[Barrera]

> But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches … The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.

A commenter here (and one on the original article) has noted that the part being elided appears to be the following:

> I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.

The full review is, apparently, here:

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html

That this is the only elision seems very strange. The passage is crucial to understanding how Hitler was able to do what he did. Orwell is expressing his admiration for Hitler's deep understanding of human nature while at the same time despising its application. It's a lesson too hard-won and too relevant today to be brushed aside.

Still, I can't help but think that Orwell, who gave us the Ministry of Truth and its capacity for historical engineering at scale, would be highly amused.

[simonh]

>The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.

I think the magic ingredient is utter, palpable self conviction. Complete unwavering dedication to your own rightness, regardless of any counter argument, any prevarication, even evidence to the contrary, is intoxicating. You don't need to argue, you don't need to convince, you don't need reasons, you're just right by definition. The simplicity and lack of complexity is intoxicating.

[zwkrt]

On a smaller scale, this is how people are able to build fiefdoms inside of companies, become successful local religious leaders, start cults, and maintain abusive domestic relationships.

Strong conviction is like a magical spell because it literally changes reality. Most people, myself included, are not really wired to be able to resist a constant force which is informing them of what “reality” is (not of its actual constituent components, but the framework of meaning and importance). This is normally a natural part of being human and living in society. We speak the language of the people around us, make the same foods, use the same body language. We think of society as the totality of what there is, but in reality it is providing us only a finite number of infinite options.

But every once in a while someone comes along who sense of reality is so self possessed that they create a force field around them. They change the set of available options for assigning meaning . Anything that falls into their event horizon is twisted and mangled by their totally consistent and unchangeable worldview, and it is contagious. If that person also happens to be charming, it’s all over.

The only way that I know not to fall into these kinds of traps is to regularly practice intentionally subverting or rejecting the norms around me. Not all of them, just the ones that don’t serve me. If I’m used to evaluating and potentially rejecting common practices in my culture (both societal and interpersonal), Then I know that if someone in my life is living in such a warp field that I will notice it since I am practiced in resisting its pull.

[benreesman]

I think the grievance husbandry is part of the cocktail too.

Obviously if your message is too complicated you’re going to lose people, but if you’re operating at an effective complexity level, you still need a story to tell.

“You’ve been very badly treated by not rich people, rather someone else” sells in job lots even today.

[simonh]

Good point. Resentment is the root of all evil. You create a narrative where you’re actually the real victims, and then that justifies ‘retaliation’ at almost any scale or severity. It even justifies lies or distortion because it’s in the service of a ‘greater truth’.

[watwut]

He was highly charizmatic and could adjust the way he talked to audience very well. Both in personal encounters and in public speeches. He would told you what you wanted to hear and project exact kind of personality he needed to project.

[dbcurtis]

a.k.a. reality distortion field

[simonh]

If that’s a Jobs reference, I don’t think so. He talked about hiring smart people so they could tell him what to do, owned his mistakes, changed course when things didn’t work as expected. He said making mistakes was good as long as you learned something. Yes he could be an arse, but he was no Donald Trump.

[fumblebee]

I can't help but think one of the most appealing aspects of Hitler would've been his ability to deliver passionate speeches.

For example, I have no idea what he's saying in this speech [1], but the tone at which he delivers it is undeniably quite mesmerising, especially when compared to the tone of, say, Joe Biden [2].

In a time where radio ruled, it's hard not to think he wouldn't stand out, irregardless of the content contained in his speeches.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3N_2r6R-o

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6R6nllpsc

[the_only_law]

Yeah charisma is one of those things that can draw people in. Look at many cult leaders too. Charles Manson often went on just entirely nonsensical tirades, but could sound almost profound while speaking them. Jim Jones speeches have a similar angry rallying cry type of feel.

[everybodyknows]

A historical survey of political personality cults, from Martin Luther to Mao, is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer, the "longshoreman philosopher":

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eric+hoffer+the+true+believer&t=ip...