“I can't believe they would do that!”
From those who cannot suspend their disbelief long enough to objectively see the possibility that moneyed elites and their political puppets will do whatever it takes to achieve their policy objectives, we How many times have I heard something like that?
Instead of trying to convince readers of that fact, let Bertrand Russell do it for you.
Who is Bertrand Russell?
According to Wikipedia, Russell was indeed a very polite person and was a “British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, socialist, pacifist, and social critic.”
In fact, Russell was a descendant of an old establishment family. He was a propagandist whose job was to spread certain ideas for the wealthy elite. He chaired the CIA-sponsored Congress for Cultural Freedom and contributed to the project of destroying European and American culture. Far from being a pacifist, he was a proponent of mutually assured destruction and the founder of the Pugwash movement, which used the Cold War specter of nuclear annihilation to promote world government. He was a racist and advocate of depopulation. He was a Fabian socialist and Murthusian ideologue, along with HG Wells, a member of the Coefficient Club and promoter of world government. He was a key figure in the challenge of bringing about what is now known as the “New World Order.” He was a thoroughly evil man, contrary to Wikipedia's depiction.
The impact of science on society
In 1952, Russell published his seminal work, The Influence of Science on Society. As is typical of Russell, the writing style is dull, at least at first. The book's opening appears reasonable and humane, and is intended to assuage the reader against unpleasant conclusions that are presented as desirable or inevitable.
Therefore, I would like to introduce the following quotation from this book. I leave it up to you, the reader, to decide how much of the plot is already in place.
pages 40-41
I think the most important political theme is group psychology…The development of modern propaganda methods has greatly increased its importance. The most influential of these is what is called “education.” Although religion is on the decline, it still plays a role. Mass media, movies, and radio are playing an increasingly important role…If we can catch patients at a young age, and if the government provides them with funds and equipment, we may hope that in time they will be able to persuade anyone to do anything. do not have.
If this topic were taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship, great progress would be made…Future social psychologists would divide schoolchildren into classes to create an unwavering belief that snow is snow. will try various methods. black. You can get different results quickly. First, family influences get in the way. Second, unless indoctrination begins before the age of 10, there is not much that can be done. Thirdly, setting a poem to music to create repetitive intonation is very effective. Fourth, the opinion that snow is white must be indicative of a pathological taste for eccentricity. But I guess. Scientists of the future will make these adages accurate and ask how much it costs per person to make children believe that snow is black, and how much it costs to make them believe that snow is dark gray. You need to find out exactly what will happen.
This science will be studied intensely, but it will be strictly limited to the ruling classes. The public is not allowed to know how the conviction was produced. Once this technology is perfected, all governments that have been responsible for education for generations will be able to safely control their subjects without the need for military or police forces.
pages 49-50
Scientific societies are still in their infancy… Advances in physiology and psychology are expected to give governments much more control over individual spirituality than they currently have, even in totalitarian states. Fitche states that education is designed to destroy free will, and that once students leave school, they will be unable to think or act for the rest of their lives other than what their teachers want them to do. Ta. , injections, and injunctions will combine from a very early age to create a certain kind of personality and beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, making any serious criticism of such authority psychologically impossible. .
The Nazis were more scientific than the current rulers of Russia … If they had survived, they probably would have immediately started scientific breeding. Countries that adopt this practice will have a significant military advantage within a generation. One might speculate that the system would be something like this: all but 5 percent of men and 30 percent of women, except perhaps the ruling aristocracy, would be sterilized. To ensure sufficient cannon fodder, 30 percent of females are expected to spend their reproductive years between the ages of 18 and 40. As a general rule, artificial insemination is preferred over natural insemination.
Through selective breeding, the innate differences between rulers and ruled gradually increase until they become almost distinct species. A commoner revolt would be as inconceivable as an organized revolt of sheep against the custom of eating mutton.
54 pages
After all, most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history had large slave or serf classes that were completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that would make such a system unsustainable. And the all-round development of science and technology has made it easier than before for a minority to maintain autocratic rule. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute, as long as it can rely on the police and military. And you can secure their loyalty by giving them some of the privileges of the ruling class. I don't see how a domestic insurgent movement can bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.
Pages 103-104
I am not claiming that birth control is the only way to prevent population growth. You would think there are other things contraceptive opponents would like. As mentioned earlier, warfare has so far been disappointing in this regard, but perhaps germ warfare may prove more effective. If the Black Death could spread across the world once every generation, survivors would be free to reproduce without overcrowding the world. There is nothing in this to offend the conscience of the pious or to suppress the ambitions of nationalists. The current situation may be a little unpleasant, but what do you think? Truly conscious people are indifferent to happiness, especially the happiness of others. But I'm wandering from a stability issue that I need to get back to.
There are three ways to ensure a stable society in terms of population. The first is the problem of contraception, the second is infanticide and actually destructive wars, and the third is general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been put into practice. The first method was practiced, for example, by the indigenous peoples of Australia. The second is by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato's Republic. third in the world, as some Western internationalists would like to make it, and in Soviet Russia… Of these three, only contraception can avoid extreme cruelty and misery for the majority of humanity. It is. On the other hand, as long as there is no single world government, there will be competition for power between different nations. And as population growth brings with it the threat of famine, it becomes increasingly clear that national power is the only means to avert famine. So there would be a bloc of hungry countries uniting against well-fed countries. That explains the victory of communism in China.
105 pages
The need for world government is perfectly clear from Darwin's principles if we are to solve the population problem in a humane way.
110 pages
Unless society as a whole is satisfactory to those in power, it will not be stable, and those in power will not be exposed to the risk of a successful revolution.
pages 110-111
First, let's talk about physical condition. Soil and raw materials must not be used up so rapidly that scientific progress cannot continuously compensate for their losses by new inventions and discoveries…If raw materials are not to be used up too quickly, then the There should be no free competition to obtain resources; their acquisition and use should be reserved for the international organizations that distribute them. Such quantities may sometimes seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to soil conservation.
Second, regarding population… To address this issue, we need to find ways to prevent the world's population from increasing. If this is to be achieved by means other than war, pestilence, and famine, strong international authorities will be needed. This authority should distribute the world's food to each country according to its population at the time of establishment of the authority. After that, if the population of any country increases, it should not receive any more food for it. Therefore, the motivation not to increase the population would be very persuasive.
