We talked about Hitler's magnetic power, of his power of persuasion. This <<hypnotizer of crowds>> has a double natural gift. He can read the minds of his listeners, guess what they want to hear, sense and feel their emotions. After having read, interpreted and understood the feelings of the crowd, he starts sending his own emotions to them. He is both sender and receiver. He sends back to the crowd the same emotions that they had already transmitted. Let's say it again: Hitler's incredible success as a public speaker is due to the fact that he told the masses exactly what they wanted to hear.

To adapt oneself perfectly to the masses, he had to find for himself this first principle: the speaker must appeal to the feelings, instincts and emotions of his listeners, not to reason or logic. One stirs up the crowd with emotions not with a logical reasoning. For a politician, it is a mistake to appeal to reason. Only 20 to 30 % of the population of any given country (1) is capable of following a logical development to its very end. If you resort to logic, you will be understood by 20 % of the people; if you appeal to emotion, 100 % of the people will understand your message. Is it better for a politician to reach 20 % or 100 % of the voters ?

The only time Hitler made use of logic in his speeches is when he was addressing a chosen public, an elite-crowd of university students, businessmen, financial experts, etc...

He appealed to four kinds of emotions: indignation (in view of the current situation), hatred (towards those responsible for it), fear (of things to come) and hope (in the party and its leader). The best way to spread hatred is to show the masses a clearly identifiable enemy and only one, to point a finger in the direction of the one solely responsible for all the misfortune and affliction of the people. The crowd needs someone to hate, a guilty party, public enemy, scapegoat. Then, there is nothing more frustrating than a misfortune for which no one is to blame. We need to take revenge on someone else. Hitler understood this and gave them a guilty party: the Jew. The crowd is happy, it can hate a clearly identifiable enemy. More than that: people now understand what is happening to them (Hitler gave them simple explanations for what caused the great economic crisis).

His speeches had a past, a present and a future tense. He started by drawing a dark historical picture of the last fifteen years, he then linger a bit in describing the present distress and need of the people and then he made loud, solemn promises for the improvement of things in the future. His speeches would then end in a positive manner, often even in an ecstatic enthusiasm. He didn't have an actual political program, he confined himself to general statements. To be effective, his kind of persuasion did not tolerate many interruptions. A security service would throw out the rowdy and silence the opposition.

In some speeches, he described a bright future for all Germans if he was elected: work for the laborers and factory workers, a bigger economic activity for businessmen, a strong army for militarists and even a husband for each girl in Germany. Especially when he expressed his faith in the future and in his people, he conveyed a fascinating strength and authenticity rarely seen before in German politics. Great hopes expressed in general terms, sometimes nothing more is needed to convince others. He knew how to talk to them as if he were one of them. When he addressed women, he moved his hands naturally as to emphasize his words.

His speeches were not improvised, but carefully prepared. He left the room immediately after having finished talking. This would prevent any discussion, controversy and gave to his last words an ultimate tone, without reply. He was therefore sheltered from the troublesome and the obtrusive, and this kept intact his prestige in the eyes of the public.

He had his listeners believe that he was appealing to their most noble feelings, even though he was talking to their vanity, empty pride and ambition. He was deeply convinced that, if he talked long enough, with enough passion, in repeating ten times the same thing, he would finally manage to convince just about anyone. The Nazi movement was a grouping of speakers. Hitler evaluated the worth of men according to their capacity to trigger collective hysteria in large crowds. Whoever did not possess this gift could not hope to play a major role under the Nazi regime.

He always discussed the same topics: the humiliated Homeland, the possibility of a renewal if the people unite and drive away the bad shepherds. But above all, it is his verbal assaults and violent criticism that produce the emotion and indignation of ever bigger crowds. He rouses homicidal passions, awakens old prejudices, stirs up resentments. He starts genuine slander- and denigration campaigns. He makes deliberate use of generalization, exaggeration and vital omissions. His slogans and advertising strike the imagination, however far from reality they might be. The critical mind and discriminating faculty of his listeners are drowned in a flood of words. He carefully avoids subtileties, everything must be crystal clear.

He says aloud what others think but wouldn't dare say, and people like that. The audience doesn't want to hear rational explanations for the present situation, they want to hear passionate declarations and solemn promises. He gives them what they want. He is even capable of taming an hostile crowd, and make it cheer in a few minutes. He created, so to say, a <<magic>> harmony between the movements of the hands, the words and the theatrics. This was the benefit of lessons taken from a famous clairvoyant-astrologer: Erik Hanussen.

Hitler understood that the group is credulous, easily influenced, has no critical mind and that its emotions are always very simple and very excessive. It is often much more difficult to convince one person than a crowd of 10 000 people; then taken individually, humans are much more reasonable than when they are in a group. The speaker who wants to dominate the crowd must exaggerate and repeat the same thing several times. The mob is intolerant but submissive to authority. It demands power and violence from its heroes. It wants to be dominated, oppressed, and fear its masters.
 
 

(1) Even in advanced, industrialized countries.