Experts Gone Awry: Eugenics Movement Revisited

Yesterday I shared how an expert, with major funding, built what was expected to be the first airplane. Instead, it crashed, and the New York Times declared that it would be a million years before we'd witness a manned flying machine. This was 1903, yet before the year's end the Wright Brothers made aviation history. The point being that experts don't always know what they're talking about.

Looking back on a century ago, one might be surprised at how many bad ideas were germinated by so-called experts, especially when you consider the ideas spawned by Social Darwinism. Because of its utopian belief in human perfectibility -- that is, the perfectibility of the human race -- and confidence in it experts, the movement went off the rails by embracing the eugenics movement.

I don't know your thoughts about Woodrow Wilson as a president, but the more I learn the further he falls down the ranks in my book. Woodrow Wilson was a supporter of the eugenics movement and the broader "racial science" prevalent during the Progressive Era. He viewed it as a rational, scientific approach to improving human heredity and social organization. His endorsement of eugenic principles was intertwined with his advocacy for white supremacy, and his policies on segregation.

I never knew that as Governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed a bill in 1911 that authorized the compulsory sterilization of criminals and those considered mentally disabled. It was described as "An act to authorize and provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded, epileptics, rapists, certain criminals, and other defectives". This aligned with similar measures he campaigned for in Indiana in 1907 with the end result that Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. [EdNote: The law was overturned in 1921. However, in 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions. Go figure.]

How could this happen? Well, because educated "experts" persuaded the public this was good and right.

Wilson used the theories of eugenics to justify his belief in the inherent superiority of white individuals, particularly those of Nordic descent. He frequently expressed racist views and viewed Black people as inferior.

On March 9, 1919, the Legislature of North Carolina passed a similar law with the fancy title "An act to benefit the moral, mental, or physical condition of the inmates of penal and charitable institutions." The purpose of this legislation, as the name suggests, was to "improve" the condition of individuals living in state institution by allowing them to be sterilized.

Actually there were a lot of liberal ad ssocialist intellectuals who supported eugenics during the early-to-mid 20th century, including H.G. Wells and the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger, as well as Bertrand Russell. Regarding Russell, I remember hearing Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes fame going on a rant against Christianity on the radio and citing Bertand Russell, "the smartest man of the las 100 years," as proof that there was no God because Russell was an atheist. Which again proves my point: experts don't always know what they're talking about.

[EdNote: This occurred around late February 2004, right after The Passion of the Christ opened in theaters. Contemporary accounts describe Rooney delivering a “mean-spirited diatribe” against the film and Gibson, essentially arguing that a brilliant thinker like Russell (a well-known atheist and philosopher) rejected Christianity, so the movie’s religious premise was suspect or unworthy of serious regard.]

 

The scary part of this story is not what we've done in the past. Rather, how pervasive, influential and damaging they can be when pushed by so-called experts and their media mouthpieces. It takes work to stay informed. When advocates trot out their troves of experts, it does not mean they are right.

Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Second International Eugenics Conference

https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/timeline/517228a6eed5c60000000017
includes timeline

September 25-28, 1921. The Second International Eugenics Congress at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, one of three held between 1912 and 1932. Fifty-three scientific papers were presented, most by Americans, and Alexander Graham Bell served as honorary president. The conference was originally scheduled for 1915 but due to the outbreak of the First World War, was re-scheduled.

America's Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement

https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444/#:~:text=The%20eugenics%20movement%20took%20root,and%20principal%20interested%20in%20breeding.&text=Movies%20and%20books%20promoting%20eugenic%20principles%20were%20popular.

The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.

No one knows for certain how many compulsory sterilizations occurred between the late 1960s to 1970s, though it is estimated that at least 80,000 may have been conducted

Harry Laughlin 

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/eugenical-sterilization-united-states-1922-harry-h-laughlin 

Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), by Harry H. Laughlin

A 1922 book in which author Harry H. Laughlin argues for the necessity of compulsory sterilization in the United States based on the principles of eugenics. 

Eugenical Sterilization in the United States is 502 pages long and has seventeen chapters. Harry Olson, the Chief Justice of Chicago's Municipal Court, introduces the book, followed by a preface written by Laughlin

 the book reports Laughlin's analysis of how states could benefit from sterilizing their mentally disabled residents, and it reprinted his model sterilization law, which he encouraged state governments to adopt. Laughlin's model sterilization law stressed the need for the sterilization of populations that Laughlin deemed inadequate for reasons ranging from physical appearance to socioeconomic status. The document influenced twentieth century legislation in the US about reproduction and compulsory sterilization. Although Laughlin suffered from epilepsy, he advocated for breeding out specific populations from the general population, including epileptics, the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, alcoholics, the blind, and the deaf. 

Related Links

Bad Ideas: The Eugenics Movement In America

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-ideas-eugenics-movement.html

Shedding More Light on the History of Eugenics: Are These Ideas Still With Us Today?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2021/02/shedding-more-light-on-history-of.html

Eugenics, Revisited

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2010/02/eugenics-revisited.html

What Does It Mean To Be Educated?

According to Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), "No man can pass as educated who had heard only one side on questions as to which the public is divided." Are students learning to think today? Or are they only being spoon-fed a one-sided point of view? Or has education become only about grades and that piece of paper you get at the end? 

Norman Finkelstein, in his controversial I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It!, shared his convictions about what should happen in a classroom. What follows here is the 1915 inaugural statement of principles by the American Associaton of University Professors (AAUP). 

The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should, if he is fit for his position, be a person of a fair and judicial mind; he should, in dealing with such subjects, set forth justly, with- out suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators; he should cause his students to become familiar with the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue; and he should, above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently.

The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. It is not the least service which a college or university may render to those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues.

Finkelstein then added this amplification.

A lectern is not a soapbox, a classroom is not a political rally, a professor should not serve as a conveyer belt for a party line. His responsibility is to stimulate, not to dictate. Plato said, "The object of education is to teach us to love what is beautiful." It is not the worst maxim, although I prefer a slightly amended, less authoritarian version: The object of education is to teach us to love to think while minds fully realized will probably agree on which objects of contemplation possess beauty.

It is fashionable nowadays on the political left to ridicule the notion of "balance" in the classroom. For example, Philosopher Akeel Bilgrami asserts that, although in the privacy of his study a professor must scrutinize all the evidence on all sides of a question, in the classroom he is only obliged to present the results of his prior deliberation.  

Does that really help students think for themselves? 

* * *

As Russell, and many others, have noted, "There are always good arguments on both sides of any real cause." The statement suggests that complex issues inherently have valid perspectives on opposing sides. It highlights the nuance of real-world problems, where competing values, priorities, or evidence create reasonable arguments for each stance. Acknowledging this fosters critical thinking and empathy, encouraging balanced discussions rather than polarized views, though it may complicate decision-making in contentious debates.

Has critical thinking, with empathy, become a lost art?

* * * 

Image at top is an AI collaboration based on one of my original paintings.

The Role of College Educators Is To Teach Students How To Think

"There are always good arguments on both sides of any real issue."  
—Bertrand Russell

Here is the 1915 inaugural statement of principles by the American Association of University Professors (A.A.U.P.) on page 405 of Norman Finkelstein's I'll Burn That Bride When I Get To It!

The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion, under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should, if he is fit for the position, be a person of a fair and judicial mind; he should, in dealing with such subjects, set forth, justly without suppression, or innuendo, the diverget opinions of other investigators; he should cause his students to become familiar with the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue; and he should above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials, which they need, if they are to think intelligently.

The teacher ought to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the students immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teachers own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to relate to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge in ripeness of judgment, to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. This is not the least service which a college or university may render those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues.

To which Finkelstein adds: "A lectern is not a soapbox, a classroom is not a political rally, a professor should not serve as a conveyor belt for a party line. His responsibility is to stimulate, not dictate."

Are We Making Progress or No? 21 Quotes About Progress

The Beatles wrote a song about progress in relationships called "It's Getting Better All the Time." As for society on a grander scale, a case can be made that whereas progress is being made in some areas it's open to debate whether things are really better. It depends on what you measure.

What follows are 21 ponderables for your consideration.

QUOTES ABOUT PROGRESS

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
--George Bernard Shaw

Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long. 
--Ogden Nash

The Difficult is that which can be done immediately; the Impossible that which takes a little longer. 

--George Santayana 

The difficult is what takes a little time; the impossible is what takes a little longer.

--Fridtjof Nansen

We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice.
--Woody Allen

Without deviation, progress is not possible.
--Frank Zappa 

What we call progress is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance.
--Henry Havelock Ellis

Change is one thing, progress is another. Change is scientific, progress is ethical. Change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.
--Bertrand Russell

Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.
--Thomas Edison

Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight.
--Bill Gates

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
--Arthur Schopenhauer

The technology life cycle has three stages: Hype, disillusionment, and application.

--Bob Lewis

The science of today is the technology of tomorrow. 

--Edward Teller

All progress is based upon a universal, innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.
--Samuel Butler

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--George Santayana

The most damaging phrase in the language is, "It's always been done that way."
--Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

Quality has to be caused, not controlled. 

--Philip Crosby

Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment.
--Fred Brooks

 

Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems.
--Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

What we anticipate seldom occurs, what we least expected generally happens.
--Benjamin Disraeli

Boredom: A Blessing or a Curse?

"It is the unknown that excites the ardor of scholars, who, in the known alone, would shrivel up from boredom."
--Wallace Stevens

Eleven years ago this weekend I wrote about John Updike's four life forces: love, habit, time and boredom. When I first heard this notion I found the last most surprising, but having periodically contemplated these things over the years I've concluded that he was onto something.

Here are a few thoughtful or thought-provoking observations about boredom worth pondering. 

* * * 

"Boredom is the feeling that everything is a waste of time; serenity, that nothing is." 
--Thoma Szasz

"Isn't history ultimately the result of our fear of boredom?"
--Emile Cioran

"I am convinced that boredom is one of the greatest tortures. If I were to imagine Hell, it would be the place where you were continually bored."
--Erich Fromm

"Boredom is therefore a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of it."
--Bertrand Russell

"The two enemies of human happiness are pain and boredom."
– Arthur Schopenhauer

"Boredom is the deadliest poison."
--William F. Buckley, Jr.

* * * 

Is boredom a gift or a curse? If it moves us to action, perhaps it can be called a gift. If we suffer from chronic boredom, it may be a clue that something else is wrong with us. Just as pain is an indicator that something is wrong with our physical selves, so it may be that boredom is an indicator that something is amiss with our souls. 

Some people suggest that boredom is a key ingredient in the creative process.

Here's an intriguing quote from Flaubert's Madame Bovary. "But her life was as cold as an attic facing north; and boredom, like a silent spider, was weaving its web in the shadows, in every corner of her heart." 

* * * 

I had a friend who used to say, "Sometimes boring is good." He was talking about investments at the time but it can apply to other things as well. We've heard the expression "drama queen" as a reference to people who have exaggerated or overly emotional reactions to events or situations. Much of that drama is self-created through bad choices, risky ventures or simply a need to be the center of attention.

What do you think?

Is It Real or Just Our Imaginations? 20 Quotes About Progress

"The doctor will see you now."

Progress is an interesting word. Has the human race been making progress? When we look at the breakthroughs in medicine these past couple hundred years, it's amazing. When a mad dog with rabies bit someone, the suffering was excruciating. Until Louis Pasteur.  

Just over two hundred years ago trained medical doctors used to "bleed" you. That is, they slit your wrists to get the bad blood out of your system. Sometimes they used leeches for the same purpose, or man-made devices designed to emulate them.

98 years ago Calvin Coolidge, Jr. got a blister on his toe while playing tennis. The toe got infected and the infection killed him. They didn't have Neosporin yet. In short, progress in the medical field has been remarkable.

On the other hand, look at the technological advances: space shuttles, microchips, thumb drives, microwave ovens, robotics, the Internet. 

Then again, is it progress that we have nuclear and chemical weapons that can wipe out the human race? Our track record as societies with regards to being able to get along makes one wonder if we might even be going backwards. Drug addiction and all forms of self-destruction abound in what is supposed to be an advanced "civilized" society.

So, the theme is progress. What's really going on? Here are 20 quotes to ponder, along with a few imponderables. 

QUOTES ABOUT PROGRESS

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

--George Bernard Shaw

Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long.
--Ogden Nash

The Difficult is that which can be done immediately; the Impossible that which takes a little longer.
--George Santayana 

The difficult is what takes a little time; the impossible is what takes a little longer.
--Fridtjof Nansen

We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice.
--Woody Allen

Without deviation, progress is not possible.
--Frank Zappa

It's not so much what you have to learn if you accept weird theories, it's what you have to unlearn.
--Isaac Asimov

What we call progress is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance.
--Henry Havelock Ellis

Change is one thing, progress is another. Change is scientific, progress is ethical. Change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.
--Bertrand Russell

Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress. 

--Thomas Edison

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. 

--Arthur Schopenhauer

The technology life cycle has three stages: Hype, disillusionment, and application. 

--Bob Lewis

The science of today is the technology of tomorrow.
--Edward Teller

All progress is based upon a universal, innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.
--Samuel Butler

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--George Santayana

The most damaging phrase in the language is, "It's always been done that way."
--Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

So much havoc has optimism wrought in this world that pessimism appears not only a legitimate way of looking at things but a moral duty.
--Christopher Spranger

Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment.
--Fred Brooks

Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

What we anticipate seldom occurs, what we least expected generally happens.
--Benjamin Disraeli

* * * 

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

The Spanish Inquisition Had a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

One of the memorable episodes from the old Monty Python Flying Circus featured several Spanish Inquisition sketches. Each begins innocuously until someone says, "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" whereupon three bumbling priests in 15th century garb burst into the room, Michael Palin snarling, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise."

Whereas the skits were hilarious, the actual Inquisition was anything but. 

I turned to Wikipedia for a refresher course on this period of history. I learned here that the Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 and lasted 300 years. What I was unaware of -- was it downplayed by historians? -- was that Ferdinand II and Isabella I were the ones who commissioned the Inquisition. If those names sound familiar, they should. Ferdinand and Isabella were the the monarchs who commissioned Columbus on his mission to India by traveling West.

The Wikipedia account contains a lot of detail about the various stages of the Inquisition, including objectives and statistics. There is a breakdown of how many were prosecuted (150,000), how many were executed (3000 to 5000) and the ratio of their offenses (Protestants, Orthodox, Sodomites, blaspheming Catholics, etc.) 

As I read this information, I got the impression that some people could argue that the numbers weren't all that bad. Three to five thousand executions in three centuries is only 10 to 17 executions per year. Stalin, Hitler and Mao killed millions. The U.S. killed more than three-to-five thousand unarmed citizens at Hiroshima and Nagasaki without a trial or even a warning.

True enough, but consider this. Consider the atmosphere of a society where your livelihood, and even your life, may be at risk at any moment if you get accused by your neighbor. In other words, your family's well-being is at risk at any moment because you may say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Maybe your lose your temper, or simply have a lapse of judgment and express something against the Pope. Suddenly, the PC Police (neighbors) are making notes, and the next time the Grand Inquisitor is in the neighborhood, your name comes up.

It may be something you said 20 years ago and you don't even remember it. You may not even have those feelings or views any more, but under the Inquisition (the rack stretching your bones apart in order to aid your memory) you do recall having made that gesture to a priest or snarky comment about the Pope, or whatever else was not politically correct at the time.

* * * 

Our current culture is quite far from the ideal when it comes to freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Some topics are so controversial that I am uncomfortable listing them here. There are questions we are afraid to ask. There are topics that people have been criticized for even writing about. 

When I Googled the question >>what are some topics we can no longer talk about publicly<< The first answer delivered was 11 Things You Can't Discuss in Public Anymore.*  One can quibble over particulars but the list does show that we haven't arrived at the free thought society mathematician/social critic Bertrand Russell was fighting for, or that the Founding Fathers desired for the United States.

When Russell expressed his concerns about these matters 100 years ago, the list of objectionable topics may have been different but it was no shorter. 60 years ago Lenny Bruce was hounded to death for challenging the limits of free speech. 

* * * 

Though free speech is protected in our nation's Bill of Rights, we all know that there are limits. We do not have a right to shout "Fire! in a crowded theater. Unfortunately, there's an increasing tendency to tar-and-feather people on an ever widening array of topics. 

I know we're supposed to be optimistic going forward, but in order for us to solve many of our problems we need to have the freedom to discuss issues openly without fear of retribution. The temper of our times seems to be in opposition to such a proposal as this. 

* * *

Related Links

Monty Python's Fandom Page on The Spanish Inquisition

A Monty Python Spanish Inquisition Sketch on YouTube

Why Our Current Cancel Culture Is a Clear and Present Danger 

Bertrand Russell's Free Thought and Official Propaganda Has Much to Say About Our Current State of Cancel Culture

 

*This is used as an example only. I do not know this person and share it for illustrative purposes.

Bertrand Russell's Free Thought and Official Propaganda Has Much to Say about the Current State of Cancel Culture

Bertrand Russell, 1955. (public domain)

On March 24, 1922 Bertrand Russell delivered a speech at South Place Institute on the subject of Free Thought and Official Propaganda. The speech was then put into book form and by August was in its second printing, which is the copy I have here in my possession.

I've now read this little volume at least three times in the past year, somewhat amazed by its clarity of thought and powerful relevance nearly a century later. Ironically, those who were being repressed by the system a century past have now become the oppressors, and we seem to be no nearer to the ideal of free thought and free expression that Russell argued for in the first place.

Russell opens his lecture by attempting to define what he means by "free thought." The narrow sense of this idea is laid out, and then gets expanded thus.

To begin with the most obvious. Thought is not “free” when legal penalties are incurred by the holding or not holding of certain opinions, or by giving expression to one’s belief or lack of belief on certain matters. 

In England, under the Blasphemy Laws, it is illegal to express disbelief in the Christian religion, though in practice the law is not set in motion against the well-to-do. It is also illegal to teach what Christ taught on the subject of non-resistance. Therefore, whoever wishes to avoid becoming a criminal must profess to agree with Christ’s teaching, but must avoid saying what that teaching was. 

In America no one can enter the country without first solemnly declaring that he disbelieves in anarchism and polygamy; and, once inside, he must also disbelieve in communism.

In Japan it is illegal to express disbelief in the divinity of the Mikado.

It is clear that the most elementary condition, if thought is to be free, is the absence of legal penalties for the expression of opinions. No great country has yet reached to this level, although most of them think they have. (emphasis mine)

Russell is only getting started here. He continues:

Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. 

Russell wrote this in 1922, and when I see what is happening today with people losing their jobs for having attended a rally in Washington, it is apparent that we've still not achieved the freedom Russell fought for. The difference now is which ideology is in the ascendency.

Russell briefly details three incidents in his life that brought this home to him. The first was while he was still very young. His father, who was a Freethinker, died when he was three. Because his father believed religion was essentially superstition, he wanted his son brought up by parents less tethered to the church. He thus appointed two Freethinkers as his guardians. "The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law."

Again, the times have changed dramatically. Instead of Christian values being in the ascendency, Political Correctness now reigns. As a result, the state of Washington banned a couple from fostering their great-grand-daughter because their beliefs as Seventh Day Adventists were politically incorrect. (Story here.)

In two other situations as a young adult Russell encountered barriers to advancement or opportunities because he was an Agnostic. On one occasion, they were willing to "accept" his agnosticism as long as he pretended to be a Christian and go to church once in a while.

The blatant hypocrisy in that story is almost comical. To his credit, Russell maintained his integrity.

* * * 

Bottom line here for me is that I think everyone should read Bertrand Russell's Free Thought and Official Propaganda. It's available here on the Gutenberg Project. 

The ideal of Freedom is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, even if badly applied (as history has painfully proven, beginning with slavery, and in many other moments in our history from the Trail of Tears to WWII Japanese internment camps under FDR.  

From what I hear, sales of George Orwell's 1984 are going through the roof. Any guesses as to why?

Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression

 “I'll tell you what Freedom is to me. No fear.”
― Nina Simone

Bertrand Russell in his book Free Thought and Official Propaganda talks about the meaning of freedom, and the ways we are not free in our purportedly "free" society. We've always known how un-free people were behind the Iron Curtain. Spielberg's Bridge of Spies illustrates this. Solzhenitsyn wrote about it extensively. In the "free" West, we don't notice all the ways the deck is stacked against true freedom. 

Russell was British, so some of his illustrations may not entirely apply, though some most definitely did at the time of this speech, 1922. His concern here was with freedom of thought and freedom of the individual.

England at that time had Blasphemy Laws in which it was illegal to express disbelief in Christianity. It was out of these (now long forgotten) circumstances that his own philosophical position as an atheist took shape. This may well be a motivating factor in why many intellectuals have concerns about the rise of the Religious Right as a political force.

After mentioning the Blasphemy Laws, Russell notes a contradiction in the laws, for when the nation wants to stir up "war fever" it was also illegal to teach hat Christ taught about non-resistance. "Therefore whoever wishes to avoid becoming a criminal must profess to agree with Christ's teaching, but must avoid saying what that teaching was."

He goes on to say, "In America no one can enter the country without solemnly declaring that he disbelieves in anarchism and polygamy; and once inside he must also disbelieve in communism." In Japan it was illegal to disbelieve in the divinity of the Mikado. In short, a trip around the world will become problematic at many points if you are a Mohammedan, Christian, Tolstoyan or Bolshevik.

A double standard is applied, though, if you are rich. The rich can believe whatever they want as long as they avoid offensive obtrusiveness. (This same double standard for the rich and the rest was applied during Prohibition as well.)

What he next states is the obvious conclusion of this first plank of his reasoning. If thought is to be free, there should not be penalties for expressing one's opinions. "No great country has yet reached to this level, although most of them think they have."

Russell was not only a strong advocate for free thought and free expression, but also an opponent of indoctrination.

Several thoughts come to mind here. First, an essay by a Harvard professor during the 1930's who said that no presidential candidate can run for the highest office in the land unless he says he is a Christian and believes in God. What this means, he said, is that all ambitious politicians will profess it whether they believe it or not. And in light of that, their professions have absolutely no weight because they know it is part of the charade.

Several decades later John F. Kennedy was being put through the wringer because it was not enough to be Christian, but rather to be a Protestant Christian. If he is Catholic, would he kiss the ring of the Pope and do what the Pope wanted instead of what was best for our country?

The second thought that came to mind was the intensity of hostility in our current "cancel culture"when we express things outside what is "acceptable." Facebook wants us to feel like we're free, as long as we accept the reality that they can delete our expressions when they cross their acceptable lines. I am not referring to bullying here. 

We shouldn't have to fear retribution for having a different belief than someone else on current events. And yet, I know many people who will no longer express themselves online, and some who have even changed their names.

In WWI it was illegal to express an anti-war sentiment. Something like 2000 people were put in jail for expressing publicly their opposition to the war. At that time our government spent oodles of dollars to stir up the public against Germany and Germans themselves who were already American citizens. (See: He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People.)

In all these things much more can be said. A primary point of the First Amendment is that I may not agree with what you think or say, but I will defend your right to say it. To be continued.

“I came to expect despair every time I set foot in my own country, and I was never disappointed.” 
― Nina Simone

* * *

An example of what I am talking about can be found in paragraph 4 of this essay What Are The Humanities? by Justin E.H. Smith (The paragraph beginning with, "I have the luxury of living in France..."