Bertrand Russell And The NWO.

Pretty expensive to get your hands on a hardback copy these days but Bertrand Russell's 1953 work 'The Impact Of Science On Society' is apparently quite a popular playbook with globalist technocratic eugenicists like Gates, Kissenger, Brzezinski etc.. and it really does contain some pretty shocking sociopathic (and psychopathic) musings.

Quite a number of his outrageously insane statements found in the book (including purposefully releasing bubonic plague) but for thread purposes here he is discussing how a dictatorship can best mass brainwash, condition and indoctrinate young children into believing 'snow is black'.

'Snow Is Black'

"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".

There's also this very disturbing (yet very familiar sounding) directive quote about how to destroy free will in young children by 'injections and injunctions'.










And here's Russell advocating the release of the Black Death:

"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"

Apparently when it comes to enacting a global technocratic dictatorship there's also an 'absolute need' for an 'external enemy' to unite an 'emerging world government'.

Definitely looks like the Rockefellers have been busy taking notes on Russell and are big fans of the 'uniting external enemy' concept.. as they've almost singlehandedly 'funded everything in regard to climate' (also been busy with UFOs).

See 3:20

Am also pretty sure the Rockefellers wholeheartedly applaud Bertand's opinions on forced sterilzations:

"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"

And are big fans of his unbridled promotion of food tyranny.

"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"

Would be interested in any thoughts on the content and think it's fair to speculate that many of Bertrand's opinions may well be at the forefront of many of the elitist mindsets we see parading around the world stage today..

Especially with regard to the Trilateral Commission; the (Nazi rooted) Bilderberg and the unelected, unaccountable eugenic technocrats at the WEF.




Links:


How Bertrand Russell Became An Evil Man

Bertrand Russell, Eugenics, Socialism And The New World Order

Bertrand Russell: Prophet of the New World Order

Bertrand Russell The Most Evil Man Of The 20th Century

a reply to: karl 12

The Rockefeller’s are where Bertrand got his ideas

a reply to: karl 12

The psychos have not been shy about declaring their intentions.

It’s amazing they can’t even see through the actual words describing how they are imprisoned in their minds.

a reply to: karl 12

Russell is well respected by the establishment, isn't he?

Crikey. That is frightening.

Cheers

a reply to: karl 12

My thoughts? ...



Sadly, they have been so successful in this that modo people would not believe it.

My own son was home schooled and I tried to inculcate in him a sense of independence and free thought but somehow he's even been sucked in.

a reply to: karl 12
On the issue of "indoctrination", surely he's just doing what George Orwell was doing, except that he's doing a sober analysis instead of making a novel out of it. That is, he is projecting what is possible, as a kind of warning about what the world might face.

And you have missed the point about the second issue. He is NOT advocating release of plagues. He is advocating birth control, which was a controversial issue at the time, and using the reductio ad absurdam argument that anyone who objects to birth control is obliged to accept much worse alterntives.
Perhaps it helps that I am British myself, and I can detect the spirit of "irony" in the tone of his remarks. It is "dry" humour.

Here is a classic example, from that quote; "War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect". Bertrand Russeel is best known as a very active campaigner against nuclear weapons. If such a man describes war as "disappointing", he has to be writing with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

I'm convinced that the concept of indoctrination is part of human nature. I think we all posses some natural instinct to tell a story the way we want it to be believed. That's been going on for centuries in religion.

What's scary is when some group does it in a calculated way like we're seeing in schools, entertainment and the media. The scale of indoctrination is huge.

a reply to: karl 12

Wow!

So many works of art came to mind while I read the OP.

In 1984 when O'Brien, Wilsons handler, tries to brainwash Wilson into believing he's holding up a certain amount of fingers:

O'Brien holds up four fingers and asks Winston how many he sees. Four, says Winston. If the Party says there are five, says O'Brien, how many are there?

Never forgot that part of it... imo, the book is about perfecting the formula to brainwash an adult, verses a child. Children are easily indoctrinated and not "brainwashed" per say, as B Russell even states, while adults are harder to "brainwash," as in getting somebody to adopt a new set of beliefs... that often oppose their already established beliefs. Something like that.

Also I was reminded of the film Demolition Man, how natural sex is discouraged and in fact illegal, right?

Or in the book Brand New World where humans are made in petri dishes (but encouraged later to try sex for pleasure, but never for procreation).

Or in the book The Giver, in which children entering puberty are forced to take medication to eliminate sex drives, and only a smaller group/percentage of the female population are chosen to be breeders and have babies- but they don't keep their babies, the babies are taken from the natural mothers and assigned to families.

a reply to: karl 12

I don't know as Russell was promoting these ideas, rather I think he was acting as an observer of already occurring trends and practices. He points out that

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.

I find this to be quite true. Psychology and other fields that push wide the doors of human manipulation studying what it IS to be human as not something that was generally known by anyone but the elites and the well educated.

In it's infancy, psychology was not taught in kindergarden, nor was it taught in grade school or high school. It was taught in universities where mostly only the wealthy could afford to attend. They would then take this knowledge and put it to work across the board in American business. Not just government.

Not just government. While workers were busy working the ''managers'' were attending ''management seminars'' that were providing hand books on how to control those workers.

Not just governemnt. Across the board, these practices were being used by upper management in each and every corporation that arose to sell the public their product. It is used to advertise and every writer of advertising attended those colleges and universities where they learned how to control and manipulate.

It's not just government.

One observation Russell held in the quotes above however was way off the mark,

Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one;

Religion predates the scientific study of human manipulation by thousands of years and has been a major part of human control though out. While he may have taken note of a waning moment in the history of religious controls in society, it would make a grand come back and now plays a major role in the control of American thought and values.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Orwell was fiction mate - did you not click the posted book link and read the relevant parts in context - he's definitely advocating a global oligarchy and actively promoting the scientific means to achieve it.

Also probably worth looking into the guy's background with the Milner group, the Fabian Society (wolf in sheep's clothing emblem) and the Pugwash movement as he was quite clearly a Nilhilist collectivist / Malthusian eugenicist.

Doesn't look like you've bothered with any of the links but the idea that Russell was a pacifist is laughable - he even called for a preemptive thermonuclear strike on the Soviet Union FFS.

a reply to: karl 12

Thanks for this informative, pertinent post.
Bertrand Russell, Nobel Prize winner 1950, seems to harbor some very twisted thoughts. No wonder he appeals to certain dominant figures today.
I have a collection of his called "Unpopular Essays," and it's clear the man is a sociopath, at best.

originally posted by: Extremistcontent

The Rockefeller’s are where Bertrand got his ideas

Appreciate the post mate and yes it does get quite complicated to follow sometimes - eugenicswise thought there was some good factual timeline info here.and this Corbett doc dealing with Rockefeller eugenics should be mandatory viewing for everyone (because it concerns everyone).

If you've got any relevant links please feel free to post.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

Russell is well respected by the establishment, isn't he?

Yes used to have a lot of respect him myself mate and he's certainly a darling of the politically motivated intelligentsia (just like Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw etc.)

Like fellow eugenicist,Margaret Sanger,their reputations are praised in history books, classrooms, mass media and political rhetoric. Russell was an old money elitist. He was also a Fabian Socialist eugenicist and social engineer.

In true New World Order fashion, Bertrand Russell claimed to be a meek, compassionate pacifist, but in reality he was an old money Fabian Socialist, racist, Malthusian, eugenicist and social engineer.

link

Although taken from the guy's private correspondence thought the snippets below also gave a small window into his character (he really does sound like a bit of a psycho).

• Bertrand Russell Letter To Gilbert Murray:


"I have been merely oppressed by the weariness, tedium and vanity of things lately, nothing seems worth doing or having done. The only thing that I strongly feel worthwhile would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world."




• Bertrand Russell Letter To Lady Ottoline Morrell:


"There is a fierce hate in me, a hate that is also a well of life and energy -- it would not really be good if I ceased to hate…I used to be afraid of myself and the dark side of my instinct, [but] now I am not."

link

a reply to: karl 12

Soon they will convince the masses that rain is not rain.

I think the old world order of Rockefellers (Nelson and later David) and their inner circle have all died off (Kissinger can no longer control them) and we're now stuck with the younger billionaire generation that seems to have run amok like a computer overrun scenario, but perhaps guided by "The Order" (Skull & Bones) and British thinking 'think-tanks' mixed with dystopian humor? The current generation of overlords are on a tight time table for some reason(s) and appear to have zero patience & discipline. Gone are the deep thinkers of the past and the new 'whiz kids' on the block are just taking the old playbooks and running with it along with all of society over a tall cliff. They want it all and they want it now! Do as we say or suffer the consequences at your own peril.🙄👎

Dr. Strangelove as an allusion to the RAND Corporation.



The definition of "polymath" would have the real Dr. Strangelove pictured.




From your Bertrand link (pg 103-104):

Are mere numbers so important that, for their sake, we should patiently permit such a state of affairs to come about? Surely not. What, then, can we do? Apart from certain deep seated prejudices, the answer would be obvious. The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation.

There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so.

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. (It is not to be supposed that Indians and Chinese like starving, but they have to endure it because the armaments of the West are too strong for them.)

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.

These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.

More on Cambridge Apostle Lord Bertrand Russell, Fabian socialist, Royal Society, Technocrat figure, a devout Malthusian and life long promoter of eugenics and population control, see this article .

His earlier book, "The Scientific Outlook" (first published in 1931; note linked copy is a marked up version, difficult to read some sections) says the same as other dystopian technocrat authors focused on a universal credit system based on people's social scores that would be rolled out on some sort of centralized technocratic system and thus the population could be under greater control. Population control through Eugenics - Epigenetics & Euphenics, all disguised under the cover of philanthropy...those near the top of the pyramid.

The post-911 photo that isn’t fully appreciated - Dec 10, 2001, Carnegie.

originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
a reply to: karl 12

Soon they will convince the masses that rain is not rain.

Or that global cooling is global warming.

(sorry to minimise your post - it was all spot on)

a reply to: karl 12

First off, if you wanted to make a credible argument, never start out by showcasing a blatant carricature of the individual being discussed, that merely demonstrates personal bias and suggests you're not arguing in good faith.

Regarding his quote on "diet, injections, and injunctions", the context suggests that he was merely relaying a proposal conceived by Fichte, which influenced Karl Marx. if you had read Russell's 1938 analysis on Power, which was published in his prime, you'll find plenty of indictment for the former. Russell was actually appalled by Fichte's grotesque ideas on education.

Regarding his quote on the Black Death, you omitted that prior to his proposal for drastic measures, he indicated that he'd hitherto confine himself to a strictly biological pov, disregarding the political impractibility of implementing the plan. This wasn't a recommendation to actually go through with it, but rather, played up for dramatic effect.

He also stated, "It is with trepidation that I advance my next thesis", which implies great reluctance on his part to discuss it in a post-eugenicist world. So he anticipated that some readers would say he was going too far. Upon re-reading, one has the impression that he was trying to avoid being deliberately provocative, but he also wanted to be heard over the propaganda of the day. Hence, the dilemma in which he found it necessary to deliver harsh statements which would turn away potential readers.

Presumably, he was shaped into a squeamish pacifist due to being brought up at home by "governesses and tutors" (mentioned in the About the Author section), as was also the case for inept European monarchs. Perhaps he was speaking from experience when he insisted it'd be better for children to be raised away from home, no different from Plato and Rousseau. Although his argument for indoctrination before the age of ten very much aligns with the tyrannical John Locke's view.

Yet the aforementioned bio also draws attention to how this upbringing afforded Russell with the opportunity to develop his own individualistic style of writing. He was largely spared from the encumberment of learning the extant languages Latin/Greek and being made to read the classics, when what little remains of it have already been expressed in a modern form.

In his Autobiography, he plainly indicates his overall detachment from the various ideologies vying for his attention. Russell's works merely furnish a thorough examination for systems of governments, not an unabashed approval for tyranny, although he seems sold on the necessity of a world government.

His arguments for world government seems to stem partly from his pacifist inclination and partly from his approval of Darwin's theory (struggle as a necessity for development. Russell's fatal defect seems to be the lack of a foundational and firm world view for his views on life. Darwin was insufficient). He also seemed to be taken in by Woodrow Wilson's promises and naive ideals.

In my view, Russell was on par with the humanist Schiller and Russell's fellow contemporary Walter Lippmann.

a reply to: hjesterium

First off, if you wanted to make a credible argument, never start out by showcasing a blatant carricature of the individual being discussed, that merely demonstrates personal bias and suggests you're not arguing in good faith.

How true. Without that caricature, how would many know how to interpret him. One must admit thought that as caricatures go, this one is a really fine piece of artistry.

I find a mixture of ''right and wrong'' in all philosophies, make that with varying degrees of verisimilitude that are the product of those thinkers to understand not only the world around them, but themselves as well. Russell has met my personal criteria as one who had met that challenge with a fair amount of success.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

a reply to: karl 12

Nice deep-dive into some of the origins of the philosophies behind the present-day psychopathic Eugenicist™ Technocrats™.

Insane folks read that, and think that he was on-to some great ideas.

But today : the tables have been turned on us, and we are insane for not adjusting to The-New-Normal™.

If we have difficulty adjusting : we are cast-aside, and singled-out as anti-social CT™ whackjobs.

The pathologization of dissent, has been sold to the masses.

Blackball those that don't buy-in, and exclude them from society.

What !! No bus pass ?? Get the hell off-of the bus ya freeloading Anti-Science™ dinosaur !!