The Secret “Theory of Stupidity” and How It Still Applies 80 Years Later

Recently I came across a short (about six minutes) video which I think helps to explains this rather unique predicament. The video was published by “Sprouts”, which provides short videos covering a wide range of topics such as philosophy, politics, psychology, and so forth. Sprouts is also open source, meaning that it’s free for anyone to use (provided they’re properly cited), including for work, school, or business (I know some of my former bosses would have greatly benefited from a few of these).

This particular video is entitled “The Theory of Stupidity”, which was written by the German Lutheran Pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer in March/April 1945 while sitting in a Nazi prison awaiting execution (he was hanged shortly after finishing his paper, just two weeks before the camp was liberated by American troops).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born on February 4,1906 in Breslau, Silesia, Germany  (aka Prussia which is now a part of Poland). He was born into a rather large upper middle class family (he had seven brothers and sisters, including a twin sister, Sabine). His father, Dr. Karl Bonhoeffer, was a  neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a noted critic of Sigmund Freud. His mother, Paula, was a school teacher and the granddaughter of Protestant theologian Karl von Hase and the landscape painter, Stanislav von Kalckreuth.  

Like Martin Luther, the principal founder of the Protestant Reformation, Dietrich had originally intended on attending law school as his brother Klaus had done but ended up majoring in theology. He studied at the University of Tubingen before transferring to the University of Berlin where he graduated summa cum laude. He went on to graduate with a Doctorate in Theology from Humboldt University of Berlin at the ripe old age of 21.

From birth until 1933, Bonhoeffer belonged to the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union (also called the Prussian Union of Churches, a decree by King Frederick William III of Prussia to unite the Lutheran and Reform churches), which still exists in Germany today. In 1933, that all changed and Bonhoeffer decided to leave.

In 1933, the Nazis came to power. Almost immediately, they began integrating themselves into every aspect of society, including religion. Under the Nazis, they set out to purge the Christian religion of its Jewish roots with the introduction of what they termed “Positive Christianity” under the name of the German Evangelical Church which was known by several other names such as the “Protestant Reich Church” and more commonly, the “Reich Church”.   

How, in a society which produced some of the greatest theological and philosophical minds in the world, with individuals like Luther, Mann,  Arndt, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, could this happen? Beginning in the late 1920’s, the post-Putsch Nazi party slowly began united the various conservative political parties, groups, and media. Among these was a special interest group within the Evangelical Church who self-identified as the “German Christians” which was ultimately led by Dr. Ludwig Muller.

These individuals were extremely socially conservative, very devout, pro-military, and held to a Pan-German ideology.  They were also anti-Semitic. In addition, they didn’t care much for Roma gypsies, gays, Slavs, Negros, mixed marriages, and the “degenerate” society of the Weimar Republic in general.

They didn’t have much use for other religions too like the Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, or Mormons.  Like most other Germans, they opposed the Versailles Treaty and the notion of reparations. Lastly, they tended to be well connected.  Perfect fodder for the Nazis and their ilk.

The collapse of the German economy post-WWI with its hyperinflation and high unemployment, the social unrest triggered mainly by the Communists and others on the Far Left just made things worse (in November 1923, because of hyperinflation, 42 billion marks was worth exactly one U.S. penny). Overwhelmingly, Germans were really for a serious change. It was a time to return to a strong Germany. No more government corruption. No more high taxes.  No more social welfare, and no more crime.

Post WWI, Germany was plagued by violence (especially drugs and alcohol related). Nowhere was safe. As an aside, the Nazis were never pro-gun control although the Democratic Socialists who dominated Weimar government were.  The influx of “foreigners”  (mostly from the eastern portion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, needed to end. Meanwhile the media spread propaganda (often funded by wealthy industrialists and special interests groups).

It was time to restore discipline and academic competence in schools and Germany’s status as a world leader in higher education. In short, it was time to restore traditional German family values of “Kinder, Kuche, Kirche” (Children, Kitchen, and Church).

This then were the core of the German Christians who would made up the Reich Church which would become the semi-official church of the Nazi Protestants (much has already been written about the Catholic Church, who relationship ran from appeasement to pro-Fascist and outright cooperation). This was the church Bonhoeffer left.

Starting in 1933 until the end of his life on April 4, 1945, standing on a Nazi scaffold at the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp, Bonhoeffer would be an outspoken leader of the Confessing Church which he helped to found along with other leading pastors such as fellow Lutheran ministers, Martin Niemoller, author of “First They Came…”.

For those who’ve never heard of the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp, it was located in Bavaria and began operations in 1938. It housed primarily political prisoners, criminals, aristocrats, and Jews of course. Approximately 100,000 unfortunate individuals passed through its gates, of which around 30,000 died, mostly of starvation, disease, and physical exhaustion. Prisoners were engaged in building various projects such as roads, bridges, buildings, and so forth. Later they were used in the production of Messerschmitt BF 109 fighter planes. The camp was liberated on April 23, 1945 by the U.S. Army.

To put things into further perspective, it’s worth mentioning that as of 1933, there were 65 million Germans. Of those, 45 million were Protestants. The majority were Reform and Lutheran. They  were served by approximately 18,000 ministers (not including lay ministers). Of these, about 3000 ministers adhered to the Reich Church while a near equal number were aligned with the Confessing Church (also known as the “Free Church”).

That left the majority of Protestant ministers, some 12,000, trying to avoid “taking sides” between the Nazis and those who opposed Fascism. I wonder how they tried to justify that position later on in life…and afterwards. From 1935 until the end of the war, some 700 pastors were arrested, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

What landed Bonhoeffer in the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp was his willingness to speak out (he was also accused of taking part in or know about the “20 July Plot” to assassinate Hitler in 1944 at his Wolfsschanze or “Wolf’s Lair” headquarters in Poland). He saw what was happening around him and decided that he must do something. So, he spoke out whenever he could. He wrote pamphlets, and he actively took part in numerous protests (while it was still possible). He openly discouraged his friends, family, parishioners, and students from attending Nazi events or from joining Nazis organizations (especially the Hitler Youth aka “HJ” or the BDM for young girls), which, at the time, was illegal.  

Bonhoeffer opposed the anti-authoritarianism of Fascism and its efforts to stifle democracy. While he (along with most Germans) supported reclaiming land lost at the end of the First World War and the penalties imposed by the Versailles Treaty, he opposed the invasion of Poland and the war which followed. Bonhoeffer was willing to step outside the bubble and challenge the Status Quo. Very few people are, then or now.

It should be mentioned that although Germany wasn’t at fault for starting WWI, the treaty forced it to accept the blame. It was stripped of all its colonies as well as its industrial heart, the Ruhr Valley, which included 48% of its iron ore and 10% of its coal, and 15% of its agricultural base. In total, Germany lost 13% of its territory in Europe (about 27,000 square miles) and about 12% of its total population (roughly 7 million citizens), in addition to paying reparations amounting to 132 billion gold marks or about $500 billion dollars in today’s money (it would have taken Germany 91 years to pay off).  

Ultimately, it wasn’t just the Nazis or the power of the state which resulted in the death of Bonhoeffer and others like him. It was the all-encompassing power of conformity. It was the systematic suffocation of independent thought. Critical thinking wasn’t just discouraged, it became heresy. People became willingly trapped in a bubble where they actively opposed  (and attacked) anything and everything which challenged their worldview. No one was entitled to any opinion which was counter to the Status Quo. Acceptance was seen as patriotism. This was “group think” writ large.

It was while awaiting his execution that Bonhoeffer wrote about this. He called it his “Theory of Stupidity”, but it was so much more than that. It was a firsthand account of human psychology and whether we have the moral courage to speak out against what we know to be wrong when others support it. History has shown that most of us don’t. We quietly go along. We won’t check our sources. We don’t go outside of our comfort zone.

The ”Theory of Stupidity”, despite its name, wasn’t intended to demean anyone. It was a message and warning from someone facing his imminent death who experienced the banality of evil and what happens to those, even the most intelligent among us, when we refuse to think for ourselves.

The video below is just under six minutes (I’ve included a slightly longer version at 20:35 minutes if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole really goes and how it applies to us today). I urge you to check either video out and see whether it resonates with you.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity (5:58)

The Terrifying Theory of Stupidity You Were Never Meant toHear---Dietrich Bonhoeffer (20:35)

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

German Evangelical Church

Positive Christianity

Confessing Church

Martin Niemoller

Territorial evolution of Germany

Ludwig Muller

 

The Role of German Clergy and Church Leaders

The Brutal Execution of Dietrich Bonhoeffer---Resisting theNazis

Flossenbürg Concentration Camp

Media and Print Endorsements: Providing Bread and Circus Coverage for Fun and Profit

 Another Opinion has published this article in one form or another  every election cycle since 2001 as a public service. Why? Because we now live in a world where independent thought is no longer considered "politically correct". We're expected to toe the line dictated to us by the Status Quo. America is no longer a Republic. It's a Corporatocracy run a super rich Oligarchy.

There are just 5 of these corporations that control 96+% of all media content---TV, movies, video games, radio, publishing, newspapers and so on.  This means they have the ability to directly influence your opinions by controlling and spinning what you watch, read, or hear.  They keep you entertained, distracted, and confused. Bread and Circuses. They also try to influence who you vote for by their so-called "endorsements".

We have a problem with this. We believe you should make your own decisions based on your own research regardless of who you ultimately vote for. Independent thought  is important for our present if we are to have a future. Please consider sharing this article. Thank you.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are strictly my own.

 

Media and Print Endorsements: Providing Bread and Circus Coverage for Fun and Profit

There was a time when the news media (particularly newspapers) were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public interest, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"). However, society and technology grew up. Today, we have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates and the issues which are important to us.

For years, I campaigned for the release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews  and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and their political affiliations especially when it came to newspaper "endorsements".  The public has a right to know exactly what a candidate said and in what context, what their positions are, as well as the identity of those making the "endorsement" and their  political leaning.

I've been a community organizer and political activist for over 40 years.  Too many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed,  or instances  where the "correct" answer  was inserted while gaffs were  removed on behalf of certain individuals. In fact, I've been a victim of these manipulations.  

 Today, a relatively small handful of news outlets are recording and making public these interviews unedited and providing the facts behind their research in a timely fashion. They are also providing unbiased information regarding both side of key issues, particularly those that will be appearing on the ballot. To those brave few actual journalists and editors, bravo to you!  

However, not all are providing full disclosure of the names and political registration or leaning of the interviewers making the endorsements nor are they disclosing the criteria by which the endorsements are made. Those remains hidden behind a false veneer of make believe "integrity".  You, the voter, have a right to know if an "endorsement" on an issue or candidate is honest and fair or is being made with a political or economic bias.  

As I have done for decades, I've urge all voters to take a few minutes to do their own research and make their own decision before casting their vote. Using a Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider.  You can check out a candidate's or issue's website, or do a general search on the internet. You'll find out a lot more than just reading or listening to a biased review or opinion.

As an aside, if you're looking at a political party's website or that of an endorsing organization, bear in mind that they are writing from their point of view. Any endorsements or opinion they make are to serve their interests, not necessarily yours.  Always understand the political slant of any source.

If you find that you happen to be in agreement with a candidate or issue, fine. Then support that individual or issue as a volunteer,  or with a financial contribution, or simply with your vote. But whatever you, do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think or decide for you. Never surrender your vote.

I would also suggest that candidates or those representing an issue who are being interviewed for  an endorsement, and especially by the news media, to be sure and write down the names of those conducting the interview. Ask if they will be making the endorsement. If not, who will?  Also ask when their endorsement is expected to be announced. If you're being recorded for TV or radio, ask when it will be aired.

 Finally, when being interviewed for an endorsement, don't be afraid to ask for their stance on any issue they ask you about or what their political affiliation is. If they refuse to tell you, note that too. You may want to make all this public once the interview is over in order to keep everyone "above board" and honest. Keep it factual and to the point. Leave any personal opinions or animosity out it. If your campaign depends on their recommendations, then you, your supporters and the voters deserve to know what to expect.

The role of the media, regardless of its format, is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner. It is not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit its own political or economic  agenda, even if they think it's "for your own good".  Only you can decide what's in your own best interests.  

Organizations, including business associations and unions, have a specific agenda. It's in their interests to make endorsements. It is not the job of the media. It should have no agenda. Remember  too that endorsements are merely personal opinions and not always the most informed ones at that! Think for yourself. Do your own research.  And then vote.  America is counting on you to help keep it free.

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

 

The Significance of Julian Assange and His Arrest

On April 11th, the co-founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange was arrested by British Police. Assange spent seven years living in an Ecuadorian consulate compound in London to avoid extradition to Sweden originally, and to the US on conspiracy charges and computer hacking. The conspiracy charges are in conjunction with former Army private and intelligence analysis Bradley Manning, who now goes by the name Chelsea Manning. Assange, who is 47 years old, had originally sought sanctuary over alleged rape charges of two women in Sweden and skipping bail. As it turned out, neither of the women actually filed rape charges, but were attempting locate Assange, whom they claimed knowingly transmitted a STD. However, those charges were dropped long ago and Sweden has shown no interest in reopening them.

Over the years, there's been several attempts to force Assange out, including attempts to kidnap him from the London compound. However, yesterday, Equator withdrew its "invitation" and the London Metropolitan Police were finally successful in "getting their man" just as Ecuador signed a 4.2 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (the IMF). Assange is expected to be extradited back to the US as quickly as possible in order to stand trial. His crime, authorities claim, is collusion with the Russians (yes, them again) using hacked documents, some of which were allegedly classified and secret. Assange has maintained for years that none of the documentation came as a result of Russian espionage and that the documentation had been secretly provided by a third party.

The real "crime" that Julian Assange stands accused of...and for which he is no doubt guilty...is releasing the information he acquired to the public; information which reveals just how corrupt the US and other governments are. His information "leaks" mentions names, dates, places, and amounts. Assange has outed agencies as well as high profile individuals. Obviously, that makes him a dangerous man, and potentially one with a very short life expediency ahead of him.

Julian Assange is not unlike Edward Snowden, who revealed government secrets; mostly about secret surveillance of individuals like you and me by the federal government and made it public. Meanwhile, social platforms like Facebook, collected volumes of confidential information on its users and in turn either gave or sold it the various government intelligence and other agencies. As a result, Edward Snowden was forced to flee to Russia, where he now lives in exile while others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, are hailed as "patriots" by the ruling political elites.

Thus, I have to wonder if it's not the fact that confidential information was compromised, but the fact that information affecting the ruling elites and government agencies, illegal though it may be, is to remain private and out of the public eye, while our information, regardless of how private and personal, is free and readily available to the government or can be sold without out knowledge or consent. Therefore, we have a situation where there is privacy and the veil of secrecy for some, but not for all.

Some would argue that releasing classified government information, regardless of how it's obtained, or information about public officials, even if it involves criminal activity, is somehow different from making available the private information of ordinary citizens who could, after all, could allegedly be plotting some possible terrorist act or other crime-in-the-making. Enter the "thought police" and where you are presumed guilty first. Meanwhile, wars for profit, running illegal arms deals or taking bribes to the tune of millions or even billions by government officials are seen as somehow okay or beyond public scrutiny. So too is using unsecured servers for the receipt and transfer of classified communication pertaining to national security is apparently permissible.

What we have is obviously a double standard. One set of rules and laws for the ruling Oligarchy and political class of plutocrats, and an entirely different set for you and me. Privacy, as we know, has become largely a thing of the past. Something that once existed decades ago, in the time of our grandparents or great grandparents. We are monitored virtually 24/7. Every time we go out to a public venue, there are cameras, be they security cameras on nearly every corner, in stores, or someone videotaping someone else. Overhead satellites are constantly looking down on us. Their sophistication is to the point where they can literally read the text on our cell phone, but of course, every electronic signal we generate, be it a cell phone call, text, email, landline call, computer log on and site search is tagged and monitored. In fact, every electronic message sent anywhere in the world is monitored. Every single one. We know this, in part, thanks to individuals like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and groups like Anonymous, bloggers, and vloggers. They ratted out the rats regardless of the political leanings. For the Oligarchy and ruling political elites, people like Assange and Snowden are every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and his capture is viewed by them in the same light.

So, what is the significance of Julian Assange's arrest and future trial (assuming he makes it that far)? No doubt that first and foremost, government authorities are going to want to know where...precisely...his information comes from. If it's the Russians or Chinese, they are going to want to know name, dates, and times. They will then conduct an exhaustive internal search for a possible mole. Obviously, this could result in a major international fallout. Alternatively, they will want to know if the information comes from a disgruntled employee or someone seeking a little private revenge for some perceived wrong. Perhaps too, the information comes from someone who feels they are a true patriot and was just serving their country by outing secret crimes against this country. Either way, government prosecutors and intelligence agencies are going to want to know who. That potentially put other lives in danger.

But there's something else at risk here, which is far more important and dangerous, and that's freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment. Julian Assange views himself as a investigative journalist (whereas Edward Snowden was a government employee and Whistle-blower). Journalist have long enjoyed "journalistic privilege" which allows them to protect their sources, regardless of who those sources are or where that information comes from (with the possible exception of information which is potentially libelous). Government authorities will likely argue that Assange is no journalist and that he runs a extortion racket or perhaps even a spy operation whose goal is to spread disinformation.

Just as important, if not more so, is what information Assange is still privy to? What "dirt" is he still sitting on, and on whom or what government agency? The reason they'd want to know is to bury or discredit the information, eliminate any leaks or potential threats (in the literal sense of the word), and ensure that there are no further leaks ever again (if this was a movie, it would be something like "The Empire Strikes Back"). In the parlance of the intelligence community, this is about "identification and clean up". Assange's trial will be public. That much is true, but there will be much the public will not be allowed to see or hear. Behind the scenes, the "empire" will be mobilized to snuff out any "resistance" to the status quo; anything which prevents the expansion of its control, which especially includes keeping secrets from the public.

Fascism, as I've often mentioned, didn't die in 1945 in the ashes and rubble of World War II. It survived. If you strip away the racial and nationalistic ideology, it works because it's very effective. Fascism is a partnership between the government and big business. In the past, government acted essentially as the senior partner. Today, that partnership is much more balanced because they very same people routinely move between senior private and public sector positions. Wealthy corporate CEOs and presidents run for office, getting elected with the help of other wealthy and powerful individuals and groups in and out of politics. They serve for a while, often with the aid of these very same folks. When they retire, they go to work as lobbyists or "consultants", calling on their friends still in office and helping other like minded individuals into office, and so the cycle repeats. Partisanship and ideology doesn't really matter. Government contracts and profit do.

Fascism has generally been viewed as "Right-wing" historically because of its nationalism, although in truth it's a merger of elements from the Left as well as the Right, based on a particular country's history, traditions, values, and political structure. That's why the Fascism of Italy differed from the Fascism of Hungary or Romania, which in turned was different from the fascism of Spain, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, or even Nazi Germany.

As modern Fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini once said, Fascism would be better named as corporatism. America have evolved (or "devolved" would be a better description) into an Oligarchy comprised of these super wealthy individuals and their corporations, alongside a professional political class of plutocrats into a modern Fascist state. Instead of pushing a solely nationalistic agenda, it pushes brand loyalties. Something we, a tribalistic human beings, can belong to, be it a product or a sports team. It's something we can rally around while remaining controlled. That's the point of today's political parties. We fight "wars" against "opponents" and reap a sense of victory or defeat. We defend our victory or revenge the defeat. We humiliate or "assassinate " the other side's leaders.

Of course, the more we can be divided, the easier it is to manipulate and control us; playing each other off the other. The more divided we become, the more focused we are on each other and other differences---real or manufactured---and the less attention we pay to the real changes happening around us; the wars over the control of resources or assets, the loss of freedoms such as free speech and the right to privacy along with the growth of a surveillance state, which is nothing more than a neo-police state.

The last thing the ruling Oligarchy and political class wants is for us to know the truth and to unite. That is what is behind the arrest of Julian Assange and others like him, be it vloggers on different ideological sides like Lauren Southern, Abby Martin, Bill Whittle, Stormcloudsgathering.com, or groups like Anonymous, as well as certain bloggers and local talk radio hosts. Government whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden pose a special threat to them because they are on the inside. The arrest of Julian Assange is also as much a message as anything to those who expose light into places where the ruling class wants darkness. It's as much about government transparency and the right of the public to know what's being done in its name as it is about protecting your personal and financial privacy.



Julian Assange: WikiLeaks co-founder arrested in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London, facing possible US extradition

Ecuador inks 42 billion financing deal with IMF-Moreno

The Groups Anonymous Inspired Are More Powerful than Anonymous Ever Was

5 of the most famous federal whistleblowers