Mattias Desmet's "The Psychology of Totalitarianism"

A few months ago, I was offered an advance copy of Desmet’s book in exchange for writing a review on this Substack. There were no stipulations attached (on the content matter), but I did not accept the offer. What if I hated the book? Would I feel compelled to curb my critique? But the book sounded compelling, so I picked up a copy and read it — in one sitting.

With the mendacity of our times, The Psychology of Totalitarianism is a refreshing look into the “why” of the pandemic response, but, more importantly, the conditions that explain the “why now”. While the book touches on COVID-19, re-iterating many of the arguments the skeptics have been making, it is not about COVID-19. Much like Hannah Arendt’s work, which Desmet draws upon, the argument for why totalitarianism occurs may end up being timeless. For those of us who (like me) have heard reference to mass formation psychosis, but did not take a deeper dive, this is essential reading. It is made easier due to Desmet’s ability to effortlessly convey ideas through beautifully interwoven narratives — like I said, I read it in one sitting.

And for optimists, Desmet offers a, perhaps overly, hopeful note for those trying to break the spell of totalitarianism:

“The first and foremost task is to keep speaking out. Everything stands
or falls with the act of speaking out. It is in the interest of all parties. The
specific manner in which the act of speaking out takes place—in books,
publications or interviews, in front of the cameras, in shops or at the
kitchen table, in the company of a limited or large group of people—is of
less importance; everyone who, in his own way, speaks out about the truth,
contributes to the cure of the ailment that is totalitarianism.”

Which is a clear nod to Havel and his notion of “living in truth”. Speaking out in any way we are able also constitutes the strategy that most of us have been taking with some risk for the past couple years. Whether or not it will work is unclear, but, for those of us living in more Kafkaesque regions, it is our only form of direct action.

Now, this review will not be all sunshine and rainbows. I agree with his argument that no conspiracy is necessary in order for the pandemic-era totalitarianism to occur; however, I think Desmet is a bit too dismissive about the impact of social constructivism. A vast conspiracy is not likely, nor necessary, but when there is an extremely high concentration of power in a small set of individuals who have made it clear that they intend to change society on a global scale, then the idea that they are caught in the web of mass formation psychosis as much as the next chap breaks down.

While the book doesn’t preclude the possibility of real “conspiracy theories”, there is a strong implication that these are mere coping mechanisms created by the people not caught up in the wider mass formation psychosis. Many of the theories I have heard are not making broad-sweeping claims on general, unnamed actors. They are theories based around people that transparently tell us their plans and openly implement them. In my opinion, Desmet gets too hung up on the fact that this is not done behind closed doors. What advantage would there be behind closed doors? Being open influences other powerful, connected people to adopt the conspirators ideas, essentially creating the rules and structure of the game (spreading the “meme” so to speak). Or maybe he is completely right and I should cope less.

In any case, that is really the only part of the book where I take issue. I would recommend it to anyone. I suspect, one day, this book will either be considered a classic or banned.