You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.

Eric Hoffer (1902–1983), a longshoreman-philosopher best known for his writings on mass movements and political psychology, frequently analyzed fear, propaganda, and the reciprocal dynamics between adversaries. This aphoristic remark fits his mid‑century preoccupation with how groups and leaders attempt to control opponents through intimidation and moral panic. In Hoffer’s framework, threats and scare tactics are rarely random: they reveal the intimidator’s own anxieties and vulnerabilities. The line is often quoted in discussions of political rhetoric and conflict, where “enemy” can mean a literal opponent or any actor seeking leverage through fear.

Hoffer’s aphorism treats intimidation as a kind of psychological “tell.” The threats an adversary chooses—whether propaganda, accusations, displays of force, or social pressure—often mirror the vulnerabilities they most dread in themselves: exposure, loss of legitimacy, internal dissent, or being rendered powerless. By watching what an enemy tries to make you fear, you can infer what they believe would most effectively constrain you—and, by inversion, what they are anxious about losing. The line also warns against reactive panic: fear is frequently engineered. Instead, it recommends analytic distance, using the opponent’s tactics as evidence about their priorities and insecurities.