Review of Bertrand Russell Marriage and Morals first published 1929.

In Russell's Autobiography, about thirty-five years later, Russell states that is no longer capable of being dogmatic about marriage; he didn't know what to think of it.

It has to be said this book is agonisingly dull, partly because of his modular chapter approach, which makes much similar material appear in many chapters. The book does at least have an index, and 21 chapters with explanatory names.

Russell's interpretational framework tries to be anthropological and long-term, but fails, or at least makes many assumptions which are insecure.
He assumes there was a process of discovery of paternity; this idea seems to have come from an anthropologist who was told by some group of people that they didn't know about fatherhood. It seems they were too polite to mention it. Russell thinks matrilineal societies must have preceded patrilineal societies, and that the discovery of fatherhood enabled a man to visualise himself as a patriarch, after death.
Rather amazingly, Russell states ... the discovery of fatherhood led to the subjection of women as the only means of securing their virtue—a subjection first physical and then mental, which reached its height in the Victorian age. The world is starting to learn (after the Jewish wars century's censorship) just how much of the world has been forced and enslaved.
Russell took Margaret Mead on Samoa seriously; the machinations of Jews of the Boas type were far over his head. This is odd, since Mead was so obviously improbable, not being able to speak the languages and getting information from giggly girls. Russell also took Freud and what was called Marxism seriously; he discusses 'economic causation', not in the sense of efficiency and care, but in the Jewish sense of Jews vs goyim, and Jew exploitation. Not surprisingly he expresses some unhappiness over Freudian and economic determinism. But he gives priority, always, to Jews, or so-called Jews.
The book Marriage and Morals does not mention Margaret Mead; her 'Coming of Age' book was also published in 1929 and Russell did not, then or later, identify Mead's fraudulence. Russell belonged to a naïve era; there's very little scepticism in his outlook. He quotes from Malinowski on paternity, and I think on 'sacred prostitution'. This latter could be an interesting topic, connected perhaps with Jewish money-making, but this sort of thing is far outside Russell's reach.
Russell gives the titles of three books by Malinowski on Trobriand Islanders—Sex and Repression in Savage Society, The Father in Primitive Psychology, and The Sexual Life of Savages in North-West Melanesia. And states among other things that 'Unmarried men and girls live a life of complete free love'. Much of this is clearly nonsense (and may be related to Christian nonsense: ‘men as God's children’ being incommunicable to the savages).
Perhaps Russell just liked to be controversial, or to appear to be well-read: after all, Britain supposedly had many years of experience with two empires, and might have been expected to have competent authors (of the Rivers type) on all aspects of empires and their people, compared with a Jew from Poland. Poor Rivers was killed in the 'Great War', leaving the ground clear for Jewish 'thinkers' like Malinowsi and Boas, and cryptos like Mead. Roughly speaking, a primitive tribe marked with beards and distinctive clothing who liked examining women's underclothes arranged a system in which coevals were awarded 'professorships' with lifelong parasitic income.
There were also British archaeologists, no doubt with views on the moon and sun. But Russell always prefers aliens.

There are many aspects of life which Russell omits. One of these is race; there's only about a page in his chapter on eugenics. Probably this is explained by Russell's wanting to present a continuity across all races, perhaps traceable to Biblical and Jewish ignorance. He has nothing useful to say. His chapter on eugenics is rather empty; his presents a science fiction form of genetics with a tiny proportion of men and 1 in 4 women and no families, but dismisses 'positive eugenics' on the ground that he thinks democracy is against it.
On eugenics, Russell unthinkingly takes the view, probably from the etymology of the word, that the aim would be to improve the race in some way. The Jewish attitude of harming all non-Jews is unknown to BR.
Russell misses out all the more repulsive-to-western-eyes possibilities of life: cannibalism, castration, kidnapping of young males for Janissaries or black armies, child slaves and lifelong slaves, targeted murders, Jewish-style killings by stealth, kidnapping of women, use of sterilisation (as recommended by Jews against Germans), pederasty, exploitative fatherings as Rothschilds are accused of on the off-chance one might be clever, mass rapes, forced mixed race miscegenation, sex with 3 year olds as permitted by Judaism. However, he does mention child murder, which he thinks was fairly common.

Russell discusses the Liberation of Women, but his views simply take Jewish nonsense as truth. Bax, a lawyer, had published books on the situation of women, but Russell of course as an isolated aristocrat had little interest in law or legal history. Jews have no objection to lies; the 'rule of thumb' myth about beating women is the sort of thing Russell might have believed in.

Russell was credulous about books and newspapers: he felt his role was to be an aesthete and intellectual, selecting from the offerings made by inferior class scribblers, presumably doing their rather pitiful best to explain their superiors. He simply had no idea that systematic propaganda may exist. This attitude remained with Russell all his life; his credulity about nuclear weapons helped Jews pump out nonsense for many decades. When Russell took his action against Americans in Vietnam, he was unable to understand the effects of such warmongers as the Sulzbergers and Kissinger and Murdoch.
Russell's credulity (referred to above—Germans, wars, 'Nazis', Jew murderers pretending to be socialist, nuclear bombs etc) explains his naive attitude to nominal beliefs. Obviously, Christianity was imposed by Jews; Russell has no idea that Paul probably wanted to harm non-Jews, and wanted them to have few or no children and not have happy lives with many children. Russell even pretends the Bible is clearly written: The views of St. Paul on marriage are set forth, with a clarity that leaves nothing to be desired, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. His (e.g.) 4th verse is 'The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.' Yes, of course! Saul makes no mention of children; so he's not that clear, is he?
Russell has a tiresome way of omitting sensible attitudes, if he feels he can ridicule them. For example, a community may not want to support bastards. Or a woman might want to be married for company and routine, rather than be on her own. Or marriage may need to have have one simple ceremony, rather than hosts of lawyers that a community can't support. Or censorship may be needed of such topics as the best way to rape, or techniques of murder. Or The Taboo on Sex Knowledge which raises complicated issues such as anal sex.

An interesting view of aristocracies in absent from Russell, oddly when you consider he had quite a few relative, including some with powerful positions, such as Lord Portal of the WW2 bombing campaign. The point I'm making, which I think is rarely explained clearly, is the effect of primogeniture on societies. A family may have dozens of fairly close relatives, but if only one is allowed to inherit, there are likely to be very many disappointed hangers-on. (There are variants such as 'gavelkind' with inheritance to the youngest son. And ultimogeniture. And separating inheritance among all children). The traditional view, which seems correct, is that non-inheritors went into the Church or tried their luck in white man's grave areas overseas.
I hardly need state that BR had no opinion on such things as the Kahal System of Jews, his limitations being part of the entire mental furniture of Victorians.

Russell is of course ludicrously naive about Jews. He says (p 139) Great religious leaders, with the exception of Mohammed—and Confucius, if he can be called religious—have in general been very indifferent to social and political considerations, and have sought rather to perfect the soul by meditation, discipline, and self-denial. This is nowhere near serious comment on so-called Jews and their effects.

RW 3 June 2018 | a bit more May 2024