Search the history of over 510 billion pages on the Internet.
Open Library
Full text of "Free Thought and Official Propaganda"
See other formats
Google This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often diflicult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parlies, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the plus We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a b<x>k is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means il can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's hooks while helping authors ami publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull text of this book on I lie web at |http : //books . qooqle . com/| // •' FREE THOUGHT & OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA Free Thought and Official Propaganda h BERTRAND RUSSELL B. W. HUEBSCH, Inc. COPYRIGHT, 1922. BY B. W. HUBBSCH, INC. PRINTED IN U. S. A. ' I *-3-y.«. This is the Conway Memorial Lecture, delivered by Mr. Russell at South Place Institute, London, 24 March, 1922. Moncure Conway, in whose honour we are assembled to-day, devoted his life to two great objects: freedom of thought and freedom of the indi- vidual. In regard to both these ob- jects, something has been gained since his time, but something also has been lost. New dangers, somewhat dif- ferent in form from those of past ages, threaten both kinds of freedom, and unless a vigorous and vigilant public opinion can be aroused in de- fence of them, there will be much less of both a hundred years hence than there is now. My purpose in this address is to emphasize the new Co dangers and to consider how they can be met. Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by "free thought." This expression has two senses. In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a "free thinker" if he is not a Christian or a Mus- sulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some in- herited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a "free thinker" if he does not decidedly be- lieve in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a "free thinker" in a Buddhist country. I do not wish to minimize the im- portance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known ^eligi dlTS, and 1 nop e thai ev ery kind of re tiflinija hpl!^f will^ [ fiTout. I do not believe that, on the Balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am pre- pared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard ii as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing. But there is also a wider sense of "free thought," which I regard as of still greater importance. Indeed, the harm done by traditional religions seems chiefly traceable to the fact that they have prevented free thought in this wider sense. The wider sense is [3] ? not so easy to define as the narrower, and it will be well to spend some little time in trying to arrive at its es- sence hen we speak of anything as free," our meaning is not definite unless we can say what it is free m. Whatever or whoever is "free" is not subject to some external compulsion, and to be precise we ought to say what this kind of com- pulsion is. Thus thought is "free" when it is Jree from certain kinds of outward control which are often present. Some of these kinds of con- trol which must be absent if thought is to be "free" are obvious, but others are more subtle and elusive. To begin with the most obvious, thought is not "free" when legal penalties are incurred by the hold- [4] ing or not holding of certain opinions, or by giving expression to one's be- lief or lack of belief on certain mat- ters. Very few countries in the world have as yet even this elemen- tary kind of freedom. In England, under the Blasphemy Laws, it is il- legal to express disbelief in the Chris- tian religion, though in practise 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 com- [5] munism. In Japan it is illegal to < press disbelief in the divinity of t Mikado. It will thus be seen tt a voyage round the world is a pel ous adventure. A Mohammedan, Tolstoyan, a Bolshevik, or a Chr tian can not undertake it without some point becoming a criminal, holding his tongue about what considers important truths. This, course, applies only to steerage-p; sengers; saloon-passengers are lowed to believe whatever th please, provided they avoid offensi obtrusiveness. It is clear that the most elementa condition, if thought is to be fr< is the absence of legal penalties f the expression of opinions. I great country has yet reached to tl level, although most of them thi [6] they have. The opinions which are still persecuted strike the majority as so monstrous and immoral that the general principle of toleration can not be held to apply to them. But this is exactly the same view as that which made possible the tortures of the Inquisition. There was a time when Protestantism seemed as wicked as Bolshevism seems now. Please do not infer from this remark . that I am either a Protestant or a ^ Bolshevik. Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thought. The two great obstacles are econo- mic penalties and distortion of evi- dence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn [7] i a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are per- petually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. Both these ob- stacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom. It is these obstacles with which I shall be concerned — their present magnitude, the likelihood of their increase, and the possibility of their diminu- tion. * We may say that thought is free when it is exposed to free competi- tion among beliefs — i. e., when all beliefs are able to state their case, and no legal or pecuniary advantages or disadvantages attach to beliefs. [8] This is an ideal which, for various reasons, can never be fully attained. But it is possible to approach very much nearer to it than we do at present. Three incidents in my own life will serve to show how, in modern Eng- land, the scales are weighted in fa- vour of Christianity. My reason for mentioning them is that many people do not at all realize the disadvant- ages to which avowed agnosticism still exposes people. The first incident belongs to a very early stage in my life. My father was a freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be brought up without super- stition, he appointed two freethinkers as my guardians. The courts, how- ever, set aside his will, and had me [9] f x educated in the Christian faith am afraid the result was disapp A I ing, but that was not the fault oi }[ law. If he had directed ths ■» f JM should be educated as a C j; j. tadelphian or a Muggletonian K ! Seventh - Day Adventist, the cc \i\ would not have dreamed of oh i,, 1 ing. • A parent has a right to or that any imaginable superstition be instilled into his children ; his death, but has not the rig! ifi i - t 1 say that they shall be kept from superstition if possible. ♦.* . second incident occurred in the ^j 1910. I had at that time a d \[ to stand for Parliament as a Lib ;•; and the Whips recommended ir 1 1 a certain constituency. I addrc ■to I the Liberal Association, who pressed themselves favourably, [ro] my adoption seemed certain. But, on being questioned by a small inner caucus, I admitted that I was an agnostic. They asked whether the fact would come out, and I said it probably would. They asked whether I should be willing to go to church occasionally, and I replied that I should not. Consequently, they selected another candidate, who was duly elected, has been in Parlia- ment ever since, and is a member of the present Government. The third incident occurred imme- diately afterwards. I was invited by Trinity College, Cambridge, to be- come a lecturer, but not a Fellow. The difference is not pecuniary; it is that a Fellow has a voice in the gov- ernment of the College, and can not be dispossessed during the terms of his Fellowship except for grave im- morality. The chief reason for not offering me a Fellowship was that the clerical party did not wish to add to the anti-clerical vote. The result was that they were able to dismiss me in 19 1 6, when they disliked my views on the War. 1 If I had been depend- ent on my lectureship, I should have starved. These three incidents illustrate different kinds of disadvantages at- taching to avowed free-thinking even in modern England. Any other avowed freethinker could supply sim- iliar incidents from his personal ex- perience, often of a far more serious character. The net result is that people who are not well-to-do dare 1 1 should add that they re-appointed me later, when war-passions had begun to cool. [IS] not be frank about their religious beliefs. It is not, of course, only or even chiefly in regard to religion that there is lack of freedom. Belief in communism or free love handicaps a man much more than agnosticisau. Not only is it a disadvantage to hold "those views, but it is very much more difficult to obtain for the arguments in their favour. On the other hand, in Russia the advantages and disad- vantages are exactly reversed: com- fort and power are achieved by pro- fessing atheism, communism, and free love, and no opportunity exists for propaganda against these opinions. The result is that in Russia one set of fanatics feels absolute certaintv about one set of doubtful proposi- tions, while in the rest- of the world [13] 1 another set of fanatics feels equal certainty about a diametrically op- posite set of equally doubtful prop- ositions. From such a situation war, bitterness, and persecution in- evitably result on both sides. William James used to preach the "will-to-believe." For my part, I should wish to preach the "will-to- doubt." None of our beliefs is quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The meth- ods of increasing the degrees of truth in our beliefs are well-known; they consist in hearing all sides, try- ing to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discus- sion with people who have the op- posite bias, and cultivating a readi- ness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These meth- [14] ods are practiced in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge. Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men's at- titude is tentative and full of doubt. In religion and politics, on the con- trary, though there is as yet noth- ing approaching scientific knowledge, everybody considers it de rigueur to have a dogmatic opinion, to be backed up by inflicting starvation, prison, and war, and to be carefully guarded [15] from argumentative competition with any different opinion. If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic frame of mind about these matters, nine-tenths of the evils of the modern world would be cured. War would become impossible, be- cause each side would realize that both sides must be in the wrong. Persecution would cease. Education would aim at expanding the mind, not at narrowing it. Men would be chosen for jobs on account of fitness to do the work, not because they flat- tered the irrational dogmas of those in power. Thus rational doubt alone, if it could be generated, would suffice to introduce the millennium. We have had in recent years a brilliant example of the scientific tem- per of mind in the theory of relativity and its reception by the world. Ein- stein, a German-Swiss- Jew pacifist, was appointed to a research profes- sorship by the German Government in the early days of the war ; his pre- dictions were verified by an English expedition which observed the eclipse of 1 9 19, very soon after the armis- tice. His theory upset the whole theoretical framework of traditional physics; it is almost as damaging to orthodox dynamics as Darwin was to Genesis. Yet physicists everywhere have shown complete readiness to ac- cept his theory as soon as it appeared that the evidence was in its favour. But none of them, least of all Ein- stein himself, would claim that he has said the last word. He has not built a monument of infallible dogma to stand for all time. There are dif- [17] Acuities he can not solve; his doc- trines will have to be modified in their turn as they have modified New- ton's. This critical undogmatic re- ceptiveness is the true attitude of science. What would have happened if Einstein had advanced something equally new in the sphere of religion or politics? English people would have found elements of Prussianism in his theory ; anti-Semites would have regarded it as a Zionist plot ; nation- alists in all countries would have found it tainted with lily-livered pacifism, and proclaimed it a mere dodge for escaping military service. All the old-fashioned professors would have approached Scotland Yard to get the importation of his writings prohibited. Teachers fav- [18] ourable to him would have been dis- missed. He, meantime, would have captured the Government of softie backward country, where it would have become illegal to teach anything except his doctrine, which would have grown into a mysterious dogma not understood by anybody. Ultimately the truth or falsehood of his doc- trine would be decided on the battle- field, without the collection of any fresh evidence for or against it. This method is the logical outcome of William James's will-to-believe. What is^ wanted is not the will-to-be- lieve, but the wish to find out, which is its exact opposite. If it is admitted that a condition of rational doubt would be desirable, it becomes important to inquire how it comes about that there is so much [19] irrational certainty in the world. A great deal of this is due to the in- herent irrationality and credulity of average human nature. But this seed of intellectual original sin is nourished and fostered by other agencies, among which three play the chief part — namely, education, prop- aganda, and economic pressure. Let us consider these in turn. (i) Education. Elementary ed- ucation, in all advanced countries, is in the hands of the State. Some of the things taught are known to be false by the officials who prescribe them, and many others are known to be false, or at any rate very doubt- ful, by every unprejudiced person. Take, for example, the teaching of history. Each nation aims only at self-glorification in the school text- [20] books of history. When a man writes his autobiography he is ex- pected to show a certain modesty; but when a nation writes its autobi- ography there is no limit to is boast- ing and vainglory. When I was young, schoolbooks taught that the French were wicked and the Germans virtuous; now they teach the opposite. In neither case is there the slightest regard for truth. German school- books, dealing with the battle of Waterloo, represent Wellington as all but defeated when Bliicher saved the situation; English books repre- sent Bliicher as having made very little difference. The writers of both the German and the English books know that they are not telling the truth. American schoolbooks used to be violently anti-British; since the [21] I war they have become equally pro- British, without aiming at truth in either case (see The Freeman, Feb- ruary, 15, 1922, p. 532). Both be- fore and since, one of the chief pur- poses of education in the United States has been to turn the motley collection of immigrant children into "good Americans." Apparently it has not occurred to anyone that a "good American," like a "good Ger- man" or a "good Japanese," must be, pro tan to, a bad human being. A "good American" is a man or woman imbued with the belief that America is the finest country on earth, and ought always to be enthusiastically supported in any quarrel. It is just possible that these propositions are true ; if so, a rational man will have [22] > no quarrel with them. But if they are true, they ought to be taught everywhere, not only in America. It is a suspicious circumstance that such propositions are never believed outside the particular country which they glorify. Meanwhile, the whole machinery of the State, in all the different countries, is turned on to making defenceless children believe absurd propositions the effect of which is to make them willing to die in defence of sinister interests un- der the impression that they are fighting for truth and right. This is only one of countless ways in which education is designed, not to give true knowledge, but to make the people pliable to the will of their masters. Without an elaborate system of de- [23] ceit in the elementary schools it would be impossible to preserve the camou- flage of democracy. Before leaving the subject of education, I will take another ex- ample from America * — not because America is any worse than other coun- * tries, but because it is the most modern, showing the dangers that are growing rather than those that are diminishing. In the State of New York a school can not be estab- lished without a license from the State, even if it is to be supported wholly by private funds. A recent law decrees that a license shall not be granted to any school "where it shall appear that the instruction proposed to be given includes the teachings of l See The New Republic, February i, 1922, p. 359 #• e doctrine that organized govern- mts shall be overthrown by force, >lence, or unlawful means." As e New Republic points out, there no limitation to this or that organ- id government. The law there* re would have made it illegal, ring the war, to teach the doctrine at the Kaiser's Government should overthrown by force; and, since en, the support of Kolchak or enikin against the Soviet Govern- snt would have been illegal, ch consequences, of course, were it intended, and result only from d draughtsmanship. What was tended appears from another w passed at the same time, ap- ying to teachers in State schools, his law provides that certificates irmitting persons to teach in such [25] ■> schools shall be issued only to those who have "shown satisfactorily" that they are "loyal" and obedient to the Government of this State and of the United States," and shall be refused to those who have advocated, no mat- ter where or when, "a form of gov- ernment other than the government of this State or of the United States." The committee which framed these laws, as quoted by the New Republic, laid it down that the teacher who "does not approve of the present social system . . . must surrender his office," and that "no person who' is not eager to combat the theories of social change should be entrusted with the task of fitting the young and old for the responsibilities of citizenship." Thus, according to the [26]: j law of the State of New York, Christ and George Washington were too de- graded morally to be fit for the educa- tion of the young. If Christ were to go to New York and say, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," the President of the New York School Board would reply: "Sir, I see no evidence that you are eager to combat theories of social change. Indeed, I have heard it said that you advocate what you call the king- dom of heaven, whereas this coun- try, thank God, is a Republic. It is dear that the government of your kingdom of heaven would differ materially from that of New York State, therefore no children will be allowed access to you." If he failed to make this reply, he would not be [27] / doing his doty as a functionary en- | c trusted with the administration of the law. The effect of such laws is very seri- ous. Let it be granted, for die sake of argument, that the government and the social system in the State of New York are the best that have ever existed on this planet; yet even then both would presumably be ca- pable of improvement. Any person who admits this obvious proposition is by law incapable of teaching in a State school. Thus the law decrees that the teachers shall all be either hyopcrites or fools. The growing danger exemplified by the New York law is that resulting from the monopoly of power in the hands of a single organization, whether the State or a trust or fed- [28] eration of trusts. In the case of education, the power is in the hands of the State, which can prevent the young from hearing of any doctrine which it dislikes. I believe there are still some people who think that a democratic State is scarcely dis- tinguishable from the people. This, however, is a delusion. The State is a collection of officials, different for different purposes, drawing com- fortable incomes so long as the status quo is preserved. The only altera- tion they are likely to desire in the status quo is an increase of bureau- cracy and the power of bureaucrats. It is, therefore, natural that they should take advantage of such op- portunities as war-excitement to ac- quire inquisitorial powers over their employees, involving the right to in- [29] t flict starvation upon any subordim who opposes them. In matters the mind, such as education, this st of affairs is fatal. It puts an end all possibility of progress or freed< or intellectual initiative. Yet it the natural result of allowing whole of elementary education to 1 under, the sway of a single organi tion. Religious toleration, , to a . cert extent, has been won because peo have ceased to consider religion important as it was once thought be. But in politics and econom which have taken the place forme occupied by religion, there is a grc ing tendency to persecution, which not by any means confined to c party. The persecution of opin: in Russia is more severe than in i [30] capitalist country. I met in Petro- grad an eminent Russian poet, Alex- ander Blok, who has since died as the result of privations. The Bol- sheviks allowed him to teach aesthet- ics, but he complained that they in- sisted on his teaching the subject "from a Marxian point of view." He had been at a loss to discover how the theory of rhythmics was con- nected with Marxism, although, to avoid starvation, he had done his best to find out. Of course, it has been impossible in Russia ever since the Bolsheviki came into power to print anything critical of the dogmas upon which their regime is founded. The examples of America and Russia illustrate the conclusion to which we seem to be driven — namely, that so long as men continue to have [31] \ the present fanatical belief in the importance of politics, free thought on political matters will be impos- sible, and there is only too much danger that the lack of freedom will spread to all other matters, as it has done in Russia. Only some degree of political scepticism can save us from this misfortune. It must not be supposed that the officials in charge of education desire the young to become educated. On the contrary, their problem is to im- part information without imparting intelligence. Education-should have two objects: first, to give definite knowledge — reading and writing, language and mathematics, and so on; secondly, to create those mental habits which will enable people to [32] acquire knowledge and form sound judgments for themselves. The first of these we may call information, the second intelligence. The utility of information is admitted practically as well as theoretically; without a lit- erate population a modern State is impossible. But the utility of intelli- gence is admitted only theoretically, not practically; it is not desired that ordinary people should think for themselves, because it is felt that people who think for themselves are awkward to manage and cause ad- ministrative difficulties. Only the guardians, in Plato's language, are to think; the rest are to obey, or to follow leaders like a herd of sheep. This doctrine, often unconsciously, has survived the introduction of polit- [33] ^ ical democracy, and has radically vitiated all national systems of educa — tion. The country which has succeeded best in giving information without in- telligence is the latest addition to modern civilization, Japan. Ele- mentary education in Japan is said to be admirable from the point of view of instruction. But, in addition to instruction, it has another purpose, which is to teach worship of the Mi- kado — a far stronger creed now than before Japan became modernized. 1 Thus the schools have been used si- multaneously to confer knowledge and to promote superstition. Since we are not tempted to Mikado-wor- ship, we see clearly what is absurd in lSee "The Invention of a New Religion." Pro- fessor Chamberlain, of Tokio. Published by the Rationalist Press Association. (Now out of print.) [34] Japanese teaching. Our own na- tional superstitions strike us as natu- ral and sensible, so that we do not take such a true view of them as we do of the superstitions of Nippon. But if a travelled Japanese were to maintain the thesis that our schools teach superstitions just as inimical to intelligence as belief in the divinity of the Mikado, I suspect that he would be able to make out a very good case. For the present I am not in search of remedies, but am only concerned with diagnosis. We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought. This is due primarily to the fact that the State claims a monopoly; but that is by no means the sole cause. [35] (2) Propaganda. Our system of education turns young people out of the schools able to read, but for the most part unable to weigh evi- dence or to form an. independent opinion. They are then assailed, throughout the rest of their lives, by statements designed to make them believe all sorts of absurd proposi- tions, such as that Blank's pills cure all ills, that Spitzbergen is warm and fertile, and that Germans eat corpses. The art of propaganda, as practised by modern politicians and Govern- ments, is derived from the art of ad- vertisement. The science of psychol- ogy owes a great deal to advertisers. In former days most psychologists would probably have thought that a man could not convince many people of the excellence of his own wares by [36] merely stating emphatically that they were excellent. Experience shows, however, that they were mistaken in this. If I were to stand up once in a public place and state that I am the most modest man alive, I should be laughed at; but if I could raise enough money to make the same statement on all the busses and on hoardings along all the principal rail- way lines, people would presently be- come convinced that I had an ab- normal shrinking from publicity. If I were to go to a small shopkeeper and say: "Look at your competitor over the way, he is getting your busi- ness; don't you think it would be a good plan to leave your business and stand up in the middle of the road and try to shoot him before he shoots you?" — if I were to say this, [37] any small shopkeeper would think me mad. But when the Government says it with emphasis and a brass band, the small shopkeepers become enthusiastic, and are quite surprised when they find afterwards that busi- ness has suffered. Propaganda, con- ducted by the means which adver- tisers have found successful, is now one of the recognized methods of government in all advanced countries, and is especially the method by which democratic opinion is created. There are two quite different evils about propaganda as now practised. On the one hand, its appeal is gen- erally to irrational causes of belief rather than to serious argument; on the other hand, it gives an unfair ad- vantage to those who can obtain most publicity, whether through [38J wealth or through power. For my part, I am inclined to think that too much fuss is sometimes made about the fact that propaganda appeals to emotion rather than reason. The line between emotion and reason is not so sharp as some people think. Moreover, a clever man could frame a sufficiently rational argument in fa- vour of any position which has any chance of being adopted. There are always good arguments on both sides of any real issue. Definite misstate- ments of fact can be legitimately ob- jected to but they are by no means necessary. The mere words "Pear's Soap," which affirm nothing, cause people to buy that article. If, where- ever these words appear, they were replaced by the words "The Labour Party," millions of people would be [39] led to vote for the Labour party, al- though the advertisements had claimed no merit for it whatever. But if both sides in a controversy were confined by law to statements which a committee of eminent logic- ians considered relevant and valid, the main evil of propaganda, as at present conducted, would remain. Suppose, under such a law, two parties with an equally good case, one of whom had a million pounds to spend on propaganda, while the other had only a hundred thousand. It is obvious that the arguments in favour o"f the richer party would be- come more widely known than those in favour of the poorer party, and therefore the richer party would win. This situation is, of course, intensified when one party is the Government. [40] In Russia the Government has an al- most complete monopoly of propa- ganda, but that is not necessary. The advantages which it possesses over its opponents will generally be sufficient to give it the victory, unless it has an exceptionally bad case. The objection to propaganda is not only its appeal to unreason, but still more the unfair advantage which it gives to the rich and powerful. Equality of opportunity among opin- ions is essential if there is to be real freedom of thought; and equality of opportunity among opinions can only be secured by elaborate laws directed to that end, which there is no reason to expect to see enacted. The cure is not to be sought primarily in such laws, but in better education and a more sceptical public opinion. For [41] the moment, however, I am not con- cerned to discuss cures. (3) Economic pressure. I have already dealt with some aspects o£ this obstacle to freedom of thought, but I wish now to deal with it 011. more general lines, as a danger which, is bound to increase unless very def— inite steps are taken to counteract it. The supreme example of economic pressure applied against freedom of thought is Soviet Russia, where, un- til, the trade-agreement, the Govern- ment could and did inflict starvation upon people whose opinions it dis- liked — for example, Kropotkin. But in this respect Russia is only some- what ahead of other countries. In France, during the Dreyfus affair, any teacher would have lost his po- sition if he had been in favour of [42] Dreyfus at the start or against him at the end. In America, at the pres- ent day, I doubt if a university pro- fessor, however eminent, could get employment if he were to criticize the Standard Oil Company, because all college presidents have received or hope to receive benefactions from Mr. Rockefeller. Throughout Amer- ica Socialists are marked men, and find it extremely difficult to obtain work unless they have great gifts. The tendency, which exists wherever industrialism is well developed, for trusts and monopolies to control all industry, leads to a diminution of the number of possible employers, so that it becomes easier and easier to keep secret black books by means of which anyone not subservient to the great corporations can be starved. The [43] growth of monopolies is introducing in America many of the evils associ- ated with state socialism as it has existed in Russia. From the stand- point of liberty, it makes no difference to a man whether his only possible employer is the State or a trust. In America, which is the most ad- vanced country industrially, and to a lesser extent in other countries which are approximating to the American condition, it is necessary for the average citizen, if he wishes to make a living, to avoid incurring the hostility of certain big men. And these big men have an outlook — religious, moral, and political — with which they expect their employees to agree, at least outwardly. A man who openly dissents from Christian- ity, or believes in a relaxation of the [44] marriage laws, or objects to the power of the great corporations, finds America a very uncomfortable coun- try, unless he happens to be an emin- ent writer. Exactly the same kind of restraints upon freedom of thought are bound to occur in every country where economic organization has been carried to the point of prac- tical monopoly. Therefore the safe- guarding of liberty in the world which is growing up is far more dif- ficult than it was in the nineteenth century, when free competition was still a reality. Whoever cares about the freedom of the mind must face this situation fully and frankly, real- lizing the inapplicability of methods which answered well enough while industrialism was in its infancy. There are two simple principles [45] which, if they were adopted, would solve almost all social problems. The first is that education should have for one of its aims to teach people only to believe propositions when there is some reason to think that they are true. The second is that jobs should be given, solely for fitness to do the. work. To take the second point first. The habit of considering a man's re- ligious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the In- quisition ever was. The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that [46] his opinions are not punishable by law. There is a certain public feel- ing against starving men for not be- longing to the Church of England, or for holding slightly unorthodox opin- ions in politics. But there is hardly any feeling against the rejection of atheists or Mormons, extreme com- munists, or men who advocate free love. Such men are thought to be wicked, and it is considered only nat- ural to refuse to employ them. People have hardly yet waked up to the fact that this refusal, in a highly industrial State, amounts to a very rigorous form of persecution. If this danger were adequately realized, it would be possible to rouse public opinion, and to secure that a man's beliefs should not be consid- ered in appointing him to a post. [47] The protection of minorities is vitally important; and even the most ortho- dox of us may find himself in a minor- ity some day, so that we all have an interest in restraining the tyranny of majorities. Nothing except public opinion can solve this problem. So- cialism would make it somewhat more acute, since it would eliminate the opportunities that now arise through exceptional employers. Every in- crease in the size of industrial under- takings makes it worse, since it di- minishes the number of independent employers. The battle must be fought exactly as the battle of reli- gious toleration was fought. And as in that case, so in this, a decay in the intensity of belief is likely to prove the decisive factor. While men were convinced of the absolute truth of [48] Catholicism or Protestantism, as the case might be, they were willing to persecute on account of them. While men are quite certain of their modern creeds, they will persecute on their behalf. Some element of doubt is essential to the practice, though not to the theory, of toleration. And this brings me to my other point, which concerns the aims of education. If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weigh- ing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true. For example, the art of read- ing the newspapers should be taught. The schoolmaster should select some incident which happened a good many years ago, and roused political pas- [49] sions in its day. He should then read to the school-children what was said by the newspapers on one side, what was said by those on the other, and some impartial account of what really happened. He should show how, from the biased account of either side, a practised reader could infer what really happened, and he should make them understand that every- thing in newspapers is more or less untrue. The cynical scepticism which would result from this teaching would make the children in later life im- mune from those appeals to idealism by which decent people are induced to further the schemes of scoundrels. History should be taught in the same way. Napoleon's campaigns of 1 8 13 and 18 14, for instance, might be studied in the Moniteur, leading [50] up to the surprise which Parisians felt when they saw the Allies arriv- ing under the walls of Paris after they had (according to the official bulletins) been beaten by Napoleon in every battle. In the more ad- vanced classes, students should be en- couraged to count the number of times that Lenin has been assassin- ated by Trotsky, in order to learn contempt for death. Finally, they should be given a school-history ap- proved by the Government, and asked to infer what a French school history would say about our wars with France. All this would be a far bet- ter training in citizenship than the trite moral maxims by which some people believe that civic duty can be inculcated. It must, I think, be admitted that the evils of the world are due to moral defects quite as much as to lack of intelligence. But the human race has not hitherto discovered any method of eradicating moral defects; preaching and exhortation only add hypocrisy to the previous list of vices. Intelligence, on the contrary, is easily improved by methods known to every competent educator. Therefore, un- til some method of teaching virtue has been discovered, progress will have to be sought by improvement of intelligence rather than of morals. One, of the chief olytac^s igJntellL genc e is credulity , and credulity could >e enormously diminished by instruc- tions as to the prevalent forms of Nnendacity. Credulity is a greater evil in the present day than it ever was before, because, owing to the [52] growth of education, it is much easier than it used to be to spread misin- formation, and, owing to democracy, the spread of misinformation is more important than in former times to the holders of power. Hence the increase in the circulation of news- papers. If I am asked how the world is to be induced to adopt these two maxims • — namely: (i) that jobs should be given to people on account of their fitness to perform them; (2) that one aim of education should be to cure people of the habit of believing prop- ositions for which there is no evi- dence — I can only say that it must be done by generating an enlightened public opinion. And an enlight- ened public opinion can only be gen- erated by the efforts of those who [53l ') desire that it should exist. I do not believe that the economic changes ad- vocated by Socialists will, of them- selves, do anything towards curing the evils we have been considering. I think that, whatever happens ia politics, the trend of economic de- velopment will make the preserva- tion of mental freedom increasingly difficult, unless public opinion insists that the employer shall control noth- ing in the life of the employe except his work. Freedom in education could easily be secured, if it' were de- sired, by limiting the function of the State to inspection and payment, and confining inspection rigidly to the definite instruction. But that, as things stand, would leave education in the hands of the churches, be- cause, unfortunately, they are more [54] anxious to teach their beliefs than freethinkers are to teach their doubts. It would, however, give a free field, and would make it pos- sible for a liberal education to be given if it were really desired. More than that ought not to be asked of the law. My plea throughout this address has been for the spread of the scientific temper, which is an alto- gether different thing from the knowledge of scientific results. The scientific temper is capable of re- generating mankind and providing an issue for all our troubles. The re- sults of science, in the form of mech- anism, poison gas, and the yellow press, bid fair to lead to the total downfall of our civilization. It is a curious antithesis, which a Martian Issl \.