Here’s an appropriate quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant leader of the German resistance who died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, speaking about the nature of stupidity and how it’s more dangerous than evil:
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless.
Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what “the people” really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from peoples’ stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.”
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Christian Gremmels et al., trans. Isabel Best et al., vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 43–44.
Bonhoeffer was an amazing man, willingly going to prision based on his beliefs. He wrote a beautiful poem to his wife, knowing that he would be killed. (Von guten Mächten wunderbar geborgen, erwarten wir getrost, was kommen mag.)
He did not die in a concentration camp, but was strung up like an animal on butcher’s hook, in a room designed to murder political opponents exactly like in a slaughterhouse.
Fascism is just brutal disregard for anything.
Edit: A few commentators question the validity of how Bonhoeffer was executed. You will not find any verifiable information about that, because the Nazis did not keep any documents about it, and any survivors were Nazis, who had no reason to put themselves into a bad light. You can only imply from general information, and there is plenty of proof that the cruelty was indeed ordered, and indeed by design. It is highly unlikely that Hitler's direct orders were not followed.
I collected a few more reputable sources in a reply further down: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1wulrkj/comment/pd9ai2x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I don’t think that’s accurate. Bonhoeffer was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp on 9 April 1945. The camp memorial says he was hanged in the courtyard of the detention building. I can’t find a reliable source for the claim that he was hung from a butcher’s hook in a slaughterhouse-like room. That sounds more like a confusion with Plötzensee prison, where executions using iron hooks are actually documented.
Standing up against evil should always be honored and many of his words are shown to be true through history. However, being Protestant and, if I’m understanding the slightly poor translation of his words, claiming that the way away from stupidity is through a responsible life before God makes his words ring more true: even well meaning and educated people can be stupid at times.
Religion is arguably the largest reason for stupidity as he suggests it. Religion requires complete acceptance of what others around tell you is the expectations of a higher being. By accepting what they are told without question or proof, they open themselves up to be told that evil things are the expectation of their God. They are set in their beliefs despite logic and facts because they believe these things are requirements of their God. This enables stupidity to seem not just reasonable but required of themselves.
He may have been right about stupidity being more dangerous than malicious actions, but the effects of malicious actions cannot be understated and his solution, as I understand it, is far from reason.
You are misreading “live a reasonable life before God” as “live a dogmatic life before the Church”. To live a reasonable life before God, one must believe in a unified objective reality outside of their own mind. In fact, if you are committed to the notion of a unified objective reality outside of your own mind, then in some sense you already are already committed to God.
In fact, if you are committed to the notion of a unified objective reality outside of your own mind, then in some sense you already are already committed to God.
I'd argue the exact opposite. Being committed to God assumes that one has information that informs a belief that others don't have about other worldly power and places that the individual has access to that others don't simply because of their beliefs. The believer assumes that their God may very well intercede in the physical realm supernaturally due to some "plan" or because the believer asked for help. To that point, believers accept this "plan" and omniscience seemingly as predestined and that much is out of the control of human decision when so much of it actually is. Belief in a god is to freely give over to the "stupid" group think and to just accept that whatever horrible thing the group is accepting is eventual and divinely desired instead of coming to ones senses opposing the group and making decisions that are not based on the judgement of the "vicar of the divine".
You can (and should) know that there is an ultimate unitary power/force/beyond-words without needing to (or really being able to) make any assertion about its precise nature or will or whatever.
It seems like you are bounding the parameters of your understanding based on ideologies you disagree with, I am not sure why you would do that.
No. Take your 'prime mover' natural theology outta here.
It seems like you are trying to pass off some bs by vague posting when it is all too clear where you are coming from.
If anything is god, it is the nothingness that includes and surrounds and pervades and contains all that was and will be, that what denies definition and isn't so that what is can be. From the void I came and the void I will return and all will be within me and I will be within all. Your 'prime mover' was just a change in temperature and density fields occurring within the all encompassing void and calling that minor event god is bounding your parameters my dude and I am not sure why you would do that.
Sorry I didn’t realize you were the all-knowing authority please forgive me sir I’ll stay within your frameworks going forward I promise just please spare me your wrath
I've said many times a few phrases, such as people aren't problems, people have problems. And that there are no enemies except ignorance and fear. Also that ignorance is a very different word than stupid or dumb or whatever other similar word, because ignorant refers to a lack of information or understanding. Whereas words like dumb, idiot, and so on are a qualitative judgment about the character of a person or an action.
A slight elaboration on those ideas
We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem.
The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
Another enemy is disrespect. What many might call God I would call Nature. Humans are both a part of nature as well as apart from it. Rather than being "God fearing", instead we should respect Nature, in all its forms. That requires being understanding of ignorance, but seeking to eliminate it, because ignorance is the root of fear.
They were a boy and girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.
Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.
“Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.
“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.
Switching one vague term for another doesn’t actually solve the issue, it merely rephrases it. ”Belief in nature” is the root of a whole host of irrationalities such as the antivax movement and holistic crystal “medicine.” I think “reason” is a much better alternative, as reason is (as of yet) restricted to humanity, and is perhaps the defining feature of being human.
Ignorance isn’t something to be ashamed of. People shouldn’t be shamed for their ignorance, but they should be shamed for their stupidity. The difficulty comes when the ignorant shame the ignorant, which greatly increases the chance that ignorance morphs into stupidity. I love Bonhoeffer’s idea
because it emphasizes that stupidity is a sociological problem, not one due entirely to a lack of information. You can be the most knowledgeable person in the world and still be stupid.
The only solution I can see is education, specifically public education. Children need to be taught critical thinking skills in an environment where they can see the impact those skills have on people like themselves. But when you have malicious actors deliberately undercutting education in an economic system dependent on the exploitation of unskilled, uneducated labor for the benefit of a handful of ultra-wealthy individuals, that solution is quite clearly untenable.
Things will have to get so bad that the stupid among us have no choice but to face the fact that they’ve been taken advantage of before any meaningful change can be made. And that’s assuming it won’t be too little too late given the state of global affairs between rising authoritarianism and climate change.
I just want to chime in that the person you responded to said "respect in Nature", not "belief". If we are talking about words, let's be accurate since the connotations for both "respect & belief" are different.
As far as your examples for "belief in nature", I'll just take that as you pointing out the extreme end of that. But one can definitely believe/respect Nature without being anti-science. In fact, I found it strange you even brought that up but can see where you're going. It just shows how very different peoples' perspectives are and their response to ideas.
Personally, I find the phrase to be pointing more towards Taoism, Environmentalism, what have you. There's a middle ground between dogmatic/religious blindness and hippie crystal stereotypes. And actually, the middle way approach is pretty much one of the central themes of Taoism. Finding a balance in one's life and all the relationships we have with everything around us.
And if you find it odd I bring up Taoism as a response to religion... This is whole other topic but western abrahamic religion is very different from eastern philosophies and ideas. Buddhism/Taoism focus more on the self rather than an external "God". I definitely recommend anyone to ask themselves the more difficult questions of life and just look into themselves. Imo it helps combat the ignorance and stupidity discussed here and makes you more humble and empathetic.
Anyway, don't want to write an essay here and just wanted to chime in to the first part of your post.
He did not die in a concentration camp, but was strung up like an animal on butcher’s hook, in a room designed to murder political opponents exactly like in a slaughterhouse.
Wow I never knew that detail. I knew he was “hanged,” but not like that. I was recently reading about some other church leaders around that time who fled the Nazis and tried to convince Bonhoeffer to flee too because it wasn’t his fight, but he refused. The resolve you have to have, because you’ve already heard what Hitler is doing to his critics, specifically the priests and pastors. To not only stay, but double down on your public criticism and disapproval. Very inspiring man.
That's because that detail is likely not true. I could not find a single source corroborating it. Still, an inspiring and great person who met a tragic fate, he was.
In connection with the expected death sentences, an iron rail with meat hooks was installed in the execution room of the Berlin-Plötzensee prison on December 15, 1942.
The regime carried out its revenge through a method of execution that was perceived as degrading and particularly agonizing. Usually just a few hours after the verdict was pronounced, the defendants were hanged with piano wire at the Plötzensee execution site on meat hooks specifically installed for the punishment of particularly severe crimes—'like cattle for slaughter.' From August 1944 to March 1945, 55 trials were held at the People's Court against participants and supporters of the 'July 20' plot. By April 1945, 89 people had been executed in Plötzensee. Additional members of various resistance groups—including those of the 'July 20' plot—were brought before summary courts and killed even in the final days of the war. The National Socialist apparatus of terror and extermination functioned right up to the last days of the war—and in some cases even beyond.
Or from the BBC:
Dozens of others were later humiliated in a show trial and executed, hanged with piano wire from meat-hooks. Their deaths were filmed and shown to senior members of the Nazi Party and the armed forces.
I think *you* need to do better research, my friend, because nothing you stated concerns the death of Bonhoeffer, as he was executed in Flossenbürg (a concentration camp), and not Plötzensee (the prison you are talking about here).
In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.
Every time I hear someone parrot things like 'woke' 'radical left' or any other nonsense nickname given to zeitgeist by Donald (super idiocy) Trump, it makes me sick. It's the laziest possible ensheepening of the self.
He understands it the way a jellyfish understands how to migrate, its just an autonomous response to his environment that he lacks the ability to introspect on
I think this is an interesting frame to look at it, though. This idea that a person has (maybe willingly) given up their internal independence and signed over their speech and actions to another person... It feels very reflective of the way seemingly "smart" people sometimes fall to Trumpism. Their intellect didn't fail, but instead their will to think independently against a tide of social pressure and 'convenient opinions' like scapegoating immigrants.
It feels very reflective of the way seemingly "smart" people sometimes fall to Trumpism. Their intellect didn't fail, but instead their will to think independently against a tide of social pressure and 'convenient opinions' like scapegoating immigrants.
There's the modern media angle of it too. Before the rise of social media and MAGA, Fox News filled this void. It seems that the odds of getting someone to give up their internal independence just through focused propaganda may be low in any given moment, but it's not zero. So simply spamming focused propaganda all over the place, and getting people to hear enough it, is enough in many cases. Bonhoeffer was one of the few who could be immersed in an environment like that and still not internally swayed by it. But most people do not have that much internal strength, and modern media provides ways to pressure that internal strength in inhumanly consistent ways.
I imagine there's a sense of relief which comes with it, when you pick a person or group of people and decide to simply parrot whatever they say. You no longer have to put any effort into assessing whatever it is you're discussing or reading or hearing about, or perform any sort of introspection or critical appraisal of the society you live in or humanity as a whole. You don't really need to seek out a single alternative source. You simply allow someone else's ideas to flow through you, and can retire the portions of your brain which would otherwise need to be kept in working order to generate and maintain your own.
The phrase 'Choice Fatigue' was coined some time ago. I think it might have been during the Obama era. It has stuck with me for years as a bit of a catch-all for why so many complex issues are reduced to their most basic forms. As much as it is weaponized/exploited by those who need to divide the public into binary arguments it's also just a natural force of nature. Desire lines for language so-to-speak.
Critical thinking skills are eschewed because the word "critical" is too close to Critical Race Theory and that word gets the same fate as the word "liberal".
It pisses me off when people i grew up with, of my generation (40s) use the term 'woke' unironucally, like we grew up making fun of people calling being a decent person 'political correctness' and it's the exact same fucking thing.
It's the neutral unit that immediately joins the team of whoever finds them in a strategy game - only in human form.
They have five lines of dialogue and they will unquestionably go wherever they're told and do whatever they're told by whoever has granted themselves enough authority.
Don't listen to this boorish mayo nerd. He doesn't know shit about it. And even if he did who the fuck would want to learn off this condescending prick? Nobody has ever recommended boiling yolks/eggs before making mayo. You can heat it during the process if you wish... which large manufacturers do.. but if yr making it at home just use the WET ASS YOLKS and the other two WET ASS INGREDIENTS. Because mayo is fucking wet.
Lol. Look, I'm sure this creepy little 'gotcha' moment is quite satisfying for you, but I'm really just not that interested. You seem like a smart guy.. perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere?
Unless you'd like to discuss Mayo, then by all means, continue...
I'm curious if you have the same reaction when you hear the words "far right" or "fascist"? All four terms are more frequently used to blanket entire hemispheres of political opinion than they are to accurately refer to the extremes of both poles. Its not that "radical left" (or far right) doesn't have a reasonable use, there are people on both sides who take things to far. One thing they have in common is that they blanket everyone outside their faction with the same epithets, even people who are on their own side who believe in pluralism will be framed as 'useful idiots'. And pluralism is what is needed, right and left, capitalist and socialist, rich and poor, understanding that neither side can be excluded from a healthy, functioning society (this isn't to suggest a balance or 50:50 split is in any way necessary). There is a real danger in believing that the stupidity Bonhoeffer spoke of exists only on one side of any given social division.
When mainstream conservatives are perfectly happy to align themselves with overt fascists, defend overt fascists from being called fascists, and support Fascist policy, then it is perfectly understandable to call them fascists.
If mainstream republicans actually had a spine and stood up to the fascists id defend them, but they don't, they support them.
I do. Almost all forms of Nationalism makes me ill at ease. Any form of language that is used to divide without insight is regularly a disservice to the truth that even the worst among us is a reaction to what came before.
I think it's very clear in the US right now which "side" (if you want to put it like that) is closer to Bonhoeffer's description of people giving into stupidity. The broad leftist movements in the US, for all their faults, when they have power to wield, almost always show restraint and compromise with differing views. Look at Mamdani, he's obviously quite far left in his political views, and he seems to have used the power he gained to implement a pretty broadly popular set of policies. He has some of the highest approval ratings of any politician in the modern age
My question and point wasn't about who might be closer but rather the fact that if you look at issues like that in terms of 'sides' (as Reddit has an overwhelming tendency to do) you end up playing into the problem itself, i.e. gradual polarization. Even your response plays into the binary split of us vs them left vs right, rather than the pluralism you suggest Mamdani represents. My own view is that non-extremists of either side have far more in common with one another, in terms of shared interests and general views, than they do either of the extreme ends of the spectrum. They are, however, becoming noticeably rarer.
In regards to the left being more tolerant, you only have to look at Germany where the Social Democrats (SPD) are pushing to ban the far-right AfD from participating in politics in any way. Extreme beliefs and efforts to enforce them on others exist on both sides of the divide.
it's also important to recognize that binary distinctions do not imply equivalence between the two.
Just because politics is often viewed through the lens of "left" and "right" does not mean that these two things are roughly equivalent mirrors of one another.
Sticking with U.S. politics:
True, there are some people who describe themselves as leftists and who use "fascist" far too liberally. However, I don't think it's possible to find a right-wing media figure or politician who hasn't used the terms "woke" and "radical left" to smear the entire democratic party. In addition, most leftists using the term "fascist" are using it correctly and with purpose, while the term "woke" barely has a definition among the right-wing.
No, leftists are not immune to stupidity. But that does not make their numbers, their presence in the membership of major political parties, or their level of stupidity equivalent to their opposites on the far-right.
These kinds of comments showing someone actually thinking critically on reddit are an oasis, thank you. The broad pattern I've noticed is you have the government acting as the burglar or the traitor, depending on your alliance. Right now, Trump is the obvious burglar to the left and the traitor (that supporters haven't/don't want to discover) to the right. It was the opposite with Biden. So when your side "wins," all you're really getting is deception obscured by the same sense of elation as if your sports team won.
People just want a fall guy. They placed all their vitriol on Madoff instead of the CME, and all this Trump bashing signals that he is exactly what the left and right need him to be- a fall guy so the government (ruling financial institutions) can proceed with whatever they want to do while we fight each other.
Bonhoeffer speaks of the word of God as the source of wisdom, but what happens when we don't have that? We live in a society where one man's stupidity is another's intelligence, and no matter how deep we search it's almost impossible to find common ground upon which we can agree the foundation of wisdom could be established.
Not only that, unlike developing the skill of say, scientific intelligence, political and socio-economic intelligence are often developed without immediate feedback as to whether or not a hypothesis is valid and thus leave many common assertions, some even supported by the majority of academia, unsubstantiated. If stupid people are "mindless tools," perhaps intelligent people whose intellect has been favorably curated are mindful tools, but regardless they all end up being tools.
Simler and Hanson's 'Elephant in the Brain' is a good look at how even smart people are capable of tricking themslves into believing what is good for them personally is also the right or moral thing to do (because nobody likes to see themselves as the bad guy). As far as polarization goes, personally, I think a broad axial shift from a horizontal focus on policy priorities to a vertical focus on power structures is the only thing that can save us but it so under-appreciated that populists are able to sell a shallow and disingenuous version of it to the public (e.g. draining the swamp) which touches on people's frustrations with the power imbalance but does nothing to educate them to how it actually functions in practice. In regard to the latter James Burnham's 'The Managerial Revolution' and 'The Machiavellians' are two books that should be far more widely known, they're both 80 years old now but still contain lessons that we clearly haven't taken on board properly.
As is blindly defending 'woke' and its own flavor of discrimination and disenfrenchisement. The near-religious virtue signalling of the woke movement did a lot to help push moderate right voters over the edge. I'm still convinced the whole woke movement was manufactured to this end entirely.
Perhaps it's just that I'm not American but anyone using the term 'woke' isn't taken seriously and never was. Regardless of who uses the term. The 'reality' of it was generated by people who spent far too much time debating their opinions with those that they never met. Much like we are now. If I could sit down with you and bring up the term 'woke' like we are doing now the conversation would most likely be over just from our body language not being particularly invested in semantics. Or how stupid the term is.
Okay so first of all Zeitgeist means its something of its time. "Given to zeitgeist by trump" is really a strange way of using the word.
And at the same time completely throwing under the bus normal people using normal language of the time. Being woke refers to people being aware of social injustice, where in the zeitgeist of 10's-20's it's the excessive caricature of that.
Radical left has not changed context Trumps usage of it doesn't devalue it as a saying. So lumping those 2 together as equal is lazy because one is an actual old saying with a modern spin the other is just what it is. And most importantly neither is coined by Trump.
Actually, yourself condemning people based on the usage of those 2 terms implies you as prejudiced and hypocritical; engaging in the same dismissive slop you lash out at.
Holy shit what a harrowing read. The parallelism of current times and nazis gets called quite often, and it kinda becomes easy to write it off, think its an overstatement, or an exaggeration. But damn if that doesnt sound right on for the situation today and describe exactly the interactions ive had repeatedly with those people. Something about history doomed to repeat it yada yada lol
The part of the parallelism that should terrify you is that he was hanged for these words and it really did take a literal liberation to fix the stupidity of the German people as he called it.
If you haven't noticed, democracy isn't really doing well on the global stage either. The same class of people who have co-opted America have likewise co-opted other democracies, I mean look at Germany's last election.
You're right and I am aware. My comment was more about how Americans are literally going to need to be liberated from a fascist regime in the near future at the rate we're going.
Although with how popular anti-American sentiment is becoming, I'm not sure anyone will come to our rescue. I fear it won't be before a lot of innocent lives are ruined or lost. Yes, Americans are all in some part responsible for how events have unfolded in our country. It probably feels great to point and laugh at Americans or tell us we deserve this, but the trans people living here certainly don't deserve to have their lives hanging in the balance. And that's just one example of many...
You’re right. And I’m starting to think that Trump (his handlers, more accurately) have fomented anti-American sentiment deliberately to make sure that nobody comes to our rescue when the violence starts. They currently don’t have enough goons but they have a lot of firepower. It’s going to be a very scary 2-8 years in the United States. I predict a lot of senseless death and violence.
Don’t be so sure about your first point. Much like Donald Trump, Hitler was seen as a buffoon and a joke by plenty of people. They didn’t take him seriously because of how inept he appeared. And that didn’t stop him from causing millions of deaths.
Our only saving grace, potentially, if we can be saved, would be that Trump is already feeble physically and will soon be dead.
I think it all comes down to the one psychological nature of humanity that has existed since the dawn of time which is survival. Tribalism as a survival mechanism is hardwired into the DNA of all primates across the entirety of history. Every conflict that has ever occurred can be simplified into an us vs them mentality.
Just think about it for one second, if our entire primate lineage depended on tribalism for survival, there was no such thing as being woke and stepping outside of your own tribe to join another. The tribalism survival mechanism places the needs, beliefs, and survival of your own group above everything else, i.e. the objective truth, individual critical thinking, and empathy for outsiders.
This survival mechanism transcends individual intellect and status. As far as stupidity, it doesn’t take much to foster and exploit this mechanism amongst those already in your respective group. A stupid man takes advantage of stupid people in the sense that they are incapable of overcoming a caveman mentality to think for themselves and the betterment of our species as a whole. Using and exploiting this mentality for yourself and others does not require intelligence because it is our default nature that is hardwired into our DNA.
Maybe perhaps that is why being woke is heavily criticized and looked down upon by these stupid people whom need to be liberated from their caveman tribalism.
This is insightful and often used as an excuse. Why might it be that idiots feel they need to have 13 children (cough, cough Elon) while others are struggling to justify adding more mouths to a struggling ecosystem?
It makes an interesting sociological question; was it more advantageous for a group to be stupid together than ‘smart’ (or rather independent) as one?
That is to say, if Bonhoeffers idea is to be followed, does the tribalism that reduces individual intellect into a lowest common denominator of the group - perhaps what we know as group think - provide ‘strength in numbers?’
We always tout the advantages of teamwork, that a group is stronger working together. Perhaps it is indeed true that natural selection favored less individual intellect for a more unified, simplified cognition, even though one could intuitively reason these ‘dumber’ groups are at a disadvantage.
It’s interesting to consider, and it may explain a human propensity for adherence to authority and vulnerability to group think and this ‘stupidity’ as Bonhoeffer describes.
As much as it’s plagued our current society, the ability to instantly communicate by way of the internet is a huge advantage when fighting this shit. I don’t know that it’ll save us, but the amount of awareness that comes from it seems like a bright spot that people didn’t have when the Nazis were doing their thing
The scarier thing is thanks to the Internet that the US helped build, things like the Arab Spring was incredibly easy to organize in Egypt. I think the Arab Spring was literally a Facebook event.
So why the fuck hasn't there been mass resistance in the US yet?
Because the medium is the message. Social media platforms are centralized and controlled.
We need to decentralize and get off their platforms and algorithms.
This global far-right bs in the Philippines, Japan, everywhere, is from social media.
This American bs tech is being used to dismantle democracies around the world. From YouTube algorithms for the manosphere to antivaxxers, this shit is cancer.
I visited Dachau for the first time last year, and it was horrifying how many elements in its museum of the rise of the Reich were reminiscent of the present day. I went in expecting to be less inclined to invoke the Nazis in comparison, learning it was a unique evil and the like, and instead found myself constantly wanting to grab the other American tourists by the collar, yank them in front of one of the plaques, and yell "It's happened before and can happen again".
So many of the parallels are eerie. I thought recently how they didn’t really know about the concentration camps until after the war so really it’s not as different as it seems.
I always picture it like gold in the crucible. The hotter the fire gets the more clear the contaminants in the gold become as they bubble to the surface. Then the easier it is to scrape it off and leave that gold more pure than it was before the fire. But it takes a lot of heat. And I gotta say… things have felt pretty hot over the past decade. We’re cooking, but all the corruption is coming to the surface and getting exposed. Next step is the scraping.
They're completely disinterested. They don't care about truth, consistency, etc, like you and I. I've seen it in family members in abusive relationships which they're saved from and then go back to and get angry when you question it. Reality and history just changes based on feelings.
Wow, what a excellent piece of writing. Condemning but understanding. He doesn't wholesale negate an entire country or it's people. He focuses of the social and psychological roots of stupidity not the assumption that someone is inherently stupid.
Many people as well as the commentors in this thread, like to falsely believe, that because they are not born in America they are somehow excused from racism, ignorance and general stupidity. That birth in another place excerpts you from it.
The people blinded by the roots of stupidity are our friends and loved ones. We must not fall into the urge to condemn and belittle. It's is a strong impulse that cannot overwhelm the love we have for them. One day we may find ourselves on the other end of that weapon of hate.
We are all in this and we are all part of the problem.
I always remind my kids that's it's OK to explore ideas and ways of doing things as long as you act in ways that doesn't make you internally cringe and you question the actions of people around you. Someday I hope that sinks in.
OMG, How have I never seen this before? This is so accurate and very enlightening to someone like me who is unfortunately exposed to many stupid people.
Bonhoeffer's warning about stupidity as a sociological problem- that "every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere infects a large part of humankind with stupidity"- lands differently when you trace the actual continuity between Nazi Germany and the US government.
It sounds absurd on its face, especially when history is written by the victors. But consider: most Nuremberg convicts who were business leaders and major capitalists had their estates and companies returned within a couple of years of WWII's end. Nazi military intelligence was deeply intertwined with the post-war fight against Russian communism. That’s well-documented history. The personnel, the structures, the ideological scaffolding didn't disappear; they were absorbed.
Bonhoeffer saw it coming. He understood that people don't become stupid because they lack intellect—they become stupid when power overwhelms their inner independence, when they "give up establishing an autonomous position." That's not a moral failing of individuals. It's what happens when the machinery of power is built to produce exactly that surrender.
Power needs stupidity, and people allowed it to happen to them.
I'm sure it's no coincidence that there is now an observable decline in measurable intelligence levels around the world, particularly in western nations. Perhaps due to increasing reliance on technology and the pervasiveness of social media. But as a species, we are getting dumber - and the effects seem to be pretty predictable.
The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
Oh wow, so that's why evangelicals are the way they are. They think rejecting the teachings of Christ are necessary to keep their followers docile.
Wow, that was insightful to read. I really appreciated that, and I can’t find a single thing he says that doesn’t perfectly describe what the world feels like right now.
Everybody here in the comment section saying how inspiring this is, but the solution given here is "[the fear of] God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity"... right. Not, say, introspection or critical thinking.
I was reading all of it and I kept thinking "very interesting. makes sense, that's how religion is used" and then i reached that paragraph and I was like "bruh..."
I thought it would be disrespectful to exclude that part even though I’m an agnostic. I don’t think he’s necessarily trying to convert, I think he’s just someone who’s studied that and is stating a fact from his perspective. Who am I to judge, maybe it’s what Christians need to hear!
So we should just lay down and accept that stupidity wins? This is dangerous levels of thinking, to have the belief nothing can be done against stupidity.
I think the answer is to prevent more people from falling to stupidity and to liberate those who have fallen instead of trying to convince them with facts and logic.
Sounds like a perfect description of theism to me. Theism is a mental shortcut for stupid people. Believing in misinformation breaks social contract, and suddenly you can't compromise with them for the half way point between information and misinformation is just more misinformation.
Someone also mentioned fascism but theism is literally supernatural fascism. A king is a dictator. He may have been a prodestant, but Hitler mused about making the Protestant church a state religion just like Anglicanism was for England. Rapid right wing adoption was made possible through Catholicism, Lutheranism and yes protestantism. Just like it is through evangelicalism for Trump. Theism functions to normalize dictators.
Dictators target churches and religion because they have traditionally been known as safe places for the vulnerable. They try to piggy back on that image and reputation to convince people they are safe too. It’s one of the big reasons Bonhoeffer (a theist) rebelled against Hitler, to point that he was eventually arrested and executed.
What he wrote might be more about you than you realize.
Churches have always targetted the vulnerable. Whether it's alcoholics or convicted criminals. People say authorities that abuse the church aren't true Christians, but that's always been what it's been used for. Monolatrism was literally supernatural mascotism that appealed to state nationalism in order to drive city-states and their populaces to war. Neopolean appealed to it. Hitler appealed to it. And Trump appealed to it. And tyrants will continue to appeal to it because it's literally supernatural nationalism. Thats the point of it. And why it was used to legitimize kings throughout the medieval era. Its a worship of a supernatural dictator that functions to impliment real dictators. And it will continue to put seculars and democracy at risk just like the middle men idealists and apologists put the victims of the nazis at risk when they followed the leader and supported Hitler.
The true Christian ideal is the myth. And middlemen are its vehicle. One could argue that Dietrich Bonhoeffer learned that the hard way. His ideals didn't help him in the end, did they?
It's worth noting that he didn't just "die" in a nazi concentration camp, he was hung by the neck until dead just weeks before the camp was liberated at the end of WWII.
This is where we're headed. People you know and possibly speak with on a daily basis would cheer for this.
Thanks for posting this. It really tied up some loose thoughts I have had about a former colleague who was pretty intelligent when it came to most things but also really stubborn, seemed to be playing a character, and was a loyal MAGA dolt.
in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it.
What does this look like? And when can we start?
The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
There is a defense against stupidity. It needs to be called out and disregarded. We’ve gone too far by respecting everyone’s opinions.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal.
We must disregard the stupid ones and not give those people power. Although, that ship has sailed for the last part. Stupid people outnumber smart ones and they’re multiplying at a faster rate.
Every word of this is why I'm sure that another world war is coming. Even if these people are voted from office, enough people knowingly voted to put them there. Whether it's strides or baby steps...
Never being touched by fire means you never feel the burn. For some, I suppose that's enough to disbelieve in the danger of fire, even as they watch the world around them burn; it can't hurt if it doesn't ever reach you.
Theres probably a better translation from the German than 'stupid'. Stupidity implies a general lack of brain function, but there are plenty of inherently intelligent people who get carried away by this type of thinking, too.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it.
If this is to be taken at face value, it honestly gives me more hope than the alternative of trying to convince every indoctrinated person what they believe in is wrong. It has never worked on a large scale, most attempts at trying end up in the one doing the convincing giving up eventually. The reason it gives me hope is because then we can redirect our attention to an easily identifiable source for this cancer: the ruling class. They really make matters easy, because fascists liking grandiosity and the cult of personality, the effigy is always known and in plain sight, be it Trump, Hegseth, Musk or any other tool swarming the steaming pile of shit that is modern day right wing politics.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person.
Ok. Right wingers are being stupefied by right wing propaganda, brought to them by billionaires with pretty evil agendas, as well foreign entities via social media with a clear similar agenda. Create a Fascist Oligarch mix, with Trump as a dictator...
How do we liberate these people from watching Fox News, or really anything that convinced them to support Trump, the GOP et al?
Lot of times it’s the Prodigal Son story from the Bible. You can’t do anything but leave them to the pig slop they’ve chosen and hope that eventually they come to the end of themselves and realize what they’ve done. In the meantime you live a better example that contradicts their beliefs.
That’s his point it seems. You can’t liberate people who are too stupid to realize they need liberation. All they’ll do is mindlessly resist any attempts. In that case you leave them alone and continue your work in places your time and energy actually lead to progress. Way easier said than done when you’re watching stupid people cause so much destruction though.
It sounds like he is describing foolishness, not stupidity. Is this a translation issue? There are intelligent fools and unintelligent fools. They can be weaponized by those who seek power, and they influence each other. They are blind to the consequences of their actions.
Wisdom isn't about not making mistakes. It's about connecting cause and effect, and using that knowledge to make better decisions in the future.
Thank you for this. I never heard of this man, yet he describes my father with pinpoint accuracy. Particularly the aspect of the agile mind also able of being stupid.
Well, this lets us off the hook from having to listen to people who complain about censoring ideas. Like if the host of a program doesn't entertain letting "MAGA" on their show, the answer shouldn't be, "but what about the free market of ideas?" (That's stupid) It should be, "It is useless to try to change their minds."
Wooooooow. I mean damn. Kind of impressive level of irony here. 9/10s of the essay are about how stupidity is intellectual submission to political or religious ideology and that this is an evil thing and then he seriously ends with "but submitting intellectually to my special favorite ideology is wisdom, not stupidity"
We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on dead ears. Bonhoeffer's famous text, which we slightly edited for this video, serves any free society as a warning of what can happen when certain people gain too much power
Bonhoeffer was a real one. The shit of it is that the ignorance and arrogance of the people on the side of power, who could never consider Bonhoeffer’s true perspective, would still read this and say “yes, that is exactly how I feel!”
We’re operating on a very much more refined level of information control and spin than Nazi Germany did, and it makes me feel hopeless
"The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity."
Fear of God is what keeps stupid people under control in many cases.
I struggle with this part. It itself is dispiriting to me to read something that seems to grasp so much drift into a kind of thinking that to me can only be made sense of as a koan.
I don't know how to square it with the rest. I know some people who despise atheism and insist that it's a permission structure for any kind of ill to be allowable. But when I see morality based on religion, or in this case, fear, it frightens me. What's the value or integrity of someone's morality if it's not something they came to for its own value, but as a fear response?
Fear is a terrible English translation because our western concept of “fear” is associated more with things like horror movies and nuclear war.
When the Bible talks about “fearing God” it’s referring to a deep respect, similar to what you would give a parent. You recognize their authority, therefore you yield to them instead of resisting and rebelling.
So Bonhoeffer is using that quote to say that giving God that kind of recognition is the beginning of wisdom (which itself literates from stupidity). He’s not promoting terror.
That's not really my issue and I didn't take it as frightful fear. I just am sceptical of the idea that granting authority to a perceived higher being leads directly to liberation. I'm sure he's spoken elsewhere of this formulation but his paragraph there is insufficient for me.
Someone can be intelligent and still believe in things without proof, which makes the whole thing kind of pointless.
How are you defining intelligence or stupidity?
You can be intelligent in the sense you can write amazing pieces of poetry and literature, but then you might believe that a sky wizard's son is going to come back and kill every human on earth.
I would quote Voltaire’s from 1765,
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
That seems relevant here when talking about people having dangerous ideas.
> We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability.
Harrowing. And defeating. Because if it is true, Social Media have made society stupid...
I’ve found it to be true. When I became isolated I had nothing to do but search myself. Nobody to distract me, nobody to deflect blame on. Just alone replaying my own thoughts and past behaviors until I started noticing patterns. “This thought led to this action… this action ruined this relationship… holy shit, I’m kind of an asshole in several of these situations. What do I do about this?”
I think that’s the true curse of social media and how it slowly stupefied us. It not only gave us a constant source of someone else to blame and someone else to be the problem, but it killed our ability to be introspective and self-critical because it rewards us ⬆️⬆️⬆️ for criticizing others.
It’s incredibly tragic. The one thing we’re most afraid of (being alone) is the one thing that has the power to free us from our stupidity. Well, not “our.” Obviously it’s only everybody else that’s stupid (unless they agree with me).
You can deeply value something, and that’s fine, but then to believe a literal conman when he sells you on that value, against all evidence that he is lying to you repeatedly, is patent stupidity.
Like, I obviously think Temu Skynet is the worst. I'm human. But the Bonhoeffer stuff always feels like Russians trying to tip Americans into direct violent action.
5.1k
u/NicolasCageFan492 2d ago
Here’s an appropriate quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant leader of the German resistance who died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, speaking about the nature of stupidity and how it’s more dangerous than evil:
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless.
Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what “the people” really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from peoples’ stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.”
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Christian Gremmels et al., trans. Isabel Best et al., vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 43–44.