Professor George Estabrooks worked at Colgate University, New York. In 1943 he wrote a book, Hypnotism, in which was a chapter titled This Man Hitler where he shared his thoughts about how Hitler was able to achieve what he did. In 1957 the revised edition of Hypnotism was released. The chapter was also revised and now titled Hypnotism and Human Affairs. This revised chapter was very different. I feel that both chapters have value to read.
Below I have shared what Estabrooks said the stages are for a dictator to do what they do and then how he described this applying to Hitler. All of this is from the original 1943 book, which goes into more detail on this, then I share some information based on what Estabrooks said in the 1957 revised edition, where he also discussed how you can tell if you are being presented with information designed to manipulate you, and a few other bits.
I am sharing this because there are disturbing parallels to what is reported in the media about what is happening in the USA today and the actions of Donald Trump, which I find upsetting to see. The footage of the murder of Renée Good followed by the immediate misinformation that followed from officials was upsetting enough, but the footage of the murder of Alex Pretti and the misinformation which followed this is what has made me feel I need to share this information.
From an external perspective here in the UK, it looks very much like what is described here is unfolding in the USA and maybe awareness of how this happens can help in someway, whether that is in how politicians around the world deal with Donald Trump and others in his team, or in how US citizens avoid being drawn into this ‘reality’ shaped through an emotional lens of fear, hate and anger.
The This Man Hitler chapter begins: “As the reader will recall, we have several times made the statement that Hitler was the world’s best hypnotist.” Estabrooks continues on to qualify that statement and give some explanation. He first states that ‘suggestion’ has been defined as “the acceptance of a proposition in the absence of logically adequate proof.” And then proceeds to say “let us take an example which may apply to any one of us in the next five years and work back to our explanation from that.”
Estabrooks then gives a hypothetical example about chatting to a neighbour friend who mentions that he has heard that another neighbour is a German spy. You like this neighbour and don’t want to engage in this conversation, so the conversation ends. Hours later, that same friend arrives back at your house, they have been drinking and are highly emotional. They bring up the neighbour again, stating “we are at war with Germany, why wait until he does his dirty work, let’s take him out.”
Estabrooks questions, “what happens next?”
He says, let’s assume you like to be fair-minded and to keep out of trouble, so you don’t go with your friend, but you sit at home worried and confused about the whole situation. Then a few hours later you hear a commotion outside and see that a mob has formed outside that neighbour’s house. You head outside and ask someone what is happening, they explain that he is a German spy. You ask how they know, and they say that everyone says so and they tell you to come with them to get him.
Estabrooks asks “What do you do?”
He states that, reading this, you probably think you would do the right thing – try to calm the mob, talk reason etc. He shares that in reality, you will likely hang around the outside of the mob, feeling unhappy with everything, but making no actual attempt to stop what is happening. After a short while, you start to question whether perhaps this person is a spy and why shouldn’t he be stopped? You don’t yet get involved, but you are now not ‘against’ them doing what they are doing.
Estabrooks shares that what studies show often happens next is that your passive acceptance of what is happening changes to active participation, you become one of the mob. He states: “reading this book, such a statement may seem absurd, but we can assure you it is anything but absurd. The mob has a fatal habit of engulfing those who come merely as passive spectators.”
He then goes on to state why this is the case, stating that the first emotion you would likely experience is fear. Any attempt to stop the mob would put your life at risk. High emotion increases suggestibility. You may become torn between wanting to do the right thing and being scared to do the right thing. This increases your emotion levels further.
Being around the mob makes you more susceptible to emotional contagion – as social creatures, when we are around others, we draw on each others emotions, we laugh more at a funny movie when with others, we cry more at sad movies, at sporting events, people share in the emotions of the experience, etc. We feed off of each others emotions and ‘catch’ the emotions of the group.
We experience a restriction of the field of consciousness. We aren’t paying attention to lots of different things with our attention jumping all over the place like in normal everyday life, we are focusing on one thing – “the roaring of the mob,” or the “wild exhortations of the leader.” Which blocks out all other stimuli. Nowadays we have the likes of our Social Media feeds becoming an echo chamber where we build up our emotions and self-restrict our field of consciousness.
At this point the person is already highly emotional and narrowly focused, and then suggestions or ideas are being presented in a highly emotional way, making them more effective – why do we have sad puppies and lonely elderly, etc., in charity adverts? – It evokes emotion, the narrative told during the advert focuses attention (restricts field of consciousness) and then the suggestion to donate and an emotional hook of why you should do this is given. This is done because it works. – and then you start getting an avalanche where the situation creates emotion-this emotion makes us more suggestible-this increase in suggestibility makes us more emotional-which makes us more suggestible and the cycle continues.
Estabrooks continues on, that there are two other factors which occur. One is social sanction (and a feeling of omnipotence), this is that we unconsciously feel a desire to conform to a group and accept the norms of the group, so we can do bad things and at the time not think of them as bad. This social sanction can give a feeling of omnipotence – everyone agrees with this behaviour, it is what everyone else is doing, so it is okay.
The final factor is removal of inhibition – you are emotional, suggestible and everyone around you (in your ‘group’) agrees and approves of a specific way of behaving, meaning that you are more likely to do acts you would never dream of doing in your normal state.
I remember watching interviews with people after the 2011 London Riots when people from the City were saying they didn’t know what came over them, they just suddenly found themselves joining in, looting etc. This is a common thing, where people act very out of character and can’t explain why and can even find that recalling it is a bit of a blur (as if they ‘weren’t themselves’), when the reason is they fell prey to the mob influence.
After explaining how this works and the stages, he continues with mapping this onto Hitler at the time (and I feel concerned that this sounds scarily familiar today). Estabrooks starts by pointing out fear, that it would be a brave person in Germany to stand up against the leader and voice any criticism. He writes (and this is in 1943) about how American’s first hearing about concentration camps and what was taking place in Germany dismissed it as ‘propaganda’ rather than believe that it could be true. He states “nothing is more difficult than the education of the educated”, that people felt those sorts of behaviours were confined to the past and not something people would do today.
Estabrooks continues that fear is a powerful emotion, but is largely negative in its actions. it works well to silence opposition, but it isn’t a good foundation to build action on. He says for that, you use hatred, whether real or imagined. He points out that hatred is dynamic, it can make people blindly open to all sorts of suggestions, just pick a target or targets for the hate and add to that a myth of superiority and patriotism and you have a powerful, dynamic emotion that can’t be stopped by the voice of reason or temperance.
Estabrooks then gives some examples about how this was done, mentioning that there was some German research which showed Nordic hens are superior to Mediterranean hens. Estabrooks describes this study as “the purest trash…but terribly potent if fed to an inflamed people.”
He says that the scientists would have been under no delusions as to the weakness of this research or to their own fate should they refuse to obey orders.
Another example given is of a composer who wasn’t an ‘Aryan’, but his works sold well and so for financial reasons it was in the best interests or Hitler et al., to have this man in the country, so they said that anyone with at least 75% Aryan blood is officially an Aryan. They took his blood and stated that he had 76% Aryan blood. Estabrooks continues: “There is no test known to science by which we can tell Aryan blood from Mediterranean or Jewish, but that is quite beside the point. Such results published with the stamp of official approval, are just as true, just as potent as a genuine scientific statement in so far as they count in arousing public opinion.”
Estabrooks then talks about Hitler’s control of the press and radios (obviously now that would be the press, media platforms and social media, etc.) to restrict the fields of attention and elicit emotional contagion, stating “if we have control over the press and radio we have a tremendously potent weapon.” You use the press and media to focus on your own superiority and patriotism and add to this in every possible way a direct appeal to the strongest emotions – fear, hatred and anger.
Estabrooks explains that in a democracy you need to educate public opinion before a government can take drastic steps and uses the “slow awakening of the United States and Great Britain to their danger.” as an example, stating that “people may well condemn the leaders for the state of unpreparedness in which we found ourselves. We have to blame someone and we always condemn the government…but if [they] had dared to advocate a proper rearmament program [they] would have been branded as war-mongers and might very easily have been expelled from office.”
He continues, that a dictator can control the press and media etc., and can determine what line of action he will follow. He can “reverse his field” at a minute’s notice. He can whip up his people to fanatical hatred for one group of people and then suddenly change his tactics completely, overnight shifting ground stating that that first group are “splendid people”, it is really this other group that are the problem, and the dictators followers accept this, like hypnotic subjects accept being presented with a change in hypnotic suggestion. Then overnight, the dictator can change back to that first group being the threat or problem.
Estabrooks continues: “We can readily imagine the chaos in this country if tomorrow the President should suddenly announce that our real friends were the Japs, that we agreed to let them have Australia and the East Indies, while it was our obvious duty, because of American superiority, to take Canada and Mexico at once, with a “protectorate” over all the Latin American countries – until we could really absorb them.”
Estabrooks then shares similarities of Hitler’s rallies and stage hypnotists performances, before moving on to the final areas of mapping this onto what Hitler was doing. He shares about social sanction and a feeling of omnipotence, and the realise of inhibitions. Sharing about building up the illusion of being superior and how ‘you’ are the one being hemmed in and persecuted by all other groups, but it is their “God-given duty to rise superior to these circumstances and rule the world.”
This gives approval or social sanction from the group for taking action, giving people the mindset that taking action that is in-line with the group, the only group worth considering, is justified. This gives people permission to be released from all inhibitions in the name of the group and the goal.
He continues on, describing ‘dynamic leaders’ who throughout history have done the same sort of thing, stating “Unfortunately in most of these cases, as modern psychology could point out, the leader was definitely abnormal, neurotic or even insane.”
The chapter then goes on to examine Hitler (in relation to his claims and how none of them match with facts), before mentioning that Hitler may have had a basis for complaint around The Treaty of Versailles, however at the point of his invasion of Czechoslovakia every point in the treaty was either settled or on its way to solution and had he not invaded, “he might easily have become Europe’s greatest statesman, executing both a United States of Europe and a new world order without shedding a drop of blood.” Before stating “But, as one writer puts it ‘that sort of genius does not have that sort of genius.’” Stating that they rapidly learn that they must appeal to emotion, not to reason, and that it is much easier to use hate and fear, than love and understanding. “[With] hate or fear, reason becomes our worst enemy.”
Near the end of the chapter, he wraps up with “The leader gets caught in a hopeless and vicious circle. He achieves his end by playing on man’s lowest emotions. These ‘cruel, brutal and destructive’ instincts cannot be satisfied. Their very nature must become more and more all consuming, the fires must burn ever more fiercely. Hitler and his followers can no more restrain their thirst for power and revenge than can a hungry tiger restrain himself in the presence of a lamb.”
In the 1957 edition of Hypnotism, the updated chapter, now titled Hypnotism and Human Affairs also describes the above focus the dictator gets people into as a monomotivational field, a state where “his ideas, and his ideas only are to be considered” and where his followers have “only one line of thought, his line of thought.” That his ideas are “few, simple and that no-one is allowed to question them.”
Estabrooks states that for those following the dictator, it doesn’t occur to them “that there are two sides to an argument. Or rather, there are, indeed, two sides to any argument: his side and the one that’s wrong. If you are living under a dictator, you are perfectly free … to do as you are told.” And continues on “If this type of freedom does not appeal to you, then you are certainly free to say so … and take the consequences.”
He asks the reader, how can you tell if you are making a good choice over who to support? And states, is the person promoting democratic ideals, or trying to rally people up or evoke fear, hate or anger? He states that the US has “the world’s most intelligent electorate,” and “our politicians are a superior group.” However, he then states, “when you stop being better, you stop being good” and that electing a potential dictator, “you will make that mistake once only. From then on, he will take care that your mistakes are always in his favor.”
Estabrooks suggests that when you hear a politician speak, you are either for or against them. He recommends taking a moment to ask yourself why? Were they appealing largely to your reason, or were they appealing largely to your emotions, especially on areas such as class, privilege, race or religion, as these are often some of the easiest areas to evoke emotion.
Another psychological factor worth considering here, which Estabrooks doesn’t cover directly in these chapters, is conformity. This becomes particularly important when leaders, officials, or professionals present a confident narrative about events that conflicts with actual observations. In such situations, many people don’t defer to their senses, but instead defer to the group. These people aren’t unintelligent or dishonest, it is just that powerful social pressures shape how humans decide what is ‘true’ (other notible studies relating to the current US situation are the Milgram Experiment on obedience to authority, and the Stanford Prison Experiment on how quickly people adopt roles and take on situational power).
Psychological research has shown that people often go along with an obviously false consensus for two main reasons. One is normative influence – the desire to fit in, to be accepted, or to avoid ridicule, isolation, or social punishment. The other is informational influence – the belief that the group, or those speaking with authority, must know something that the individual doesn’t. When professionals, institutions, or leaders speak with certainty, people may assume that their own perceptions are wrong rather than consider that the group could be wrong, especially if they are a part of that group and need to maintain their internal narrative of ‘reality’ and it is their leader and people in positions of authority giving them the information.
This effect was demonstrated in the well-known line-judgement experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s. Participants were asked to judge the length of simple lines, a task with an objectively correct answer. However, when confederates of the experimenter deliberately gave the wrong answer, almost three-quarters of participants went along with the incorrect majority at least once (in any given trial about a third of people went along with the majority, about 25% never went with the incorrect majority, and about 5% of people always went with the incorrect majority).
Many later reported that they knew the group was wrong, but didn’t want to stand out, or assumed the group must be seeing something they weren’t noticing, and even among those who never conformed, in many cases reported finding this difficult, feeling an impulse to want to conform, and almost doubting themselves and releaved when they found out what the experiment was about and that they didn’t go along with consensus, but continued to stick to expressing their own thoughts.
What is interesting is that the presence of just one dissenting voice dramatically reduced conformity. Knowing that someone else also disagreed made it far easier for individuals to trust their own perception and speak up. This helps explain why suppressing dissent, discrediting alternative viewpoints, or portraying critics as immoral or dangerous is such an effective tactic when shaping public opinion, but also why it is so important for people to stand up and be that voice, especially if they are known to be from within the group they are speaking out against.
In many cases, people respond to this pressure through compliance – publicly agreeing with a narrative they privately doubt. Over time, however, repeated exposure, emotional reinforcement, and social approval can lead to internalisation, where the individual comes to genuinely accept the group’s version of events, even when it conflicts with observable facts. At a collective level, this can contribute to groupthink, where questioning the narrative itself becomes unthinkable, and where incorrect or even dangerous beliefs and actions are normalised.
This matters when emotionally charged events are followed by immediate, authoritative explanations that frame how those events should be understood, particularly when alternative interpretations are dismissed or condemned or observable facts are denied. In these situations, conformity arises because of fear, uncertainty, and social pressure.
There are issues going on everywhere, but it is within the USA that this currently seems to be most concerning and furthest along in a negative direction from where the US has been for about 80 years, standing for freedom, truth and justice. It has been a place which appeared to pride itself on its democracy and checks and balances, yet now it seems to be on track towards an autocracy.
The US kicked us Brits out, not wanting to be ruled by a King, or taxed without representation, yet, it appears they are heading back to this again, with Donald Trump using tariffs to place taxes on US citizens without giving them a say, and although being voted in, acting more like a ruler now he is in power, rather than a democratically elected official engaging in a democratic system, upholding the ideals of a democratically elected leader, both towards previous leaders and leaders from other countries. He is also showing a lack of respect for other countries rights to independence and even threatening to potentially take other countries by force and behaving as if he is above the law.
I hope that things improve and the USA finds its way back to being great again.
