―
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."
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.”
―
