As the length of any discussion increases, the probability of $anything being mentioned reaches 1. But sure, let's ban all literature from that time period, where so many great thinkers gave their best.
> 'Collectivism is triumphing because of too much individualism' is not a strongly coherent argument.
I wouldn't equate lack of tolerance and cooperation with "individualism". Russel didn't write people should be more alike or less individualistic, at least I don't read it that way.
> Also note that those of the intelligent alluded to here did in fact combine, with historically significant results
Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by this?
Like the original Godwin, this was a joke, not an attempt at policing. That people choose to interpret it otherwise is depressing. Well done for completely killing it with trivially true proof - you understand that's part of the joke, right?
As for what I meant, what I was trying to say is that - contra Russell - people actually did in fact overcome their differences and collectively combat the Nazis, but I obfuscated it to avoid, y'know, mentioning the Nazis.
I suppose it's too much to hope that you've just Kafka'd me into my own Godwin and are about to drop a YHBT.
> people actually did in fact overcome their differences and collectively combat the Nazis
The question is, when? Not within Germany, not at first. Or at least not to a high enough degree. Unless we simply define as intelligent those who resisted or were Jewish etc., but that would be cheating. The Nazis didn't really get much successful resistance until they openly tried to conquer the world, and I can't fathom how much more they could have gotten away with if they had stuck to annexing Austria and Poland, and had "just" murdered and brainwashed in their "own" territory. There might never be a plaque at Tiananmen square. And last time I checked, Dick Cheney still wasn't in jail. And so on. Either fascism and murder aren't actually a thing intelligent people successfully combine against to keep in check, or they suck badly at doing so.
At any rate, that there was such a monstrosity to defeat in the first place is due to lack of resistance early on, and the major political groups cannibalizing themselves before the Nazis even started attacking and murdering them. And then many intelligent people made an about-turn, too. Hannah Arendt said in an interview that many intellectuals were good at "coming up with something". That is, they adapted and came up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations. You could say the intelligence of a person didn't determine their resistance to the Nazis, but the complexity of their justifications for not doing so. Just because there were (and are) exceptions doesn't mean it wasn't (or isn't) the rule. As the White Rose wrote in their second leaflet:
> The greater part of its former opponents went into hiding. The German intellectuals fled to their cellars, there, like plants struggling in the dark, away from light and sun, gradually to choke to death.
> 'Collectivism is triumphing because of too much individualism' is not a strongly coherent argument.
I wouldn't equate lack of tolerance and cooperation with "individualism". Russel didn't write people should be more alike or less individualistic, at least I don't read it that way.
> Also note that those of the intelligent alluded to here did in fact combine, with historically significant results
Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by this?