Hitler and the Art of Propaganda

I am reading a book on Adolf Hitler and found a few of his views on effective propaganda quite interesting. His insight into the psyche of masses is remarkable and explains, to some extent, his success at mobilizing public opinion in his favor. I could not fail to notice how often such tactics are followed by power brokers who are often handsomely rewarded for it.

Here goes an extract on the driving forces for revolutionary processes, and his stress on emotions of masses, rather than intellect, which he believes they lack:

"Since the masses have only a poor acquaintance with abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings, where the roots of their positive as well as their negative attitudes are implanted....The emotional grounds of their attitude furnish the reason for their extraordinary stability. It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge. And the driving force which has brought about the most tremendous revolutions on this earth has never been a body of scientific teaching which has gained power over the masses, but always a devotion which has inspired them, and often a kind of hysteria which has urged them into action. Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key that will open the door to their hearts. It is not objectivity, which is a feckless attitude, but a determined will, backed up by power where necessary."

Further:
"The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas."

This one is very interesting to me, particularly because I once forwarded this as a theory to explain why people tend to believe some preposterous stories of a friend of mine - inability to fathom that somebody could lie so blatantly (and/or without any apparent purpose):

When you lie, tell big lies. "... that in a big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lie in little matters, but would be ashnamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.... The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down."

Finally:

Above all, never hesitate, never qualify what you say, never concede an inch to the other side, paint all your contrasts in black and white. This is the "very first condition which has to be fulfiled in every kind fo propaganda: a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with....When they see an uncompromising onslaught against an adversary, the people have at all times taken this as proof that right is on the side of the aggressor; but if the aggressor should go only halfway and fail to push home his success... the people will look upon this as a sign that he is uncertain of the justice of his own cause."

His actions were consistent with all these ideas and for a large part responsible for whatever successes he had in pursuing his goals. A determined will most of all.

Source:
Hitler - A study in tyranny: by Allan Bullock, Penguin Books, 1990, pp 69-70
Ultimately from:
Mein Kampf. pp. 101, 283, 198-9, 160-1.

ONE by Richard Bach

Read Richard Bach's One on my way to and from San Francisco. I liked a few things about the book. Foremost, that it had large print which meant less reading! (When I start a book, I get very anxious to finish it up).

To me, it is a book about choices. We have one life to live. But there are infinite choices and depending on the choices we make, we can live any of the infinite lives possible.
Then there was another thing I liked. Rather, it is my personal philosophy. I quote from the book - If it's my fault, I can change it! If I change and stay changed for a month, and we're still unhappy, then we can talk about changing her!"
In any problem, always look for where you are wrong. That is the part which you can correct. You will find that in almost every scenario that you are upset with, you are partly at fault - either by action or by inaction. I think such attitude resolves a lot of issues. Furthermore, this sort of attitude gets rid of any paranoia that you are at the center of a wicked conspiracy of the world to make you feel wretched all the time. But, sometimes (or often) people feel happier to assume that they are right and others are wrong. To each, his own!

Then there was this talk about soul mates which left me wondering for a while whether there really is such a thing - the one person who you are meant to be with. Its hard to say, but even if there is somebody like that, chances of my meeting her is very unlikely. How many people do we even meet in our lives? Even the author in the book says that 'in some universes, they (the soul mates) don't really meet'. (He regrets why he was not brave enough to talk to his wife when he first saw her, and thus lost a few years.) Clearly, you can not go about knowing every girl in this world. So then in some sense she has to be in the same geographical location! If there is a soul mate, overwhelming chances are (by simple probability) that their paths will never cross. Nobody can help it. Now then, should we be ready to accept a compromise? I meet some good looking girl. She's smart. I like her smile. I like her enthusiasm. I like being with her - because she' smart, because she has a lovely smile, and because she is full of energy. One day I decide 'okay, she's the girl for me'. I know that's partly how it works. But how do you convince yourself (or your subconscious) about it after having been fed with a lifetime of tutorial on soul mates!

"I gave my life to become the person I am right now. Was it worth it?", says the rear cover of the book. What a way to put things in perspective? 20 years hence, I too probably will be asking myself the same question. There are things that I want to do today. There are things that I can do today. There are choices I have made today. Will I regret my choices? Will I reckon that I lost too much of time doing things that I didn't really want to do? Unfortunately, these are things only time can tell. But sometimes a book like this makes you reconsider your choices. It did have some effect on me and I made certain decisions, some for the near future, some for not-so-near. Lets see how much I stick to those.

My beef with ...

Yes, I borrowed the title from an Indian Express article heading. So what? It suits this write up well enough. I have issues with a lot of things. I can not go into all of them in a simple article. This time its just about a little something which I won't or can't name in a few words. I read The Alchemist a few years back. I was told by a very good friend of mine that it was THE BOOK. Popularity of such proportion among the well read intelligentsia that automatically warrants a 'you didn't understand it' response on every occasion of someone not liking the book. Readers of one kind really don't care much about it and are proud that they are not philosopher's enough to enjoy the book. That itself enhances the intellectual edge of the book. I read it. Didn't like it. Tried to explain that to a very good friend, and got that very same response with such a speed that I couldn't separate 'you' from 'it'. That very same friend told me about 'Veronica Decides To Die'. The subject, as described by him, sounded interesting - a girl has everything going fine in her life, and therefore she decides to die. Intriguing - because I had given considerable thought to meaning of life and all such useless, crazy stuff and I thought 'Wow, somebody has written a book on it'. I considered the disappointing experience of The Alchemist probably a personal idiosyncracy, or a minor blemish on the illustrious writer's record which, fortunately for him, enough people liked to make it a bestseller. Man, was I disappointed! For those who haven't read the book, and even more for those who have, I'll state my version of Veronica Decides to Die. This girl is beautiful, supposedly smart, has a boyfriend, nothing to worry about and she decides to die. Why? Because she feels she has seen everything there is in this world to see, and any more time spent in this world will just be more of the same routine. That boredom is killing her so badly that her concern for her parents can't keep her from taking the extreme step. She spares some thought about her mom and dad, what will happen to them, and how will the world interpret her letter about why a big French magazine should know where Slovenia is. But that's about it. She takes some pills - to avoid bodily disfiguration that may shock her parents - and awakes in a mental asylum. She's told that she has only so much time to live (a week, if I recall right). Living in that place, talking with some people who the society considers crazy (but are really people who don't give two hoots to what anyone else thinks), and a special somebody, she realizes that her life was monotonous only because she has let it be. That there is so much to see, so much to do.
So tell me, why would anyone like to read the book? Yes, there were interesting portions. The build up was interesting; Veronica's thought process before she kills herself was interesting. But the moment I completely realized the reason why she decides to die, SHE'S JUST A STUPID GIRL is what I thought. I can understand if someone says that everything is MAYA and that there is no apparent reason to go on living. After all, what does it even mean to be living? I can understand it as clearly as any another thing - though still not completely. If this person comes to me next day and tells me that he or she has discovered the meaning of life, a la some meditators, I'll immediately be skeptical of his revelation, or intelligence per se. But this girl realizes that life is not monotonous! That she's made it so! What a revelation! So life is worth living! What a joy! No more suicides out of boredom! Let's celebrate.
Yes, I understand that craziness is relative. I have been called one once or twice! I understand madmen are simply people 'who just like to be themselves.' So what's new? Unless this concept was invented by Paulo Coelho, why would I be interested in reading a cliché?
Then there is this other thing - Why does Paulo Coelho feel the need to introduce spirits and Gods to solve problems like in The Alchemist, or sometimes apparently for no reason at all, as in Veronica Decides To Die. The Alchemist was a very well written book. I almost loved it....until I reached the end. The premise was good, again. Something like – 'If you want something and work hard to get it, the whole world conspires to let it happen'. What a brave new statement? What can be more encouraging than being assured that everyone, in some way or another, is contriving in your favor? I was intrigued. There was a romantic angle too which kept me a little more interested. So I neared the end waiting to see - HOW? And how? Gods intervened. Winds blew and what not. Finally the boy realizes that the location of the 'khazana' he saw in his dream is just ....Let me not break the suspense for those who still want to read the book. In Veronica Decides to Die, a woman's spirit leaves her body during insulin shocks and roams around and visits the other room where she hears her doctor telling somebody to end her treatement. Don't get me wrong. I am not against existence of Gods or spirits. I believe I haven't seen a lot many things and this is possible. I am also willing to accept that logic and reason have their limitations, though this is not one such case. But one thing I can't possibly understand that isn't there any reason other than the interfering Gods that one should strive to be the best. How about saying - hey you dumbo, here's the situation. You try to get it, your chances are 60%, you sit there and whine, 0.0001% (the percent may vary depending upon individual case). Why is that not sufficient? Why do you want to make a theist out of me to make me understand that I should be courageous to pursue my dreams? And I won't even go into the idea of believing an actual dream, literally, let alone pursuing. Now this is the point where I am most vulnerable to that 'you didnt get it' line – ‘there was a symbolism there’, they will say. My one line response to it should be 'my friend, it is you who does not get it (what I have been saying).' But to add just a little more, and loose at the same time some of the sheen that such an arrogant one liner can give you, - If you are a child dealing with fairy tale, that's a perfect story. But for adults well versed with 'some form of worldly reason', please for heaven's sake give a real reason, and a real motivation. I don’t see it boding well even with the Gita talk of 'karm hi pooja hai'.
Here I'll shift gears abruptly to Black. The Amitabh-Rani movie that won all the awards that year. I didn't like it. Understatement. I hated it...exaggeration, but closer. Another why... I read the story in a paragraph somewhere and I had tears in my eyes. I saw the movie. I laughed. I laughed at Amitabh. No, Not so much at him, as much as at the director. The movie was so much concerned with the histrionics of Amitabh as a drunk, schizophrenic teacher that it almost forgot what Hellen Keller's story is about. Audiences loved the movie all the more. Perhaps a Miracle Worker wouldn’t have worked. It had real characters, a real teacher, real problems and no schizophrenia to explain and warrant 'attractive' wierdities (is that a word?). I don't care if Black had amazing direction - I don't even know what it is. And I don’t care about the gorgeous lighting. Where's the real story?
So to make the connection easier, why do people find loud so much appreciable. No, not Mallika Sherawat kind of loud. But still, subtly loud. I see exaggerations made by the dozen, mediocrities branded excellence, and excellence gone unnoticed. Why can't things be appreciated as they are? Why does one have to be a little corrupt to be considered integral....Why does one have to lie in job interviews? Why isn’t the worthy always given its worth?