Bruno is the first to exploit the concept of magic to its ultimate conclusions, envisaging this “science” as an infallible psychological instrument for manipulating the masses as well as the individual human being. Awareness of the appropriate “chains” (vincula) enables the magician to realize his dream of universal Master: to control nature and human society. This undertaking, however, encounters almost insuperable difficulties.
[…] De vinculis in genere (“Of bonds in general”) by Giordano Bruno is one of those little-known works whose importance in the history of ideas far outstrips that of more famous ones. In its frankness, indeed the cynicism of the analysis of its contents, it might be compared to Machiavelli’s The Prince, especially as the subject matter of the two works is connected: Bruno deals with psychological manipulation in general, Machiavelli with political manipulation. But how colorless and ridiculous the Machiavellian prince-adventurer now seems, compared to Bruno’s magician-psychologist! The popularity of The Prince gained for it the respect of succeeding centuries and has recently even led to the theory of the modern “Prince” – the Communist party – advanced by Antonio Gramsci. Unpublished until late, little read and always misunderstood, De vinculis in genere is nevertheless the written work that deserves to have the real and unique place of honor among theories of manipulation of the masses. Without being aware of it, the brain trusts that dominate the world have been inspired by it, have put Bruno’s own ideas to practical use. A continuity surely might exist, for Bruno seems to have exerted a certain influence on the ideological movement at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Rosicrucian movement, which had great repercussions. But to our knowledge there has never been, either before or after Bruno, any writer who has treated this subject empirically, free from any ethical, religious, or social considerations. For no one would have dreamed of attacking such a subject from the point of view of the manipulator himself without first positing, as the fundamental principle of his research, some intangible human or divine right in whose name the manipulation would be condemned.
[…]
All mankind has heard of Machiavelli’s The Prince, and many politicians have hastened to emulate his example. But only today can we appreciate how much De vinculis outstrips The Prince in depth, in timeliness, and in importance-today, when no head of state of the Western world would any longer dream of acting like the Prince but would use, on the other hand, methods of persuasion and manipulation as subtle as those the brain trusts are able to place at his or her disposal. In order to understand and show to advantage the timeliness of De vinculis, we ought to know about the activities of those trusts, those ministries of propaganda; we should be able to glance at the manuals of schools of espionage, from which we may glean something of what happens outside the corridors of those organizations whose ideal goal is to guarantee order and the common welfare, where it exists.
Machiavelli’s Prince is the forebear of the political adventurer, a type that is disappearing. On the other hand, the magician of De vinculis is the prototype of the impersonal systems of mass media, indirect censorship, global manipulation, and the brain trusts that exercise their occult control over the Western masses. He is not, doubtless, the type followed by Soviet propaganda, for he by no means lacks subtlety. On the contrary, Bruno’s magician is altogether aware that, to gain the following of the masses, like the loyalty of an individual, it is necessary to take account of all the complexity of the subjects’ expectations, to create the total illusion of giving unicuique suum. That is why Bruno’s manipulation demands perfect knowledge of the subject and his wishes, without which there can be no “bond,” no vinculum. That is why Bruno himself also asserts that it is an extremely difficult maneuver, only to be accomplished by the use of intelligence, perspicacity, and intuition equal to the task. The complexity of the task is not diminished, for the illusion must be perfect to satisfy the many expectations it proposes to fulfill. The greater the manipulator’s knowledge of those he must “enchain,” the greater is his chance of success, since he will know how to choose the right means of creating the vinculum.
– Eros and Magic in the Renaissance (1987), pp. 88-91