Felidae990

Since I'm new to this discussion forum, I apologize in advance for asking any questions that may have already been addressed at length.

A few weeks ago, I was having an e-mail discussion with a Christian fundamentalist who told me that Bertrand Russell was a Nazi-sympathizer.

When I asked him how he arrived at such a bizarre conclusion, he said he learned it from a book by Robert Conquest titled "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" that quoted Bertrand Russell as saying the following:

"...if it could be shown that humanity would live happily ever after if the Jews were exterminated, there could be no good reason not to proceed with their extermination." (Bertrand Russell, quoted by Frederic Raphael in *Prospect*, May 1996)

I looked for this quotation on a number of search engines and found several hits that confirm Russell said it by citing either R. Conquest or F. Raphael, but I couldn't find it on any of the online libraries of Russell's writings.

When I read the customer reviews on Amazon.com for Conquest's book "Reflections on a Ravaged Century," several reviewers had a field day with Russell's quote, although one individual did insist that Russell was quoted out of context, yet he never explained how he concluded that.

Anyway, my question is this: Did Bertrand Russell really say that the world would be better off if the Jews were eradicated?

Furthermore, is Robert Conquest a reliable historian? I read and enjoyed his book on Stalinism titled "The Great Terror: A Reassessment," but somebody once told me that The Village Voice magazine crucified Conquest for shoddy scholarship, but I haven't found any evidence for that cited anywhere else.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Toto

What you quote, even if true, does not say that the world would be better off without the Jews. It says IF IT COULD BE SHOWN that humanity would live happily ever after if the Jews were exterminated,. . .

Since it cannot be shown that humanity would live happily ever after, Russell is not endorsing the extermination of the Jews. Russel was a mathematician and a logician, and you have to read his statement in that light, if in fact he made that statement in or out of context.

In any case, Russell was not a Nazi sympathizer. He was a pacifist starting in World War I (and went to jail for his beliefs) and probably more of a socialist.

{edited to add: Since Russell is noted for the book "Why I am not a Christian", I would not put it beyond a Christian fundamentalist to try to smear his name.}

August Spies

ditto to toto

crocodile deathroll

I think some people are getting him mixed up with Heidegger

King's Indian

Me too. Hello, Felidae990! I agree with the points above. Also, bear in mind that in his "History of Western Civilization", written during WWII, he goes out of his way to heap scorn on Nietzsche; making explicit connections with what he saw as Nietzsche's morally bankrupt philosophy and the Nazi party and its leader. Not even a sneaky admiration. Your symp may as well have said that his views are discredited because he gave one to TS Eliot's missus.
Just to add a link of one of my favourite things that Bertie wrote.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm
(Apologies to those for whom this is old news.)
Take care,
KI.

Felidae990

A hearty thanks to those of you who responded, especially Toto and King's Indian.

I suppose the best way to unravel this mystery is to read the Prospect article itself, especially since this "quotation" from Russell begins with a mysterious ellipsis. Creationists are fond of those.

If I had an online subscription to the Prospect, I could read it for myself at:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/L..._Article=10078

The online page introduces this particular article with the following synopsis:

====================
Russell in the Bushes
May 1996

Frederic Raphael assesses the life of Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who, if he was close to being a genius, was even closer to being a shit.
====================

Unfortunately, the only way for me to read this article is to pay an annual subscription rate of £55.00, or $75 U.S. dollars. But I don't intend to pay seventy-five bucks just to remedy a single e-mail contact.

If any of you blokes out there in England (or even in America) have this issue of the Prospect at your local library, could you return to this thread and just cite the full quotation?

I don't believe that Mr. Russell ever advocated the Final Solution, either.

Amos

Even if he did, I woldn't give you 5 cents for anything he ever said nor would I pay any attention to it. He was a nice guy, perhaps, and maybe a good historian in his own way.

Below is a quote from Russell in that 'famous speach':




First, he doesn't know what a Christian is and actually thinks that believers are Christians. A Christian in the manner of Jesus of Nazareth has been crucified and raised. Christianity, then, is the end of religion much in the same way as it was the end of Judaism for Jesus of Nazareth, who was the son of a Jew.

Second, he doesn't know what immortality is. Our souls are immortal and to be immortal 'we' have become 'one' with our soul. Since a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other immortality must be real before mortality can be extracted from it.

Third, he doesn't know the difference between Jesus and Christ. Jesus did not become Christ until the crucifixion of the human Jesus identity. After this he soon left the scene (ascention) so the Gospel accounts were about Jesus and not about Christ. The Gosples are quite clear on this and will never address Jesus as Christ until after the resurrection and there only as Christ.

Fourth, he doesn't know much about morality if the aim of the Gospels was to show why Jesus was counted among the wicked. The Gospels are four different perspectives about a mythical account that takes place in the mind of one man.

DoubleDutchy

Uh ? If he did he would be slightly better (but still rather worthless). And he was kinda historian. Did I get this right ?

You got bit off track here. The 'Final Solution' (= 'Endlösung' = 'Holocaust') means the murder on 6 million European Jews by the Nazi's during in WWII. It is not, as you seem to think just another Nice Big Word.

Betrand Russell moreover, besides being a nice guy as you put it ,
made himself a name as an (outstanding) mathematician, a philosopher, a political activist , a pioneer in education-matters and as a philantrope. He never was an historian. (Had he chosen to be one, I have no doubts he would have been good at that too) .

Amos, I suggest you a little prear twice a day:

' Oh Lord, help me to keep my big mouth shut, until I know what I am talking about'
It might be helpful.

Primal

Amos you should realize that not everyone is going to take your specific theology into account. Expecting such is unreasonable. If a person tried that his or her criticism would never get off the ground, hence Russel was concentrating on a mainstream viewpoint.

Also Christianity is not the end of religion, I doubt you even know what a religion is given such an absurd statement. Christianity is older then even Islam and according to all professors who study religion Christianity is a religion.

As for your third point, even if true its just peddy mongering. It's pretty clear what Russel means.

Fourth your opinion of the Gospels is totally unwarranted and I imagine, not backed up by any serious Bible Scholar.

Felidae990

Amos,

It's possible that you confused my reference to Robert Conquest, the historian, with Bertrand Russell, the philosopher. A reasonable mistake.

Still, you made some peculiar theological arguments that I've never seen or heard before in <i>any</i> church. For example:

I've <u>never</u> heard that "Christianity was the end of religion." The definition of a Christian is merely someone who confesses that he is a sinner and believes that Jesus rose from the dead to save him from those sins, and becomes a newborn (or born again) believer.

What the heck are you talking about? Immortality is merely an escape from death.

Jesus didn't become Christ until <i>after</i> his resurrection and ascension? What kind of kooky church do you belong to? The Gospels are very clear that Jesus was "the Christ" long <i>before</i> his crucifixion.

For example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the <b>Christ</b>, the Son of the living God!"
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the <b>Christ</b>. (Matthew 16:13-20)</BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to reread your Bible.

In the meantime, I hope somebody can find a copy of Bertrand Russell's complete quote, verbatim.