Bertrand Russell - The Impact Of Science On Society ... UK COLUMN
Bertrand Russell - The Impact Of Science On Society
"I don't believe they would do it!"
How many times have we heard that from people who cannot suspend
their disbelief long enough to look objectively at the possibility that
the New World Order is indeed a very nasty global conspiracy run by the
Rather than attempt to persuade the reader that such evil exists, I'm going to let Bertrand Russell do it for me.
Who was Bertrand Russell?
According to Wikipedia, Russell was a very nice upstanding man
indeed, a "British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian,
socialist, pacifist and social critic," no less.
In fact, Russell was descended from an old establishment family. He
was a propagandist, whose job it was to propogate certain ideas in the
service of the monied elites. He was instrumental in the project to
wreck European and American culture through his chairmanship of the CIA
sponsored Congresss for Cultural Freedom. Far from being a pacifist, he
was a promoter of the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction and was the
founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War
nuclear annihilation to push for world government. He was a racist and
promoter of population reduction. He was a Fabian socialist, and a
Multhusian ideologue, along with fellow Coefficients Club member and one
world government promoter H.G. Wells. He was a significant figure in
the agenda to bring about what is now known as the "New World Order." He
was, contrary to the Wikipedia portrayal, a thoroughly evil man.
Impact Of Science On Society
In 1952, Russell published a seminal work, The Impact Of Science On
Society. As is typical of Russell, the writing style is dull, at least
in the beginning. The beginning of the book seems reasonable and
humanitarian, and is intended to soften the reader up for the disgusting
conclusions which are presented as desireable or inevitable.
So without further ado, I will present the following quotes from the
book, and leave it to you, the reader, to decide how much of the
conspiracy is already in place.
I think the subject which will be of most importance
politically is mass psychology ... Its importance has been enormously
increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the
most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part,
though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an
increasing part ... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to
persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is
provided by the State with money and equipment.
The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists
under a scientific dictatorship ... The social psychologists 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. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the
influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done
unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses
set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the
opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for
eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make
these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to
make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would
cost to make them believe it is dark gray.
Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly
confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to
know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been
perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a
generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the
need of armies or policemen.
Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy ... It
is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give
governments much more control over individual mentality than they now
have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education
should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left
school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of
thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have
wished ... Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very
early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that
the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the
powers that be will become psychologically impossible ...
The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia ...
If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific
breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a
generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may
surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing
aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will
be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the
years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure
adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be
preferred to the natural method ...
Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between
rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different
species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an
organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.
After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries
known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely
subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes
the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development
of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to
maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the
distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count
on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by
giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see
how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the
oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in
which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which,
one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I
remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect,
but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black
Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation
survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.
There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout
or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might
be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are
indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s. However, I am
wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.
There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as
regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that
of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general
misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been
practiced: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the
second by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato’s Republic;
the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it
and in Soviet Russia ... Of these three, only birth control avoids
extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings.
Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will
be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of
population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more
and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will
therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against
those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of
communism in China.
The need for a world government, if the population
problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on
A society is not stable unless it is on the whole
satisfactory to the holders of power and the holders of power are not
exposed to the risk of successful revolution.
First, as regards physical conditions. Soil and raw
materials must not be used up so fast that scientific progress cannot
continually make good the loss by means of new inventions and
discoveries ... If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there
must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an
international authority to ration them in – such quantities as may from
time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And
similar considerations apply to soil conservation.
Second, as regards population ... To deal with this problem it will
be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population.
If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and famines,
it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority
should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to
their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If
any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that
account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population
would therefore be very compelling.