Free Thought and Official Propaganda

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It 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 difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia 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 liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm 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 attributionTht GoogXt "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 book 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 it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ 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 books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http : //books . google . com/|

.ITV,

This is an authorized facsimile of the original
book, and was produced in 197^ by microfilm-
xerography by Xerox University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

Free Thought

and Official Propaganda
I/:, BERTRAND RUSSELL

no Tou B. W. HUEBSCH, Inc. nonii

|lcrac«|.

\o<^^H'^5 -ri':^c

I'

4*
&

g n

9

*«

s

u
u

a

QC

Ill

^ ^ G

2^^

c

C8

r t£S

I

u*

1

"IS

C .

si

- 2

5^ ft

OB S

** S

'I

^
«»

9

a

9
tf _^

9 -g

a

19

^

s

S

CI

s t.

O

t s

g M

S

c
I •

;

r

ii'.

^•«

<0 <D CM

'—>% »■ t.rf»<.

FREE THOUGHT
& OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA

tlcra«fU

COPYRIGHT, 19SS, BY
B. W. HUlBtCH, INC.

PRINTID IN U. t. A.

Jfndergradatto
Ubfiry

Thif if the Conwajr Memorial Lecture,
delivered b]r Mr. Rttssell at South Place
Inititute, London, 24 March, 1922.

Ifodefffratfu.
Ubrary

V,

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

[I]

dangers and to consider how they
can be met

Let us begin by trying to be clear
as to what wc 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 docs 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-

[2]

portancc of free thought in this
sense. I am myself a dissenter from
all known religions^ and I hope that
every kind of religious belief will
die out. 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 it: 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 dotie 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.

When we speak of anything as
**free/* our meaning is not definite
unless we can say what it is free
from. 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 free 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 ex-
press disbelief in the divinity of the
Mikado. It will thus be seen that
a voyage round the world is a peril-
ous adventure. A Mohammedan, a
Tolstoyan, a Bolshevik, or a Chris-
tian can not undertake it without at
some point becoming a criminal, or
holding his tongue about what he
considers important truths. This, of
course, applies only to steerage-pas-
sengers; saloon-passengers are al-
lowed to believe whatever they
please, provided they avoid offensive
obtrusiveness.

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

[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]

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 a-side his will, and had me

[9]

educated in the Christian faith. I
am afraid the result was disappoint-
ing, but that was not the fault of the
law. If he had directed that I
should be educated as a Chris*
tadelphian or a Muggletonlan or a
Seventh - Day Adventist, the courts
would not have dreamed of object-
ing. A parent has a right to ordain
that any imaginable superstition shall
be instilled into his children after
his death, but has not the right to
say that they shall be kept free
from superstition if possible. The
second incident occurred in the year
1910. I had at that time a desire
to stand for Parliament as a Liberal,
and the Whips recommended me to
a certain constituency. I addressed
the Liberal Association, who ex-
pressed themselves favourably, and

[10]

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

[11]

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.^ 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 X abotild add that they re-appotnted me later, when
war-pattiona had begun to cool.

[la]

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 agnosticism.
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]

another set of fanatics feels equal
certainty about a diametrically op*
posite set of equally doubtful prop-
cjitions. From such a situation
war, bitterness, and persecution in-
evitably result on both sides.

William James used to preach the
"will-to-bclieve.** For my part, I
should wish to preach the *VIll-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 tdcnce, 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 dc riguctir 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

[i6]

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 19 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]

ficultics 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-

[i8]

ourablc to him would have been dis-
missed. He, meantime, would have
captured the Government of sottic
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]

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 tanto, 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

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 dc-

[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

1 See Tht ATnv Republic, Februaiy t, 1922, p.

[24]

the doctrine that organized govern-
ments shall be overthrown by force,
violence, or unlawful means." As
the New Republic points out, there
13 no limitiation to this or that organ-
ized government. The law there*
fore would have made it illegal,
during the war, to teach the doctrine
that the Kaiser's Government should
be overthrown by force; and, since
then, the support of Kolchak or
Denikin against the Soviet Govern-
ment would have been illegal.
Such consequences, of course, were
not intended, and result only from
bad draughtsmanship. What was
intended appears from another
law passed at the same time, ap-
plying to teachers in State schools.
This law provides that certificates
permitting 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 Neto 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]

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 kintf^
dom of heaven, whereas this coun-
try, thank God, is a Republic. It is
clear 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

doing his duty as a functionary en-
trusted with the administration of the
law.

The effect of such laws is very sen-
ous. Let it be granted, for the 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]

flict stanration upon any subordinate
who opposes them. In matters of
the mind, such as education, this state
of affairs is fatal. It puts an end to
all possibility of progress or freedom
or intellectual initiative. Yet it is
the natural result of allowing the
whole of elementary education to fall
under the sway of a single organiza-
tion.

Religious toleration, to a certain
extent, has been won because people
have ceased to consider religion as
important as it was once thought to
be. But in politics and economics,
which have taken the place formerly
occupied by religion, there is a grow-
ing tendency to persecution, which is
not by any means confined to one
party. The persecution of opinion
in Russia is more severe than in any

[30]

capitalist country. I met in Pctro-
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]

^

I •

I

I

I

t

I

!|

'I

v

I

I

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.^
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

iSee "The Invention of a New Religion." Pro-
fessor Chamberlain, of Tokio. Published hj 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]

A

(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 Spitzbergcn 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
bandy 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 arc 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

[38]

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 arc
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 *Tear*s
Soap,*' which affirm nothing, cause
people to buy that article. If, where-
cver 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 of 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 of
this obstacle to freedom of thought,
but I wish now to deal with it on
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 i.» 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 inappHcabih'ty 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 arc 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

[51]

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 obstacles to intelli-
gence is credulity, and credulity could
be enormously diminished by instruc-
tions as to the prevalent forms of
mendacity. Credulity is a greater
evil in the present day than it ever
was before, because, owing to the

[5a]

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

[53]

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 in
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
dcfmite instruction. But that, as
things stand, would leave education
in the hands of the churches, be-
cause, unfortunately, they are more

[54]

1

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