fear can also be less obvious and more long-lived: a person who lives in fear is devoid of motivation. He avoids engaging in activities or interacting with people. He becomes isolated, unproductive, and demoralized. In time, he fails to do the things that are necessary for the sustenance of his own life. This kind of fear is a slow death by inertia - but one that is chosen because the harm done by inactivity is less obvious and immediate than the consequences of taking action.
People in fear seek protection - which is an abdication of thought and action. A fearful person feels helpless, and he expects his protector to take action and to do all of the thinking. His only plan is to cling to his protector and obey, which meshes very neatly with the desires of the totalitarian.
Subjective Fear
The author recalls an incident while living in occupied Holland: a group of allied fighter planes flew low over a park. The Dutch citizens waved at the planes, whereas the German occupiers cowered and ran for cover. Objectively, both groups were faced with the same danger: the pilots of those planes would not be able to differentiate their fire between friend and foe.
So instead, the difference in their reaction was entirely subjective. Because the Dutch perceived the allied planes as friends, they felt they would not fire, and certainly they would not be the targets; and because the Germans saw them as enemies, they expected them to fire and expected to be the targets.
He then mentions living in London after fleeing Holland, and feeling much as the Germans did at the time. "I had that same suspicion ... as though every bullet and every bomb were meant for me."
If the perception of danger is subjective, then fear must also be subjective - because fear is the emotional reaction to a perceived danger. Those who live under a totalitarian government fear their leaders to the degree that they believe their leaders are the enemy - and even more, they are motivated by this fear to pretend to be supporters of the government, as doing so makes them less at-risk, so they can feel less fear.
The Unpredictability of Fear
Attempts to train people to deal with stressful situations have very limited success. No matter how often the exercises are repeated, the training does not account for the impact that actual danger will have on the human mind.
Every person shows a different threshold of resistance to danger, and a different life experience causes people to be more or less afraid in different situations. It's also been shown that experience does not enable a person to become accustomed to fear: a veteran who has stood several battles may still flee, as the fear reactions and moments of weakness often develop after danger has passed.
This is seen in veterans who break down after they have returned home, disaster victims who break down after the ganger has passed, prisoners who break down after they have released, etc. They maintain their behavior during stressful periods - but when the danger has passed and there is no longer a need to control one's behavior, people are able to relax, let go, and deal with their anxieties.
This was seen in the town of Dover, England, whose citizens had withstood nearly four years of continual shelling by the Germans. When the allied troops took the Belgian coast, shutting down the guns, many of the people of Dover suffered nervous breakdowns all at once.
It's suggested that "totalitarian strategists" leverage this pattern. They do not assault a targeted people constantly and relentlessly, but intermittently. In some instances, the persecution and violence are done senselessly because it is just a means to shock the people, and the real work of the totalitarian is done after the assault has ended, when there is a period of temporary quiet and the relaxation of tension. During this time, people are vulnerable and less alter - thinking that the assault has ended, they drop their guard. Then, the real work of subjugation can begin in earnest.
(EN: This also seems to be the basis of the good cop/bad cop interrogation technique - the victim does not squeal to "bad" during aggressive interrogation, but drops his guard when the assault has ended and the conversation with "good" is relaxed and natural. Likewise, victims of torture seldom confess/comply when they are under duress, but in the moments between sessions of physical abuse.)
Temporal Regression
The author describes a few cases of temporal regression that occurred during a natural disaster. Unable to cope with the stress, and unable to do anything about it, otherwise independent and intelligent adults mentally reverted to early childhood. They ignored the situation and became child-like, which persisted even after the crisis had passed.
The extreme form of temporal regression is very rare, but most people have a similar reaction when faced with a difficult situation they cannot do anything to influence: they avoid it, become helpless, and readily surrender to others who seem to be in control. It is by this mechanism that autocrats are able to seize and maintain power over people: they create or exaggerate a crisis and convince others that accepting control is their only hope.
Avoiding Psychological Danger
The author mentions some of the "protective trickery" that animals undertake. The most obvious is a physical change - a chameleon changes its color. This has been seen in human beings as well - it's sometimes seen that a person's hair will turn white in reaction to extreme stress. There are also behavioral changes, such as animals who bristle (to appear larger) or faint when they sense danger. And again, there are similar reactions in people, who will react aggressively or lose consciousness as a reaction to a threat.
That is, the "fight or flight" instinct provokes a "feint or faint" reaction. It is an instinctive reaction rather than a conscious choice, and as such the reaction may be functionally inappropriate to the situation. A person who reacts aggressively is as likely to attack a nearby friend than a distant foe, and a person who faints becomes unconscious or apathetic even when it puts them in greater danger. It is a method of escaping the psychological danger while remaining in (and even increasing) physical danger.
The tyrant can make good use of either of these behaviors: those who become apathetic are most easily herded and directed because they offer no resistance. Even those who react with aggression can be controlled because their aggression is directionless - it is not necessarily manifested in resistance against the tyrant. And if nothing else, the tyrant can spin the reaction into "senseless violence" to legitimize his need to take control.
There's a brief mention of surrender as a form of escape. Police interrogators can play upon the anxiety of a criminal by suggesting that he will feel relieved if he confesses. They can also use the anxiety of an innocent person who is under interrogation, because regardless of guilt or innocence there is a desire to escape the stress of the interrogation. Even panhandlers make good use of passive surrender, as being confronted by a stranger is stressful, and many people will offer money simply to make them go away.
Another odd behavior is the misdirection of effort, "shuffling the deck chairs" on a sinking ship. Because a person recognizes they cannot solve a problem, they busy themselves with meaningless tasks, often with the pretension that what they are doing is very important. Disgruntled employees often lose themselves in hobbies and leisure interests, an abused housewife keeps her home impeccably clean, etc. This is a form of mental withdrawal from the stressor. And again, it's useful to the tyrant to give citizens some form of unimportant busywork with which to distract themselves.
The author asserts that every person has a mental fortress to which he can withdraw when he needs to avoid a problem he hasn't the ability to address - and very often it does no harm to do so when we are correct in our estimation of our own inability to effect a change in the environment.
(EN: This seems to be quite pronounced in the present age, and people acknowledge that they need to escape - to engage in some activity for "stress relief" - though it is usually with the pretense that it is only a temporary retreat. The constant dieter and the fitness fanatic are people who constantly seek to assert control over themselves when they cannot influence the external factors that cause their unhappiness.)
Psychosomatic Reactions
Psychosomatic reactions to danger are largely evolutions of instinctive reactions that cause us to be prepared to react to physical danger. It makes sense that respiration and heart rate increase to give us a burst of energy, but seems less sensible that we would spontaneously urinate and defecate prior to fleeing, and even less sensible that our hair would turn white. Some reactions are rather difficult to explain, but are assumed to be other effects of the body's mobilization for a fight or flight reaction.
It is even more difficult when these reactions are less dramatic and more long-term. An increase in hypertension and heart disease in a population is a subtle and slow version of the cardiac response to stress. He even notes a case of an epidemic of bladder disease in occupied Holland - this constant and frequent need to urinate is again a subtler and slower version of the spontaneous urination that takes place when a person is afraid.
A historical note: there was an outbreak of some unknown intestinal disease among American soldiers preparing to land on an enemy island in a WWII campaign in the Pacific. A team of doctors and researchers attempted to find out was causing it, but came up with nothing. The mysterious disease vanished almost instantly when the campaign began - and it was reckoned that it was the tension of waiting for the invasion that cause the apparent malady. Ironically, the men were feeling a fear of being afraid - of balking on the battlefield and being labeled a coward. While their minds wanted to be brave, their guts (literally) weren't convinced.
It is suggested that training and constant preparation can give a person some ability to avoid panic, though it's often seen that even those who are trained and experienced may be overcome with panic when a real situation arises. And aside of certain professions, people simply aren't trained to deal with stressful situations. Disaster preparedness attempts to teach individuals what functional steps to take in an emergency, but there is no preparation at all for the mental effects that the will experience - and moreover, this sort of training is seen as traumatic and entirely unnecessary in a peaceful society.