12 ms·

The Triumph of Stupidity (1933)

• littletimmy 11y ago
  By murder, by torture, by imprisonment, by the terrorism of armed forces, they have subjected the intelligent and humane parts of the nation and seized power with the view of furthering the glory of the Fatherland. ^ The terrorism of armed forces part is particularly important. We tend to think that terrorism is something crazy non-state actors do in religious or delusional fervor, but it is really just the use of violence to achieve certain political ends. This is precisely what the American army started doing around the world after World War II. If you include psychological manipulation with it as well, as recently evidence by the disclosure that the DOD was paying NFL to propagandize during games, we get a very concerning picture of the role of the US military in today's world and in the US itself. In this gloomy state of affairs, the brightest spot is America. In America democracy still appears well established, and the men in power deal with what is amiss by constructive measures, not by pogroms and wholesale imprisonment. ^ How dated that sounds. Wonder what Russell would say about the America of today, with the oligarchy entrenching itself to replace a democracy, a wide-scale militarization of the police, a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states, the wholesale imprisonment of African Americans, and the popularity of near-fascist leaders like Donald Trump.
  • Ygg2 11y ago
    Donald Trump is near-fascist? I thought he is fascist through and through.
    • simonh 11y ago
      He's not coherent enough to be any one thing in political terms.
  • aidos 11y ago
    Oh man, I hadn't heard about the DOD thing. Here's a link for anyone too lazy to look it up themselves http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/defense-military-tributes-professional-sports_5639a04ce4b0411d306eda5e http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/defense-military-tribute...
    • arethuza 11y ago
      $6.8 million in the context of the US defence budget doesn't seem that big a deal to me - that's a rounding error in terms of the Pentagon recruitment budget (which appears to be in the range of low tens of billions). NB I'm not trying to be pro-military - just noting that armed forces everywhere need to recruit and they will have to spend money to get their message out there and a football game seems as good a place as any. I've seen military sponsorship of school level rugby games here in the UK.
      • celticninja 11y ago
        its not so much the amount of money spent but the propaganda nature of the activity. As said by senators involved in bringing this to light, most people would assume it was being done to support soldiers not as part of a remunerative arrangement, as the National Guard also said they work well as a recruitment tool. In any other format the fact that something is a paid advert (when it is designed to look like normal programming/article/editorial) usually has to be clearly stated. This is nothing of the sort.
        • arethuza 11y ago
          Surely it's propaganda regardless of whether the state is paying for it or not?
  • steve_g 11y ago
    "a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states" That's just untrue. A pogrom is an organized massacre of an ethnic group - it's not happening, in southern states or anywhere else in the US.
    • acqq 11y ago
      littletimmy, how about citing sources for these extraordinary claims ("a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states")? I can't believe it wouldn't be widely known in the current "politically correct" environment. Even if you are now aware that "pogrom" wasn't the right word to describe something "against Muslims" that is worrying you, please do write what that is.
      • celticninja 11y ago
        your reply was not to littletimmy so he may not answer you. However it is possible he was talking about things like this: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-set-up-outside-islamic-center-of-irving.html/ http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-... Whilst not a pogrom it certainly does lay the ground for some future issues. All you have to is consider the reaction if Muslim Americans decided to use their 2nd ammendment rights to protest christian or jewish churches, whilst covering their forces and armed with semi automatic weapons.
        • acqq 11y ago
          Was it a protest "against Muslims" as persons of the religion as whole, or just against the goals or actions of just some militant or extremist Muslims? The messages of the protest were "solution to islamic terrorism -> ted cruz" (obviously a call to the solution of the assumed problem through voting, that is, politically, they refer to: https://www.tedcruz.org/ https://www.tedcruz.org/ ) and "stop the islamization of america" according to the picture from the same site: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/11/pan.jpg http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/11/pan.jpg Isn't even filing such event as something "against Muslims" (implying "in general") a big misinterpretation? Who benefits from such misinterpretations? And did the protesters break any law?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • Kristine1975 11y ago
    > How dated that sounds. It's also somewhat idealistic. After all, it was only in 1920 (13 years before the essay was written) that in the US women got the right to vote. And even today in some states felons are not allowed to vote. Edit: And of course people under 18 also don't have the right to vote.
    • acqq 11y ago
      And women voting in Switzerland: only since 1971: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_Switzerlan...
      • Kristine1975 11y ago
        1991 actually: In 1991 following a decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, Appenzell Innerrhoden became the last Swiss canton to grant women the vote on local issues
        • acqq 11y ago
          Sad, but on another side, particularly funny thinking about the possible meanings of the name "Innerrhoden."
          • adwn 11y ago
            For those who don't speak German: "Innerrhoden" sounds like "innerer Hoden", or "inner testicle" in English.
            • sjakkel 11y ago
              Innerhoden is a none-word. It doesn't exist. There is an Inerrhoden (double r) in Switzerlandl,,,,,
      • bhaak 11y ago
        1971 on the national level. On the cantonal level, it was between 1959 and 1972 that women voting was introduced in most cantons. Only the two Appenzells hold out until 1989 and 1990. But you have to remember that in Switzerland, the people had to vote in this. Only 12 years earlier in 1959, 2/3 of the voters voted against it. In 1971, 2/3 of the voters voted for it. A big turnaround in a short time. Do you really think that most countries would have given women voting power when they did it if they'd asked the voting people (that is men at the time)?
  • zouhair 11y ago
    He created the Russel Tribunal, so I guess he will not be very happy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal
    • johngossman 11y ago
      Very interesting, I'd never heard of this. Thanks.
  • Retra 11y ago
    >it is really just the use of violence to achieve certain political ends. That's not terrorism, that's just war. All wars use violence to achieve political ends. Terrorism is the use of the fear of unpredictable attacks against a civilian population to prompt a high-impact political response, like war or revolution. Not all violence is terrorism.
    • stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      Stay-behind paramilitary organizations like Gladio were associated with old-fashioned terrorist attacks in Italy.
• jcrei 11y ago
  Is there a way forward? A way to avoid the same mistakes and perhaps save humanity from the triumph of stupidity?
  • eggy 11y ago
    I believe there is, but for me the skepticism comes from my belief that there are a lot of 'well-read' people today thanks to the internet, Google and Wikipedia, although not many critical readers and thinkers. The best illustration of this for me is in the movie "Good Will Hunting", where the main character overhears a cocky college student, and puts him in his place [1]. That scene epitomizes a large portion of talk I hear about me, but with no real substance, or a Will Hunting to put them in their intellectual place. I think we don't teach basic critical thinking any more except in special classes or programs when it should be part of every class - common sense. [1] http://theartofspokenwords.blogspot.co.id/2011/04/good-will-hunting-bar-scene-quote.html
  • bakhy 11y ago
    there's a kinda funny part in the Daodejing (or, Tao Te Ching, by the old Giles-Wade latinization of Chinese): (3) Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder. Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones. He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal. --- I think our elites most of the time do a good job at the "empty their minds" bit. Spread a lot of confusion, FUD, and nobody dares to do anything. They are failing on the "fill their bellies" front, that's something to work on. I find the passage kinda funny, since eastern philosophies are very popular nowadays mostly because of a hippie outlook on what they say. This part is in a way very cold and calculated. Daoism is pretty level-headed, my favorite of all eastern schools, along with some elements of Zen.
  • alexashka 11y ago
• d--b 11y ago
  This does not belong here.
  • DanBC 11y ago
    Why not?
    • d--b 11y ago
      Really? This is an old text saying that nazis were stupid and americans were not. I don't think that this qualifies as "[something] that good hackers would find interesting". It must have been posted here as a way to warn people to "not be stupid" or something?
      • natch 11y ago
        I don't think it's saying Americans were not stupid. To me it reads more as Americans were not (at that time, in his assessment) allowing stupidity to triumph to nearly the same degree.
    • d--b 11y ago
      Oh, and because it invariably leads to comments which are in breach of HN guidelines. See these comments about Donald Trump?
      • DanBC 11y ago
        This is a good point and it's a shame you got downvoted for it. (I up voted it, but it's still grey.)
  • musgravepeter 11y ago
    I found this worthwhile.
  • jacquesm 11y ago
    As opposed to all those links you posted that do belong here? Really, if you don't like it that much and you believe it does not belong here you can flag it. But the best way to make HN into what you feel it should be is to post good links and to visit the new page to upvote the things that you feel do belong here.
• RyanMcGreal 11y ago
  Haunting and frighteningly timely short essay. This particular part jumped out (not least because the first sentence is highlighted): The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points. Around the same time (1930), Sigmund Freud articulated the concept of "the narcissism of small differences" in his book Civilization and its Discontents, a concept that is endlessly useful in understanding how otherwise like-minded people tend to tear themselves apart. A related concept in software development is "bikeshedding".
  • FatalBaboon 11y ago
    However in "bikeshedding", like-minded people tearing themselves apart over small things is a byproduct of the underlying problem: they're procrastinating the bigger issue.
    • bakhy 11y ago
      Maybe that's the point. I feel sometimes like the world today is so complex, that it's hard to be sure of any politics whether it will work, or produce more misery than good. So, perhaps on a subconscious level, it's easier to bicker about details and never actually do anything. Moral high ground is the privilege of those that don't do anything...
• mattgibson 11y ago
  "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." This seems to be the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. Knowing more means having greater awareness that what you know is only a small part of what you could know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect "A hundred years ago the philosophical radicals formed a school of intelligent men who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are" If true, I wonder what caused this. Could anyone suggest cultural, social or technological reasons that may have temporarily united the intellectuals of the age?
  • zamalek 11y ago
    > Could anyone suggest cultural, social or technological reasons that may have temporarily united the intellectuals of the age? I think the Internet played a very strong hand with uniting the "unintellectuals" of our age. As for your actual question the answer lies within that sentence "philosophy." Philosophy has been found[1] to be an excellent way to teach children how to access their intelligence; most importantly regarding critical thought. To blindly follow the stupidity of others you must have first failed to practice critical thought. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/teaching-philosophy-to-children-its-a-great-idea http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/teachin...
    • bjterry 11y ago
      > I think the Internet played a very strong hand with uniting the "unintellectuals" of our age. It seems like the Internet has the opposite effect of uniting people. By allowing people to form ever tighter communities around specific topics, it allows people to feel like they've been united closer with others, but the interests of the groups they form are narrower than pre-Internet social groups. As to whether this affects intellectuals and unintellectuals more, it's hard to say. I could definitely be swayed either way. I've observed communities that fill every square of the (intellectual, unintellectual) x (narrow interest, broad interest) matrix.
  • tomp 11y ago
• gtpasqual 11y ago
  Today, Americans shouldn't take this as luck, but as a cautionary tale.
• Dowwie 11y ago
  Thanks for sharing. We could spend hours drawing from this essay. Let's consider this part: "A hundred years ago the philosophical radicals formed a school of intelligent men who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are; the result was that they dominated politics and that the world advanced rapidly both in intelligence and in material well-being." Another example of this is neo-liberal capitalism: from Hayek [1] and his disciple, Friedman [2], to myriad think tanks, Reagan and Thatcher, SCOTUS (eg Powell [3]), etc. We're still living with the outcome of a generation of intelligent, organized, ambitious people united by a [flawed] ideology. [1] Hayek - "The Road to Serfdom" http://amzn.to/1PRWyDj http://amzn.to/1PRWyDj [2] Friedman - "Free to Choose" http://amzn.to/1QKIewt http://amzn.to/1QKIewt [3] Powell - "Attack on American Free Enterprise System" http://bit.ly/1Q2bHR7 http://bit.ly/1Q2bHR7
  • sysk 11y ago
    Just a nitpick but Hayek and Friedman were both classical liberals.
    • madaxe_again 11y ago
      Strictly speaking Hayek was the first Hayekian liberal - but did self-describe as a classical liberal.
  • vixen99 11y ago
    Your specific objection being? Or do you consider your rhetoric sufficient? Any comments about the enthusiasts for the currently totally unsustainable welfare states set up in the West along with the massive associated debts to be loaded onto the backs of those as yet unborn?
    • Dowwie 11y ago
      sufficient for here -- and from me to you it was a case in point
• noja 11y ago
  "In this gloomy state of affairs, the brightest spot is America. In America democracy still appears well established, and the men in power deal with what is amiss by constructive measures, not by pogroms and wholesale imprisonment." Oh.
  • creshal 11y ago
    How the mighty have fallen.
    • ajkjk 11y ago
      Hm? I feel like this still applies reasonably well to America. For all of the radical lunacy in our politics, our government's actual actions remain fairly moderate. (Of course maybe that's because political gridlock prevents us from having time to enact radical policy.) And we still are leading the world in all sorts of things, like scientific progress and technological progress.
      • dangoor 11y ago
        I interpreted that part as being relevant given some of the statements from the Presidential nomination process going on today. That said, this point in the nomination process is not very indicative of where things end up. Potentially more directly related is that there was some wholesale imprisonment that occurred in America a few years after Russell wrote that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
      • gizmo 11y ago
        Moderate? Hardly. - The war on drugs is utterly radical, as well ineffective and brutally oppressive. - Assassinating people (including Americans) by Drone strikes, based on "meta data". No due process or oversight. - Disregard for the Geneva Conventions (Bombings of hospitals and other civilian targets) - Torture. Including public defense of torture. - NSA. Privacy used to be an inalienable right. - Military bases in 200+ countries. The list goes on, but I think I've made my point. The US is only "moderate" for the most creative definitions of "moderate".
• jasim 11y ago
  In "How to Make Wealth", pg points out that the emergence of the rule of law made the modern economy as we know it possible. It did - social progress has made institutions like democracy and ideas like liberty and rationalism more popular than it has ever been in history. This used to give me a dangerously false sense of optimism - that the modern society is a stable scientific one, where good intelligent people are in charge, and that the state of affairs are always improving. This notion partly came from the privilege of never having lived in a war-zone. The life of chaos of those who are unfortunate to be in one is even now beyond my understanding. I think that the idea that humanity is always marching forward to better days is something implicit among people who live in peaceful affluent societies. But if you look at history, the world has always gone through cycles. No matter how much we improve socially, a regression seems almost inevitable. The Roman Empire did fall, and was followed by the Dark Ages. Even in the most democratic countries of the world, fascism is only just around the corner. There is a large chunk of society who're easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups, and likes to follow leaders who make a show of macho masculinity. The status-quo is pretty fragile. The nerds aren't safe. Those with warrior tendencies always have upper-hand over those with nation-building tendencies, and that reads like a tautology.
  • lugus35 11y ago
    http://www.emersoncentral.com/greatmen.htm http://www.emersoncentral.com/greatmen.htm
  • jonnybgood 11y ago
    > There is a large chunk of society who're easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups, and likes to follow leaders who make a show of macho masculinity. The status-quo is pretty fragile. The nerds aren't safe. What makes you think nerds are any different?
    • jasim 11y ago
      Great question. They aren't.
    • louprado 11y ago
• jacquesm 11y ago
  That's an incredibly prescient piece of writing, to see that clearly what would happen in the next 14 years and to write it down so un-ambiguously and tersely. Who is our present day Bertrand Russell?
  • cronjobber 11y ago
    Michel Houellebecq?
    • drumdance 11y ago
      I'd go with Alain De Botton. I like Sam Harris too but a lot of people hate him. He's not a philosopher per se but he's willing to have strong opinions about controversial issues.
      • Kristine1975 11y ago
        >he's willing to have strong opinions about controversial issues. So is Rush Limbaugh. A lot of people are, in fact. Being today's Bertrand Russell should require a bit more than that.
        • johnchristopher 11y ago
          What about Richard Dawkins ? (good science reputation, strong media presence)
          • marklgr 11y ago
            He's more of a symbol, especially in atheist circles, than a great scientist. His "bout" with Wilson is pretty depressing.
            • johnchristopher 11y ago
              Noam Chomsky ?
• jonnybgood 11y ago
  I don't understand this essay. It seems to be a romanticism of intelligent individuals, but he refers to Nazi Germany as the triumph of the stupid. However, isn't Nazi Germany the product of a small group of highly intelligent individuals?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • adwn 11y ago
    > [...] isn't Nazi Germany the product of a small group of highly intelligent individuals? Yes, a small group of intelligent individuals, who succeeded in rallying the "stupid" masses behind them.
    • splouk 11y ago
      Wouldn't any successful political movement need the support of the "stupid masses"?
  • lentil_soup 11y ago
    what do you mean by "highly intelligent individuals"?
    • stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht
• yread 11y ago
  > In America democracy still appears well established, and the men in power deal with what is amiss by constructive measures, not by pogroms and wholesale imprisonment. Well all was not perfect even there - just a couple of years later all Japanese were "wholesale imprisoned".
  • Synaesthesia 11y ago
    Thereafter black americans since the 1970s
• yc1010 11y ago
  Replace Germany with Russia in article and you would be describing the sad state of things in modern Russia, the most brutal and stupid are running the show there now. Aside here is an interesting article regarding this > https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/russia-great-forgetting/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/russia-great-for...
  • tomp 11y ago
    Hm.. as opposed to Germany, Turkey, UK and the US?
    • MagnumOpus 11y ago
      Yes (except Turkey - Erdogan wants to become what Putin is).
    • stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      Don't forget France. A politician noticed a PS4 console in a terrorist's room and concluded that that's what they used as a super-secret communication channel. Turns out they used good ol' SMS. Already intercepted. They announced that from now on they'll also intercept the PS4 messaging traffic anyway. Then there's the plan to put ankle bracelets on "known extremists"...
      • tomp 11y ago
        I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but (disregarding the risk that I might get as well) I agree. Especially how quickly Hollande seized the opportunity of the tragedy-shocked nation to start attacking Syria...
  • bestest 11y ago
    Why is @yc1010's comment downvoted? It's exactly where Russia stands right now.
  • yk 11y ago
    It is not the stupid who run Russia, in fact looking at Syria Putin seems to be the only one with a realistic goal in that war. The Russian interests are their access to the Mediterranean and following from that they want to aid their ally, the Assad regime, both clearly attainable military goals. Contrast that with the western engagement in Syria, ISIS was created in Iraq during the occupation, and now the West tries to put down by bombs what was created by bombs, a strategy that did not work for Israel in the last 50 years. So perhaps Russia is run by the cynical, but certainly not by the stupid.
• dmichulke 11y ago
  Throughout the last hundred and fifty years, individual Germans have done more to further civilisation than the individuals of any other country; during the latter half of this period, Germans, collectively, have been equally effective in degrading civilisation. Russell here is making the same mistake as most people today. It wasn't the "Germans collectively", it was the German government, tolerated by a mostly ignorant population with a few "hawks" to show support for the government action. Contrary to the top post here right now, this is the same thing happening in the US right now. The government bombs another country every 1-2 years and people let it happen. We're still in appeasement times but the state already gradually disrespects individual liberties and soon America will become a collective much like the one described in the article.
  • aschreyer 11y ago
    I think it would be too easy to say that it was only the German government responsible for what happened. Below is a key quote: What has happened? What has happened is quite simple. Those elements of the population which are both brutal and stupid (and these two qualities usually go together) have combined against the rest. And another quote from Hannah Arendt: Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda. The problem might be that the "mob" is getting stronger for various reasons and there is an active elite that is eager to exploit them for their own gain.
  • cubano 11y ago
    Well, I must disagree and say it was the "Germans collectively", at least in a large part (37% of them voted for Hitler in his last real election), but in their defense, it was the Treaty of Versailles, imposed upon the nation at the end of WWI, that basically forced them into this position. Remember, Hitler and the National Socialist's were voted into party thru democratic means, although to be sure, democracy was never really a part of the German zeitgeist back then. All the major players knew the ToV was going to lead to another war, and it sowed the seed for the rise of some sort of militaristic, Fascist government.
    • dmichulke 11y ago
• dennis_jeeves 11y ago
  Opportunist here, riding on the popularity of this post. See my recent post which is partly along the lines of thoughts expressed by Bertrand Russel: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10611416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10611416 Summary - readers who think that vast majority of individuals are 'stupid' - please contact me. One of the failings of 'sane' intelligent people is that we do not band together.
• yAnonymous 11y ago
  I think it's simpler than that. Politics attract assholes and intelligent people avoid assholes.
• nabla9 11y ago
  "civilised world" is kept together by midddle- and working class people. What people need is hope and predictable outcomes from their personal efforts. The Great Depression of 1929 struck America hard but Weimar Germany much harder. Incremental changes and hard work did not produce improvements. Life was uncertain and critical amount of people felt that life was unfair to them. They were ready to try stupid and unorthodox. I find it unlikely that radical and stupid ideas alone can rock liberal democracies. They are always present. What is needed is personal uncertainty and fear of the future that resonates with the society.
  • walod 11y ago
    > "civilised world" is kept together by midddle- and working class people. Well, sort of. I think first you need technological innovation, and then the middle- and working class fill the labor to maintain that technology, but they for the most part didn't create it. They are users of it. Companies do investments and allocation of capital to produce that technology. Without a central source of capital, it would be hard to get the investments needed to research and produce it. I think technology (in all its forms from basic to advanced) is what enables the motion of society and individuals and the freedoms. And also civilized society is just as much about daily life and consumption of information and perceived oppression or unfairness as it is pure work. It feels like a lot of modern arguments are about these perceived unfair situations, but on a personal level rather than systematic level. This leads to systematic "macro" chaos but predictable individual "micro" movement in the system (based on emotion and current view of the world). As long as the technology and resources can be maintained, there will be some order in the basics in society, since everyone needs food, shelter, clothing, security and so forth, so I would say, the whole system is what keeps the civilized world going and then some day, something fundamental breaks in some way, due to the accumulated macro momentum of micro scale movement, and then the macro breaks, or something like that. Edit: also as an addon, these micro movements are decided today, by so called "thought leaders", and so these thought leaders are also responsible for the civilized world in that sense. An idea or representation of something has a huge effect I think.
• MichaelHamilton 11y ago
  So true and painful to read. I wonder if humanity will ever evolve and leave behind its selfish, egocentric, and brutal ways.
• randcraw 11y ago
  I think it's not stupidity (nor the Dunning Kruger Effect) that leads mankind astray; it's groupthink, in any shape or form. When you blind yourself to whether you and your allies do more harm than good, in service of some abstract ideal or philosophy, you fail.
• DrNuke 11y ago
  aka the raging cretinisation of the world or overfitting, from data science jargon; second time in a row I'm forced to write this here on HN, I'm probably overfitted too. :(
• henriquemaia 11y ago
  Written in 1933. In the same year, Heidegger joined the Nazi party. Now go figure who was the most prescient of the two.
• scrrr 11y ago
  I think it is a potentially dangerous mistake to put the "stupid" label on all those that support anti-democratic tendencies. Among other things, such as having a false impression of what else is possibly going on, one might be inclined to dismiss the problem too easily.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• simonh 11y ago
  It's a classic, but I do think there's more to it than stupidity versus intelligence. It's also about conviction versus cowardice. In my experience bullying and persecution are very often more about fear and insecurity. If you're persecuting and blaming someone else, you're not being persecuted and blamed yourself. It's a way to deflect hostility and responsibility away from yourself and on to other people. It seems to me most of the people Russel was writing about may not even have been going along with the mainstream because they genuinely thought Jews, Communists etc were a real threat, but because if everyone is having a go at them they're not having a go at me. If I join in then I become one of the team and can buy safety and security for myself that way. In the uncertain and dangerous times Germany had been through, any route to personal security and safety must have looked very attractive. How is this relevant today? Clearly Putin is using this sort of response to great effect by using conflict and rivalry with foreigners to deflect criticism away from his abysmal record at actually achieving anything of value for the Russian people. Even having a Russian jet shot down by Turkey plays to his advantage in that respect. For us the question is, how to treat Muslim minorities in the West, and what to do about the Syrian refugee crisis. The refugees didn't create this crisis and are the primary victims. The vast majority of Muslims in the west are against ISIS and deplore it's tactics. But blaming 'The Muslims' for all of this and using excuses such as that terrorists will infiltrate the west disguised as refugees are blinkered and cowardly. What are we going to do? Drive millions of refugees back into the Mediterranean sea? It's going to take determination and perseverance to do the right thing. Take as many refugees as we can. Build bridges with Muslim communities in the West. Confront IS and it's backers militarily and economically. There will be further attacks. Integrating so many refugees is going to be expensive, hard work and there are going to be negative consequences and mistakes made. It's not going o go smoothly. But we still have to do it not because we are 'Intelligent' but because we have courage.
• applecore 11y ago
  Yeats's The Second Coming, written in 1919 and following the cataclysm of the First World War, conveyed the same horrific and accurate vision of the future: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
• dmfdmf 11y ago
  > The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. It was Hume and Kant who injected skepticism back into Western thought and are responsible for empowering the stupid, including the Nazis. If you know the cause of your plight then you can fix the effect.
• DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
  >>> By murder, by torture, by imprisonment, by the terrorism of armed forces, they have subjected the intelligent and humane parts of the nation and seized power with the view of furthering the glory of the Fatherland. reminds of current US foreign policy.
• myth_buster 11y ago
  For me it was present day US in place of Germany. It would be interesting if people reading this would say here which country they associated Germany to. I suppose almost all the countries will be on the list. So an interesting question would be which country you associated the US in the essay to?
• windhover 11y ago
  Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, and Hermann Göring, and the other leaders of the National Socialist party were horribly brutal, but they were not stupid. They were some of the brightest in the most well-educated country in the world. The same goes with French influenced Marxists such as Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Bertrand Russell is right on many points, but he's terribly wrong to think the enemies of civilization are stupid. Read Machiavelli.
• lquist 11y ago
  Fukuyama presents an interesting counterpoint in The End of History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...): "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
• lquist 11y ago
  Reminds me of Yeats' The Second Coming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)): Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• shitgoose 11y ago
  Russell wrote this piece in 1933, just one year before US government confiscated gold from its citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102). "Brightest spot" didn't last long.