I've recently become aware of Eric Hoffer's work. It's a shame; it was quite well known in generations before me. His first book was published in 1951, and he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on 1983. And yet, today his work is largely deliberately forgotten, or at least I've never heard of it, even though it should be exactly the kind of work that's right up my alley, and would explain a great deal of the problems that we see in the world politically and socially. I expect that the reason for this is that his work is largely a condemnation of leftism as its become, and since Leftism holds the reins at every academic institution, they've focused more on works that attempt to validate them rather than condemn them.
This doesn't mean that I think Hoffer's work is perfect, of course. Hoffer had an interesting life, and probably wasn't best person in the world. He describes life in his 20s and 30s during the Great Depression as one where he almost committed suicide, but then dividing his time "between the books and the brothels" where he became a writer and philosopher and extremely well-read individual who also had a blue-collar, working man's approach. He called himself an atheist who had sympathetic views towards religion, but he seems to have been poor at picking out genuine conversion from fanaticism, in the cause of Paul the Apostle, for example, which he uses as an example of a fanatic. Incorrectly, of course, because he doesn't believe in the possibility that Saul's Road to Damascus conversion into Paul was anything other than another example of fanaticism, the main subject of his writing. He also buys into the false narrative that fascism and communism were polar opposites of sorts, so his conclusion that the object of fanatic's fanaticism is interchangeable. That may or may not be true, to some degree, but his example doesn't do a good job of demonstrating it, since communism and fascism partly appealed to the exact people because they were only subtle variations on the same ideology anyway.) A point Heber J. Grant and David O. McKay, among others, certainly did not miss. Actually, prior to the US going to war against Germany and deciding that the Soviets were our allies, pretty much everyone in America knew that fascism, Nazism, socialism, communism, peronism, francoism, or any other variant you can think of, were all basically the same movement with only minor variations on them.) And his assertion that Saul transferred his fanaticism for Judaism to a fanaticism for Christianity upon his conversion into Paul is silly. Hoffer also assumed that Lincoln, Churchill and FDR (among a few others) were different somehow, although they used the same processes and methods. Grant and McKay were not so fooled, and wrote directly to Roosevelt's administration in condemnation.
Of course, now that I've picked apart (or at least highlighted) areas of disagreement with his work, at an extremely high level, I should probably get to the meat of his work, which I think absolutely does describe the current wave of socio-political movement, as well as a warning for the future. First, let me quote a little bit (once again) of the Z-man.
The Opposite Rule of Liberalism states that whatever the Left is saying about its political opponents, assume the opposite and you will get close to the truth. [...] The classic example of this is ten years ago when the Tea Party was a thing. This purely grassroots movement in reaction to the radicalism of the Obama administration was called “AstroTurf” by the Left. The Left claimed their activism was organic while the Right was manufacturing activism. The Tea Party was a creation of the Republican Party and their corporate masters. The reality was the opposite. Left-wing activism was controlled by the party and financed by corporate America.
The opposite rule can also work as a warning. In fact, this is the best application of the rule as it helps prepare for left-wing shenanigans. The way this works is that once you hear warnings from left-wing people about some threat, you can assume they are planning it or they are actively engaged in it. The last bit is the way to bet when the Left is overly excited about the claim. In other words, they have a habit of accusing their opponents of crimes the are committing. [...]
This behavior of the Left, where they accuse their enemies of what they are plotting or doing, is used by conservatives as proof of the Left’s cynicism. For conservatives, hypocrisy is the most powerful abracadabra word. Despite all the evidence, they are sure that uttering this word will destroy their enemies. When the Left accuses their enemies of something they are doing, the conservatives scream about hypocrisy, believing is does something magical for them.
This never has the desired effect because being accused of hypocrisy only works if you care about factual accuracy. For conservatives, being factual correct is important, so they would rather lose than be accused of contradiction. This is mostly why they lose every fight. They like losing while being right. For the Left, advancing their goals is what matters, so they can live with contradiction. For them, facts are just another tool that can be used as a weapon against the opposition. [ed. There's a popular expression among conservatives: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" known as Hanlon's Razor, because Robert Hanlon is to whom it is usually attributed. Goethe seems to have expressed it as early as 1774, however. However, this is a red herring for most conservatives, who should practice a bit of the opposite: stop attributing to stupidity (or ignorance) that which is better explained by malice.]
It also helps that left-wing politics attracts a specific type. Eric Hoffer observed that people often join mass movements out of self-loathing. They wish to swap their hated sense of self with the identity of the group, which they view positively. This is almost always true with left-wing politics. The people in it are looking for a form of salvation, where they are saved from thinking about their hated sense of self. Instead, they get to focus on an enemy they can enthusiastically hate.
Of course, hating an enemy that has the qualities you hate about yourself is pretty much the ideal enemy for this sort of person. Their self-loathing is transformed into a virtue while they express their hatred for qualities they fear they possess. Collectively, this transforms the Left into a mob driven by what looks like moral indignation and a desire to purge the world of corruption. This is what makes a relatively small number of people into a powerful force in American society.
This shameless ability to project onto others the sins of the Left has been the primary reason the Left has denominated American politics. They claim the moral high ground, accuse anyone that resists of doing something bad and then they do that bad thing to the people they are accusing. After all, they have created the justification for the bad thing they are doing. Conservatives spent the last half century trying to prove they are not the villains while the Left marched from triumph to triumph.
The opposite rule has been so effective, in fact, that there is no longer an effective opposition to the Left in America. Conservatism has collapsed and the political divide in America is the Cloud People, who populate and control the managerial class, and the Dirt People, who suffer under the rule of the managerial class. The Cloud People now accuse the Dirt People are various things, like the insurrection business, which is used to justify heavy handed tactics against the Dirt People. [...]
This is where that opposite rule becomes so effective. The need to accuse an outsider of the worst crimes the Left can imagine becomes a justification for committing those crimes against the alleged enemy. It is how America so quickly moved from defending the liberal order and individual rights to celebrating corporate censorship and the persecution of political prisoners. The bad guys get worse, so the means to defeat them must get worse as well. This is the terror escalator.
This is a parasitic and corrosive ruling ethos. The sharp decline in the quality of life for most Americans over the last generation is one result. The collapse in social trust is another consequence. Like the desperate person eating the seed corn, what we call liberal democracy is consuming the social capital of society in order to fuel the hate-machine that props up the managerial class. At some point, maybe soon, they run out of things to burn and the system becomes unstable.
Next, some quotes from Infogalactic about Hoffer's work:
Hoffer came to public attention with the 1951 publication of his first book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology.
Hoffer argued that fanatical and extremist cultural movements, whether religious or political, arose under predictable circumstances: when large numbers of people come to believe that their individual lives are worthless and ruined, that the modern world is irreparably corrupt, and that hope lies only in joining a larger group that demands radical changes. Hoffer believed that self-esteem and a sense of satisfaction with one's life was of central importance to psychological well-being. He thus focused on what he viewed as the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. For example, Hoffer noted that leaders of mass movements were often frustrated intellectuals, from Adolf Hitler in 20th Century Europe to Hong Xiuquan's failure to advance in the Chinese bureaucracy of the 19th Century.
A core principle in the book is Hoffer's assertion that mass movements are interchangeable: in the Germany of the 1920s and '30s the Communists and Nazis were ostensibly enemies but routinely swapped members as they competed for the same kind of marginalized, angry people and fanatical Communists became Nazis and vice versa. [...] For the "true believer," Hoffer argued that substance of any particular group is less important than being part of an energized movement. [ed. This does, at least, partly explain the nonsense which conservatives have bemusedly noted for decades, but never been able to utilize effectively against Leftists; that they will often take literally the exact opposite position that they just had a few weeks ago, and will pursue both with equal fanaticism.]
Hoffer also claimed that a passionate obsession with the outside world or the private lives of others was an attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life. [...]
The "New Poor" are the most likely source of converts for mass movements, for they recall their former wealth with resentment and blame others for their current misfortune. Examples include the mass evictions of relatively prosperous tenants during the English Civil War of the 1600s; or the middle- and working-classes in Germany who passionately supported Hitler in the 1930s after suffering years of economic hardship. In contrast, the "abjectly poor" on the verge of starvation make unlikely true believers as their daily struggle for existence takes preeminence over any other concern. [...] [ed. This may have been true for the Bolshevik, Fascist and Soviet movements, but it is not true for the current crop of cultural Marxist movements at all, where the relatively affluent and well-educated are the most prominent members. There, the lack of self-esteem and presence of self-loathing seems to be the driving factor, and therefore the driving factor for the present. However, it's a notable warning for the future. Because the current crop of social and political policies are rapidly creating a vast class of disenfranchized "New Poor" in America, there's likely to be a very, very bad backlash to the current regime once it reaches critical mass. Which, sadly, looks to be on track to happen much more quickly and soon than I had ever anticipated in the past.]
Racial and religious minorities, particularly those only partly assimilated into mainstream culture, are also found in mass movements. Those who live traditionalist lifestyles tend to be content, but the partially assimilated feel alienated from both their forbearers and the mainstream culture. (E.g., "The orthodox Jew is less frustrated than the emancipated Jew".)
A variety of what Hoffer terms "misfits" are also found in mass movements. Examples include "chronically bored"; the physically disabled or perpetually ill; the talentless; and criminals or "sinners". In all cases, Hoffer argues, these people feel as if their individual lives are meaningless and worthless.
Hoffer argues that the relatively low number of mass movements in America is attributable to a culture that blurred traditionally rigid boundaries between nationalist, racial and religious groups, and which allowed greater opportunities for individual accomplishment. [...]
Mass movements demand a "total surrender of a distinct self". One identifies first and foremost as “a member of a certain tribe or family", be it religious, political, revolutionary, or nationalist. Every important part of the true believer’s persona and life must ultimately come from her identification with the larger community; even when alone she must never feel isolated and unwatched. [...]
While mass movements [may] idealize the past and glorify the future, the present-day world is denigrated. "The radical and the reactionary loath the present". Thus, by regarding the modern world as vile and worthless, mass movements inspire a perpetual battle against the present. Mass movements aggressively promote the use of Doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world". The Doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances. [...] Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil. Hatred unifies the true believers, and "the ideal devil is a foreigner" attributed with nearly supernatural powers of evil. [...][ed. Look at the rampant and incessant hatred of whiteness, including white culture, white legal tradition, white intellectual tradition and Christianity today. Americans have become the focus of hatred in America, which is a little odd. In Nazi Germany, Hitler turned the majority against a minority; in America, the cultural Marxists have turned the minority against the majority. The only reason that they've been able to be as successful as they have is because our majority is naïve, nice, and bends over backwards to give everyone else the benefit the doubt. Not sure how well that will work in the future when we've finally had enough, because I can't think of an example where that's been successfully done before. Certainly, there are loads of clues all around us that the momentum of the hate machine is running out; people are sick and tired of CRT, and child groomers, and propaganda disguised as entertainment, etc.] The hatred of a true believer is actually a disguised self-loathing, as with the condemnation of capitalism by socialists while Russia under the Bolsheviks saw more intensive monopolization of the economy than any other nation in history. Without a devil to hate, mass movements often falter (e.g., Chiang Kai-shek effectively led millions of Chinese during the Japanese occupation of the 1930s and '40s, but quickly fell out of favor once the Japanese were defeated).
Fanaticism is encouraged in mass movements. Hoffer argues that "the fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure" and thus uses uncompromising action and personal sacrifice to give meaning to his life. [...]
Mass movements begin with "men of words" or "fault-finding intellectuals" such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order (e.g., Gandhi, Trotsky, Mohammed, Lenin). These men of words feel unjustly excluded from, or mocked and oppressed by, the existing powers in society, and relentlessly criticize or denigrate present-day institutions. While invariably speaking out in the name of disadvantaged commoners, the man of words is actually motivated by a deep personal grievance. The man of words relentlessly attempts to "discredit the prevailing creeds" and creates a "hunger for faith" which is then fed by "doctrines and slogans of the new faith".[19] A cadre of devotees gradually develops around the man of words, leading to the next stage in a mass movement.
Eventually, the fanatic takes over leadership of the mass movement from the man of words. While the "creative man of words" finds satisfaction is his literature, philosophy or art, the "noncreative man of words" feels unrecognized or stifled and thus veers into an extremism against the social order. Though the man of words and the fanatic share a discontent with the world, the fanatic is distinguished by his viciousness and urge to destroy. The fanatic feels fulfilled only in a perpetual struggle for power and change. Examples include Jean-Paul Marat, Maximilien de Robespierre, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler.
In any case, while this was written long before cultural Marxism and wokeness was a thing, one can hopefully see the obvious way in which they fit the structure that he outlined by looking more at communism and fascism. Leftism is fundamentally the same now as it was in the Bolshevik and Nazi age, and it is fundamentally led and propogated by people who are emotionally stunted. Here's some more; his discussion of Asia in the 1950s sounds very much like America in the 2000s:
For centuries, Hoffer notes that Asia had “submitted to one conqueror after another." Throughout these centuries, Asia had “been misruled, looted, and bled by both foreign and native oppressors without” so much as “a peep” from the general population. Though not without negative effect, corrupt governments and the legacy of European imperialism represented nothing new under the sun. Indeed, the European colonial authorities had been “fairly beneficent” in Asia.
To be sure, communism exerted an appeal of sorts. For the Asian “pseudo-intellectual” it promised elite status and the phony complexities of “doctrinaire double talk." For the ordinary Asian, it promised partnership with the seemingly emergent Soviet Union in a “tremendous, unprecedented undertaking” to build a better tomorrow.
According to Hoffer, however, communism in Asia was dwarfed by the desire for pride. To satisfy such desire, Asians would willingly and irrationally not only sacrifice their economic well-being, but their lives as well.
Unintentionally, the West had created this appetite, causing “revolutionary unrest” in Asia. The West had done so by eroding traditional communal bonds, bonds that once had woven the individual to the patriarchal family, clan, tribe, “cohesive rural or urban unit,” and “religious or political body." Without the security and spiritual meaning produced by such bonds, Asians had been liberated from tradition only to find themselves now atomized, isolated, exposed, and abandoned, “left orphaned and empty in a cold world."
Certainly, Europe had undergone a similar destruction of tradition, but it had occurred centuries earlier at the end of the Medieval period and produced better results thanks to different circumstances.
For the Asians of the 1950s, the circumstances differed markedly. Most were illiterate and impoverished, living in a world that included no expansive physical or intellectual vistas. Dangerously, the “articulate minority” amongst the Asian population inevitably disconnected themselves from the ordinary people, thereby failing to acquire “a sense of usefulness and of worth” that came by “taking part in the world’s work." As a result, they were “condemned to the life of chattering posturing pseudo-intellectuals,” who coveted “the illusion of weight and importance."
Most significantly, Hoffer asserts that the disruptive awakening of Asia came about as a result of an unbearable sense of weakness. Indeed, Hoffer discusses the problem of weakness, asserting that while “power corrupts the few.. . weakness corrupts the many.”
Hoffer notes that “the resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done [to] them but from the sense of their [own] inadequacy and impotence.” In short, the weak “hate not wickedness” but hate themselves for being weak. Consequently, self-loathing produces explosive effects that cannot be mitigated through social engineering schemes, such as programs of wealth redistribution. In fact, American “generosity” is counterproductive, perceived in Asia simply as an example of Western “oppression." [...]
Hoffer believed that rapid change is not necessarily a positive thing for a society, and too rapid change can cause a regression in maturity for those who were brought up in a different society. He noted that in America in the 1960s, many young adults were still living in extended adolescence. Seeking to explain the attraction of the New Left protest movements, he characterized them as the result of widespread affluence, which, in his words, "is robbing a modern society of whatever it has left of puberty rites to routinize the attainment of manhood." He saw these puberty rites as essential for self-esteem, and noted that mass movements and juvenile mindsets tend to go together, to the point that anyone, no matter what age, who joins a mass movement immediately begins to exhibit juvenile behavior.
Hoffer further noted that the reason why working-class Americans did not, by and large, join protest movements and subcultures was that they had entry into meaningful labor as an effective rite of passage out of adolescence, while both the very poor who lived on welfare and the affluent were, in his words, "prevented from having a share in the world's work, and of proving their manhood by doing a man's work and getting a man's pay," and thus remained in a state of extended adolescence, lacking in necessary self-esteem, and prone to joining mass movements as a form of compensation. Hoffer suggested that this need for meaningful work as a rite of passage into adulthood could be fulfilled with a two-year civilian national service program (not unlike programs during the Great Depression such as the Civilian Conservation Corps). He wrote: "The routinization of the passage from boyhood to manhood would contribute to the solution of many of our pressing problems. I cannot think of any other undertaking that would dovetail so many of our present difficulties into opportunities for growth."
Which is an observation that is obviously no longer true today.
Anyway, this is largely a rambly post of quotes and selections from other works. But I found it remarkably insightful in both understanding the personality of Satan himself, and those who follow him, and why these fanatical movement that that which currently motivates the Left (and which has motivated the Left ever since its definition during the French Revolution).
Sadly, it suggests that without major structural changes to fix society, there's no good solution. What will most likely happen is a violent collapse in which the Cloud People elites are set upon en masse by the Dirt People, and the vast hordes of foreigners will either purge Americans from America or be purged from America because the main reason that they are here is the malice of the elites against the American people.
And let me be clear, again. I'm not suggesting that I endorse that result. Merely that I predict that it is inevitable regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks about it.
