Skip to comments.Museum Of Tolerance Acquires Bertrand Russellís Nazi Appeasement Letter
Posted on 02/19/2014 2:24:17 PM PST by BenLurkin
LOS ANGELES (AP) The Museum of Tolerance has acquired a 1937 letter written by Bertrand Russell in which the Nobel Prize-winning philosopher says if the Nazi army invades his native England the British should invite Adolf Hitler to dinner rather than fight.
The fact of the matter is he had all the credentials. He probably was Britains greatest philosopher and won the Nobel Prize for literature after all, Hier said. But he didnt understand a basic concept: that the idea that you allow evil to flourish under these conditions, that if we act nice to Hitler, serve him the best wine, that Hitler will come around to see things our way is just preposterous.
Russell, one of the 20th centurys leading pacifists...
We may win or we may lose, he wrote. If we lose obviously no good has been done. If we win we shall inevitably during the struggle acquire their bad qualities and the world at the end will be no better off than if we had lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” -——Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others Prussian University in Berlin, 1810
For every prominent, fashionable Brit who spoke well of Hitler, there were a hundred, or maybe a thousand, who spoke well of Stalin.
In other words, we lose either way. So why fight?
This is what's known as a royal wuss.
If Bertrand Russell were alive today he would fit right in with his countrymen in fawning all over and cuddling Muslims in a sycophant manner.
Easy to explain as Russell did not believe in evil. It contradicted his materialist philosophy.
I suspect that Russell was an admirer of Stalin.
A pacifist believes that fighting is inherently evil. What the pacifist fails to realize is that is that there is a difference between fighting in self-defense and fighting as an aggressor. Because of this failure, the pacifist is an unknowing passive collaborator with evil.
We have people like Russell now. They are called "gun-control activists."
Heck, no. He'd steal your seat.
Most 20th century pacifists were closet Bolsheviks.
The brits should have parachuted russell, along with a bottle of wine and a couple of wine glasses, into berlin and told him, “have fun”.
He’d also fit in with the lesser evil wing of the political right. Same mentality. He’s just an example of where we’re headed by following idiots who think as he does. And eventually we will get to his level of moralless existence.
I suspect that in history, people such as Bertrand Russell, elevated as brilliant thinkers, are in fact, defectives.
What people call intelligence is suspected of being an imperfect mutation. That is, if you have a genetic predisposition to intelligence on one side of your family tree, you get the benefits of intelligence. But if it exists on both sides, there is at least a chance that you will be an individual crippled by a lack of other capabilities.
This is not to say that you will be stupid, though you might be, but that you might have other deficiencies, such as a lack of common sense, or an inability to distinguish between objective and subjective information. Or, who knows what all else.
Take Mr. Bertrand Russell, for example. He seemed to lack understanding into many facets of human behavior obvious to the rest of us. From his point of view, then, if Nazis were to invade Britain, someone could just sit down with them and persuade them that they shouldn’t do what they are doing.
At that point, most everyone else would have the illusion of brilliance set aside, and tell themselves that Russell is obviously a defective individual.
Albert Einstein is another great example. Brilliant in physics, but utterly baffled by society to the point of thinking that socialism is a good thing.
Most people attracted to socialism are not brilliant, but are in a litany of ways, defective units. People full of neuroses, bitter hatred, severe inferiority complex that they mask as a superiority complex, etc. Moonbats and degenerates.
That Einstein was able to find common cause with such as these was a great indicator that he should have stuck with physics, and written off human affairs as beyond his ken.
That is what we, as humans, are supposed to DISCERN.
Our good Lord gave us enough brains to know the difference between two of His angels: St. Michael the Archangel and Lucifer, the light bearer and one of God's "favorites."
From the Internet: In the New Testament Saint Michael leads God's armies against Satan's forces in the Book of Revelation, where during the war in heaven he defeats Satan.
The 1973 movie, the "Exorcist," had a 12-year-old girl being possessed by Satan. It was based on a true story. In REAL life the possessed child was a 12-year-old BOY (Roland Doe) from back east.
In HIS possession he remembers VERY clearly that one of the priests struggling against the powers of darkness brought him a small statue of St. Michael the Archangel. The statue of St. Michael was put by his bedside.
Just before the demons were FINALLY driven out of him, the boy clearly remembers "seeing" St. Michael, sword and all, forcibly sending Lucifer BACK down to hell.
That it's a TRUE story scares the HOLY PIE outta me!!
I was referring to true-blue pacifists. A Communist/Socialist/Marxist/Bolshevik/Stalinist/Maoist who claims to be a pacifist is simply a liar, because he would be thrilled if his side attacked.
I think the defect that you refer to is “hubris”. I think it’s more an acquired than a genetic trait. People who are celebrated as geniuses may come to believe that every careless thing that comes out of their mouths is a pearl of wisdom and the unvarnished truth. Many people who aren’t celebrated as geniuses also seem to think that about themselves.
Museum of Tolerance. Oh, brother!
You VILL be tolerant, citizen!
Russell was a socialist from way back who traveled to Russia, met Lenin for an hour-long conversation, and came away convinced that he had heard the sounds of executions in the background. From then on he bucked the trend of his fellow socialists in condemning the Bolsheviks. But he continued to believe in planned societal models, which was the source of his initial interest in Nazism, which he also condemned on the same grounds. But he never really got over his insistence that passive resistance was the answer to all societal evils. His much later (some critics say in senility although I doubt that) firm opposition to the Vietnam war was based on the same grounds; in short, the good Professor didn't really learn any better from his own long view of history. But he truly was one of the 20th century's staggering intellects despite. That doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong about fundamental things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.