You may not have heard of German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment & execution, & his thoughts on the causes & dangers of stupidity are fascinating, & imho, once again extremely relevant.
Bonhoeffer grew up amid the academic circles of the University of Berlin, where his father, Karl Bonhoeffer, was a professor of psychiatry & neurology. His father also was one of the most prominent psychiatrists to oppose the T4 (euthanasia) Program initiated by Hitler in 1939.
From 1923 to 1927 Dietrich Bonhoeffer studied theology at the universities of Tübingen & Berlin. His doctoral thesis combined a sociology & theology & he later traced the influence of Kantian transcendental philosophy & ontology on Protestant & Catholic theologies.
With the rise of the Nazis from 1933, Bonhoeffer was involved in protests against the regime, especially its anti-Semitism. He served as pastor in London (1933–35), but became a leading spokesman for the Confessing Church, the centre of German Protestant resistance to the Nazis.
Bonhoeffer’s involvement became increasingly political after 1938, when his brother-in-law introduced him to a group seeking Hitler’s overthrow. In 1939 Bonhoeffer considered taking refuge in the US but returned after two weeks to “share the trials of this time with my people.”
Arrested & imprisoned, Bonhoeffer reflected on how his country of poets & thinkers had so quickly turned into a collective of corrupt lying cowards & criminals (sound familiar?), & he came up with a 'Theory of Stupidity'.
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 defenceless — reason & rationality fall on deaf ears. Stupidity is not related to educational attainment.
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of good than malice, because “one may protest against evil; it can be exposed & prevented by the use of force - against stupidity we are defenceless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here. Reasons fall on deaf ears.”
Facts that contradict a stupid person’s prejudgment simply need not be believed & when they are irrefutable, they're just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. The stupid person is self-satisfied &, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with stupid people than with a malicious one. Think of the power of conspiracy theories in recent years.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, he argued, we must seek to understand its nature.
This much is certain, Bonhoeffer claimed: stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one.
There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually, yet stupid, & others who are intellectually dull, yet anything but stupid.
The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them. People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups.
And so for Bonhoeffer, it seemed that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem: it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of a political or religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.
It's almost as if there is a sociological-psychological law where to thrive, a powerful individual needs the stupidity of the masses.
Of course, 'the masses' have been repeatedly dismissed as a stupid 'bewildered herd' for centuries, but Bonhoeffer's insight is different.
For Bonhoeffer, the process is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail, but instead, under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans 'are deprived of their inner independence' &, more or less consciously, give up an autonomous position.
More recent research into conformity shows how people have a tendency to adapt beliefs & behaviours in order to fit in to specific groups - even if those behaviours & beliefs are immoral or demonstrably incorrect. Leaders know & exploit this.
The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us from the fact that they are not independent. In conversation with them, one feels that one is dealing not at all with them as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, & the like that have taken possession of him.
Divided people are malleable.
Bonhoeffer says they are 'under a spell', 'blinded, misused, & is abused in his very being'. And having thus become 'a mindless tool', the stupid person will also be capable of any evil – incapable of seeing that it is evil.
“Against stupidity we have no defence. Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, & if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside"
"So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one."
Only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must accept 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.
Bonhoeffer helped Jews move to neutral Switzerland. While restrictions were imposed on him, he was still able to continue his work for the resistance movement under cover of employment in Germany’s Military Intelligence Department, which in fact was a centre of the resistance.
Bonhoeffer was arrested & imprisoned by the Nazis on April 5, 1943. Following the failure of the attempt on Hitler’s life in July 1944, the discovery of documents linking Bonhoeffer directly to the conspiracy led to his further interrogation & execution.
Stupidity facilitates the process of the capture of society. People are suckers for simple explanations for complex problems, which offer “solutions” & scapegoats. Whoever doesn’t conform to the standard orthodoxy becomes the “other”, an enemy to be destroyed.
Tell a story often enough & loudly enough on as many platforms as possible, & people will believe it.
“Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility. The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children”- Bonhoeffer.
Allow me to spell out some of the undeniably uncanny parallels between the recent rise of the @Conservatives in modern day Britain, & the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany:
Tommy Robinson claimed his protest drew “three million patriots”. The Met Police reported 110,000.
Prof Milad Haghani, an actual world-leading expert on estimating crowd sizes, estimates “about 56,000... However I run the numbers, it’s very difficult to make it to 100,000.”
Unlike shameless liar and multiply-convicted violent far-right coke-snorting thug Tommeh, Prof Haghani is a world-leading expert on estimating crowd sizes. He leads geospatial transport planning initiatives, and is an expert in crowd dynamics.
Tommeh is a world-leading grifter.
Compulsive shameless liar Tommy Robinson made the laughable claim that his 'Unite (Divide) The Kingdom' rally was “officially the biggest protest in British history.” 🤥
In reality, as only about 56,000 people attended, it struggled to scrape the top TWENTY. 😂
To spell out why, we need to unpack both the underlying implication of Andrew Doyle's argument and the reasons why it fails to adequately account for contemporary political dangers.
Andrew Doyle asserts that the term "fascism" is misused to the point of recklessness, echoing George Orwell’s 1944 observation that the word had been rendered meaningless. Doyle’s concern is not uncommon—but imho, it’s ultimately misplaced, especially in today’s context.
While it’s true that “fascism” is sometimes deployed rhetorically or hyperbolically (eg by Trump), Doyle’s framing dangerously downplays the genuine resurgence of fascist-adjacent movements across the Western world and undermines the analytical clarity necessary to confront them.
Boris Johnson appears to have had a secret meeting with billionaire Peter Thiel - perhaps the most fanatical of the libertarian Oligarchs and co-founder of the controversial US data firm Palantir, the year before it was given a role at the heart of the UK’s pandemic response.
The hour-long afternoon meeting on 28 August 2019 was marked “private” in a log of Johnson’s activities that day and was not subsequently disclosed on the government’s public log of meetings.
Elon Musk has been amplifying far-right accounts again, including Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe, and numerous anonynmous known #disinformation superspreader accounts like 'End Wokeness'.
Let's examine the context for yesterday's march in Richard Tice's constituency, #Skegness.
After decades of neglect, Skegness (pop 20K), stands out on key socio-economic markers on national averages: residents are older; whiter; lower full-time employment; higher rates of few/no qualifications; and concentrated deprivation - it's far-more deprived than most of England.
History repeatedly teaches us that burdening already struggling communities is a recipe for disaster.
These communities have been crying out for help for DECADES, but successive UK Govts have largely ignored their pleas, and continued to increase inequality, which harms us all.
🧵 @Rylan Asylum seekers coming here aren’t technically "illegal." International law (the 1951 Refugee Convention) allows people to seek asylum in any country regardless of how they arrive or how many countries they pass through, as long as they're fleeing persecution or danger.
Allow me to explain why asylum seekers aren’t “illegal”, and how misinformation and nasty demonising and scapegoating rhetoric by certain politicians and media, including news media, has made some British people less welcoming of asylum seeekers.
@Rylan
People fleeing war, torture, or persecution have the legal right to seek asylum.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK helped write, says anyone escaping danger can apply for asylum in another country no matter how they arrive: claiming asylum isn't a crime.
Farage's illiberal, immoral, & unworkable authoritarian plan involves ripping up human rights laws forged after WWII, which protect British people, & wasting £billions of UK taxpayers' money, giving some of it to corrupt misogynistic totalitarian regimes. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
Leaving the #ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying international conventions
The UK would be an outlier among European democracies, in the company of only Russia and Belarus, if it were to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Opting out of treaties such as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against torture and the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention would also be likely to do serious harm to the UK’s international reputation.
It could also undermine current return deals, including with France, and other cooperation agreements on people-smuggling with European nations such as Germany.
The Society of Labour Lawyers said the plan would “in all likelihood preclude further cooperation and law enforcement in dealing with small boats coming from the continent and so increase, rather than reduce, the numbers reaching our shores”.
Farage said he would legislate to remove the “Hardial Singh” safeguards – a reference to a legal precedent that sets limits on the Home Office’s immigration detention powers – to allow indefinite detention for immigration purposes. This would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.
Many of the rights protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are rooted in British case law, so judges would still be able to prevent deportations, even without international conventions.
Reform UK’s grotesque far-right mass deportation plan is not just economically and socially illiterate (Britain an ageing population and low birth rate) rely on striking “returns agreements” with countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, offering financial incentives to secure these deals, alongside visa restrictions and potential sanctions on countries that refuse.
These are countries where the Home Office’s risk reports warn of widespread torture and persecution.
It would risk the scenario of making payments to countries such as Iran, whose regime the UK government has accused of plotting terror attacks on British soil.
The Liberal Democrats called the payments “a Taliban tax”, saying the plan would entail sending billions “to an oppressive regime that British soldiers fought and died to defeat”. They said: “Not a penny of taxpayers’ money should go to a group so closely linked to terrorist organisations proscribed by the UK.”