A reviewer of Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene said that some books have ideas that are explained so clearly that we think we could have thought of them ourselves. That we, the readers, are the geniuses. Hoffman uses what seems to be common sense psychology applied with a deep knowledge of history and an unusual ability to classify and draw comparisons yielding a classic exploration of the features of mass movements and their participants. You may feel like a genius when you read this book. His comments are only dated in so far as they mention the events of his day, e.g. Charles de Gaulle; otherwise, they seem timeless. It’s hard to limit what I found to be of special interest since, although there is some slight repetition, there is no spare chatter in this book. Relative to our current situation, Hoffer, who died in 1983, says,

“A peculiar side of credulity is that it is often joined with a proneness to imposture….The inability or unwillingness to see things as they are promotes both gullibility and charlatanism.“ [Chapter 59],

“Should Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost confidence in their own way of life.” [Chapter 73],

and concerning the attributes necessary for the leader of a mass movement,

“Exceptional intelligence, noble character, and originality seem neither indispensable nor perhaps desirable. The main requirements seem to be: audacity and a joy in defiance; an iron will; a fanatical conviction that he is in possession of the one and only truth; faith in his destiny and luck; a capacity for passionate hatred; contempt for the present; a cunning estimate of human nature; a delight in symbols (spectacles and ceremonials); unbounded brazenness….” [I’ll spare you the rest, except to say that such a leader must be able to find able lieutenants, or he will fail. Chapter 90]

There isn’t much to complain about in Hoffer’s famous book, but when he quotes Hitler, he either refers to Mein Kampf or to Hermann Rauschning’s book, Gespräche mit Hitler. The latter seem far-fetched to me, and, as pointed out to me by another reviewer, the Wikipedia article’s Talk page on Rauschning has an extensive and caustic discussion on the accusations that some of Rauschning’s works might have been fraudulent.