Madness as Culture: How Bertrand Russell’s 20th Century Became Your 21st Century New Dark Age

By Christine Corey and Matthew Ehret-Kump



Lord Bertrand Russell

Describing the future “scientific dictatorship” he hoped to bring into being, an architect of our modern education system and father of modern liberalism, Lord Bertrand Russell wrote “The Impact of Science on Society” (1951) with the following bone chilling words: 

“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.”

The Era of the Wage Slave Must Come to an End

The first necessary insight if one is to comprehend the nature of the voluntary prison camp shaping the mass-mind today is that we live in an era of the wage slave. The wage slave, (which includes everyone who feels the need to work for money as their primary motive), has absolutely no sense of shaping any determining influence over the structure of nations, but rather lives as a consumer eking out as many “interesting” experiences to fight the boredom and existential meaninglessness of life while waiting for retirement and death. Not only that, but when you do encounter someone who does have genuine power and influence over a political process, it is found that they have usually inherited such a position rather than having earned it. So there is no idea of moving past the selected roles chosen for you that you were born into, and as such there is no living idea of working to earn to have such influence, as great moral leaders of the past have done, from Benjamin Franklin to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr. People need to be challenged on how they have come to conceptualize their role in society. They must be made to question why certain things are popular and other things are not, and why certain people have influence and others do not.

Another vital question to ask is: what determines the conditions of our laws? For example, why is the legalization of marijuana now occurring? Why is euthanasia occurring? What makes a law a good law? Laws were different 100 years ago and 100 years before that, so what ensures that our laws and standards of judging laws are true when we point to flaws in other countries’ ideas of justice? Upon what basis do Westerners find it acceptable to moralize that Russia, China, South Africa and Brazil are “corrupt” and beneath contempt while we are the beacons of freedom?

This question coincides with the rise of modern liberalism (aka: political correctness) pervading all branches of modern life, especially on college campuses, where there is a borderline fanatical avoidance to offend anyone. Modern liberalism has concluded that “if it feels good, then this must be the right path for you”, regardless of the societal or future damage that such good feelings may incur. Liberalism is based on the fact that there are things you can and cannot say for risk of offending someone. However, abiding by this kind of self-censorship forbids the use of humour since all humour is by its nature, critical of something and will often thus offend someone. In a world as ugly, and offensive to decency as the one we find ourselves in, perhaps people should be offended. In fact, it may be important that people are offended.

How was this culture of censorship formed? How did certain modes of thinking and categories of ideas become outlawed? There needs to be an awareness of where ideas such as liberalism and political correctness come from such that they have such a hegemonic power over our current society and especially our youth. What is right? What is wrong? How do you choose? Or were your standards of judgment chosen for you?

India and China’s population combined is the equivalent to the world’s population in the 1950’s. The entire fulcrum of history has been shifted over to Eurasia whether we like it or not and in spite of this shift, the majority of Westerners do not understand these cultures.

How do you organize around ending war if you have no idea what these other countries would fight for, and what they view they are defending? What do our Western populations really think they are fighting for and defending? What do the Russians and the Chinese think they are fighting for and defending? Most people are not evil and do no want to blatantly kill off the majority of the world population, so what is governing popular thinking such that we find ourselves in a situation where both a world war and global depopulation looms upon the horizon? The primary reason is that most people are not producing their own opinions themselves, but rather have convictions which were put there by forces beyond their comprehension which shape the invisible cage of their culture in ways that most do not realize.

ISIS and Western Liberalism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Why is ISIS destroying ancient artifacts, books and temples? Because these things have no significance to them. They view humans the same way, their death is inconsequential to them if they fail to convert to an ideology. This is ironically exactly how the USA is behaving as it encircles Eurasia with a modernized missile shield and finances “wars for democracy” around the world. Anyone who supports what Obama and NATO are doing militarily is guilty of the same. How are people ultimately viewing a US-NATO military attack on Russia, China or Syria? Anyone supporting such imperial behaviour has absolutely no real insight into the value and dignity of these cultures and whether they admit it or not, such people ultimately view that the destruction of these nations is not only inconsequential but even necessary.

People must no longer be victimized by the injustices of the past or the artificial conventions of the present. This liberation from the structures of social engineering shaping our present trajectory towards self-destruction is not only what the substance of discovery is, but is also what is required to be free.

Therefore, anyone who is to participate in a truly revolutionary movement at this point in time should be challenged to generate their own world outlook on their own terms. Even though everyone has a world outlook, in all likelihood, most didn’t chose it for themselves. And to that extent, we are not free and that is the issue.

Why are people afraid to be free? There is fear of loss of love, fear of poverty, fear of disease, death and so on, but people are MOST afraid of freedom.