Skip to content
Sign In Subscribe
Philosophy

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities

,   and  Eduardo Bergel
37 min read

Table of Contents

  1. This report Explore Examines
  2. Introduction
  3. 1. Case Studies of Absurdity and Atrocity
  4. 2. Mechanisms Used to Convincing the Masses
  5. 3. Preventative Measures and Remedies
  6. Conclusion
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,”

By François-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778), known by his nom de plume Voltaire

This report Explore Examines

(1) Historical case studies of Absurdity and Atrocity—spanning from ancient Greece through modern times—where absurd or unfounded beliefs enabled atrocities.
(2) Mechanisms by which leaders convince populations to embrace such beliefs and commit unimaginable atrocities.
(3) Potential measures to prevent societies from falling into these dangerous patterns.

Introduction

Voltaire’s famous assertion, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” suggests a powerful link between uncritical belief and moral catastrophe.

The Enlightenment philosopher observed that when people accept irrational or baseless ideas as truth, they become susceptible to justifying and perpetrating horrific deeds in the name of those beliefs.

History offers sobering confirmation: time and again, communities have been led to commit atrocities under the conviction that they were righteous or necessary.

1. Case Studies of Absurdity and Atrocity

History, particularly in Western civilization, is replete with episodes where entire societies were led to accept absurd justifications for cruel actions. In these cases, leaders or prevailing ideologies framed atrocities as morally justified or even virtuous. Below, we explore key examples—from classical antiquity to the 20th century and beyond—illustrating Voltaire’s warning in action.

1.1 Ancient Greece: Imperialism, Scapegoating, and Eugenics

Athenian Imperialism (Melos):

Classical Athens prided itself on democracy and philosophy, yet it committed brutal imperialist acts when swayed by power and fear. A stark example is the Siege of Melos (416 BC) during the Peloponnesian War. The neutral island of Melos refused to submit to Athenian demands, prompting Athens to besiege and conquer it. Upon Melos’s surrender, the Athenians executed all the men and sold the women and children into slavery (Siege of Melos - Wikipedia). To justify this atrocity, Athenian envoys in Thucydides’ account advanced an absurd moral reasoning: that in the real world “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (Siege of Melos - Wikipedia). Instead of appealing to any just cause, they argued that might makes right, essentially claiming that power itself confers moral license. This chilling rationale—a belief that Athens deserved to dominate weaker peoples by nature of its strength—helped ordinary Athenians view the massacre not as a crime but as a necessity of empire. Classical scholars note that such reasoning allowed the Athenians to “justify the atrocities after the fact” (Siege of Melos - Wikipedia). In essence, an absurd belief in their own supremacy and infallibility led a democratic society to commit what today might be labeled genocide (Siege of Melos - Wikipedia).

The Trial of Socrates:

Another Greek example is the execution of Socrates in 399 BC, which shows how public belief in false charges can destroy even a revered individual. Socrates was tried and condemned for “impiety” and “corrupting the young,” charges we now recognize as politically motivated and philosophically absurd (Socrates was guilty as charged | University of Cambridge) (Socrates was guilty as charged | University of Cambridge). Facing years of plague, war, and civic strife, many Athenians had grown fearful and looked for scapegoats. Socrates—the gadfly philosopher who questioned traditional norms—became a convenient target. At the time, devout Athenians genuinely believed that Socrates’ unorthodox ideas might anger the gods and thus threaten the city (Socrates was guilty as charged | University of Cambridge). As one historian notes, the charges against Socrates “seem ridiculous to us, but in Ancient Athens they were genuinely felt to serve the communal good” (Socrates was guilty as charged | University of Cambridge) (Socrates was guilty as charged | University of Cambridge). By spreading the absurd notion that Socrates’ questioning of the gods caused Athens’ misfortunes, leaders convinced the public that executing him was a moral duty to appease divine forces. Socrates thus became a scapegoat for social anxieties (Socrates was guilty as charged | University of Cambridge). This episode underscores Voltaire’s point: otherwise rational citizens were made to believe the absurd premise that a philosopher’s questions were an existential threat, and on that premise they committed judicial murder, an atrocity by the standards of justice and free thought.

Spartan Eugenics:

In Sparta, a militaristic Greek city-state, a longstanding cultural practice illustrates how collective belief in an absurd ideology can normalize atrocities. Spartans famously practiced state-sanctioned infanticide as a form of eugenics: newborn infants were inspected by elders, and any baby deemed weak or deformed was discarded, typically left to die of exposure. According to Plutarch, Spartan authorities believed that the life of an unhealthy infant was “of no advantage either to itself or the state,” so they would cast the baby into a chasm at Mount Taygetus (Spartan Education: Part II) (Spartan Education: Part II). This practice was a systematic effort to “improve” Sparta’s genetic stock and maintain a robust warrior population. While infanticide was not unknown in the ancient world, “it was seldom if ever undertaken in such a systematic way and for eugenic reasons” outside of Sparta (Spartan Education: Part II). The absurd belief here was that an infant’s worth was solely in its physical potential to serve the state—an extreme utilitarian view that erased moral qualms about killing children. Because Spartan society broadly accepted this ideology (reinforced by legend and lawgiver Lycurgus’s education system), what we consider an atrocity today was seen by Spartans as a necessary, even virtuous, act to secure their society’s strength (Spartan Education: Part II). This is an early example of how dehumanization and rigid ideology—treating certain babies as non-persons for the “greater good”—allowed a community to commit atrocities under the guise of moral duty.

1.2 The Roman Empire: Conquest and Persecution as Virtue

The Roman Empire provides multiple examples of leaders persuading people to accept conquest, slaughter, and persecution as justified or noble. Romans were skilled at constructing ideologies of superiority and destiny to excuse their expansion and brutality.

Justifying Imperial Conquest:

The Romans conquered a vast territory around the Mediterranean, often inflicting mass violence (including enslavement and massacres of conquered peoples). To rationalize these aggressive wars, Roman leaders and writers propagated the belief that Rome was bringing “peace, civilization and prosperity” to the barbarians it subjugated (Did Rome attempt to justify its conquests? - History Stack Exchange). Cicero and other Roman authors argued that conquering others was ultimately benevolent: it spread the blessings of Roman law and order. Even some subject peoples’ historians, like the Greek Polybius, echoed that Rome’s domination ended incessant wars between local tribes (Did Rome attempt to justify its conquests? - History Stack Exchange). This narrative—that Roman rule was a civilizing mission—made brutal conquests appear morally acceptable or even altruistic. For instance, when Carthage was destroyed in 146 BC at the end of the Punic Wars, resulting in the slaughter or enslavement of its population, Romans framed it as eliminating a “threat” and bringing lasting peace to North Africa. The complete razing of Carthage was an atrocity on a massive scale, yet many Romans believed it justified by Carthage’s prior wars and by Rome’s manifest destiny to rule. In truth, as some contemporaries and modern scholars note, Roman conquest often led to the complete destruction of the conquered society, far outweighing any benefits (Did Rome attempt to justify its conquests? - History Stack Exchange). Still, the average Roman citizen, imbued with patriotism and tales of Rome’s grandeur, viewed these actions with pride rather than horror—evidence of how an absurd self-justification can blind people to atrocity.

Scapegoating and Persecution of Minorities:

The Roman Empire also saw episodes of internal persecution fueled by public belief in absurdities. One notorious case is Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. When a catastrophic fire devastated much of the city, rumors swirled that Nero himself had started it. To deflect blame, Nero “fastened the guilt” onto the small Christian sect, exploiting existing suspicions about this new religious minority (Tacitus on the Christians - Livius). Romans at the time held absurd beliefs about Christians—circulating wild accusations that Christians engaged in cannibalism (a distortion of the Eucharist), incest, and atheism (because they refused to worship Roman gods). Tapping into these prejudices, Nero accused Christians of “hatred against mankind” and unleashed hideous punishments: Christians were torn apart by dogs, crucified, or even burned alive to illuminate Nero’s gardens at night (Tacitus on the Christians - Livius). Many ordinary Romans initially accepted these horrors because they truly believed Christians were a dangerous, subversive cult guilty of heinous “abominations” (Tacitus on the Christians - Livius). Tacitus, a Roman historian, notes with disgust that a vast multitude of Christians were executed “not so much for the crime of fire, as for hatred against mankind,” and that grotesque spectacles were made of their deaths (Tacitus on the Christians - Livius). Here, an absurd scapegoating narrative (blaming a fringe religious group for Rome’s misfortunes) enabled an atrocity: mass torture and killing that, for a time, had popular support. Only later did pity arise among some Romans who realized the victims were largely innocent, showing the initial power of Nero’s manipulative propaganda (Tacitus on the Christians - Livius).

1.3 The Inquisition: Faith Turned to Fanaticism

In medieval and early-modern Europe, religious absurdities were often used to justify persecution and cruelty, particularly under the various Inquisitions of the Catholic Church. The Church taught that heresy (beliefs contrary to orthodox doctrine) was not just a religious mistake but a poisonous threat to society and souls—an absurd overestimation of the harm of mere ideas. This belief enabled a long campaign of torture and execution in God’s name.

Persecution of Heresy:

Starting in the 12th century, the Church established formal inquisitorial courts to root out heresy in Europe. The rationale was that false beliefs endangered not only the heretic’s soul but the entire community by inviting God’s wrath or undermining social unity. In 1199, Pope Innocent III even declared heresy a crime “equal to treason” against God, requiring severe punishment (Inquisition - Wikipedia). By equating religious dissent with treason, the Church framed the suppression of heretics as an urgent public necessity. Inquisitors operated with this conviction, often handing the convicted over to secular authorities for execution by burning. According to the official logic, the trials were meant to save the heretic’s soul by eliciting repentance, but in reality the penalties were designed to terrorize others into obedience. A 1578 Inquisition manual makes this clear: it states that punishment is “for the public good in order that others may become terrified and…avocentur [be turned away] from evil” (Inquisition - Wikipedia). In other words, the atrocity of public torture or burning was justified as a necessary example to protect the faith. This represents classic moral disengagement: violence was reframed as pious medicine for society’s ills. Inquisitors and the public were led to believe the absurdity that saving souls sometimes required cruelty. Thus, otherwise compassionate Christians participated in or applauded brutal acts—from the torture chamber to the stake—believing they were doing God’s work. Both the Spanish Inquisition and earlier medieval inquisitions imprisoned tens of thousands and executed thousands over the centuries for offenses like blasphemy, witchcraft, or simply criticizing Church teachings (Inquisition - Wikipedia) (Inquisition - Wikipedia). These persecutions were made possible by a culture that sincerely accepted the absurd premise that divergent beliefs posed an existential threat to truth and salvation, a threat so great that any means were justified to eradicate it.

Witch Hunts:

A related phenomenon is the early-modern witch hunts in Europe and America (15th–17th centuries), where thousands (mostly women) were executed based on the false belief that they were in league with the Devil. The Malleus Maleficarum (1487), a notorious witch-hunter’s manual, argued that witches were an omnipresent danger. Communities were swept by an absurd mass paranoia that invisible Satanic conspiracies were causing crop failures, plagues, and misfortune. Under this spell of fear, even educated judges accepted confessions obtained by torture and condemned neighbors to horrible deaths by fire or hanging. The witch hunts demonstrate how credence in a complete fantasy (devil-worshiping sorcerers) can lead to very real atrocities. Though not explicitly mentioned by Voltaire, they are very much in line with his quote: people were made to believe an absurdity, and thus committed appalling atrocities thinking they were purging evil.

1.4 European Colonialism: “Civilizing” Oppression

During the 15th through 20th centuries, European powers conquered and ruled much of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Colonial expansion was frequently accompanied by enslavement, genocide, cultural destruction, and economic exploitation of indigenous peoples. Yet colonizers did not typically acknowledge these acts as crimes; instead, they cultivated absurd but convenient beliefs to justify oppression as righteous.

The “White Man’s Burden” and Civilizing Mission:

One pervasive colonial narrative was that Europeans were bringing “civilization” and Christianity to supposedly “savage” or “backward” peoples. This was encapsulated in the phrase “the White Man’s burden,” popularized by Rudyard Kipling, implying it was the duty of Westerners to uplift other races. British, French, and other colonial apologists argued that imperialism spread progress—much as Romans had once claimed. Indeed, the British Empire explicitly invoked a moral mission: they claimed to end barbaric practices (such as sati in India or the slave trade in Africa), introduce modern education and law, and spread Christianity. This rhetoric masked the self-interest and violence of colonial rule. An observer noted that the same argument was used by British empire builders as by ancient Romans: that conquest brought peace and benefit to the conquered (Did Rome attempt to justify its conquests? - History Stack Exchange) (Did Rome attempt to justify its conquests? - History Stack Exchange). In truth, while colonizers did bring certain changes, they also committed atrocities on a grand scale, from the decimation of Native American populations in the Americas to the brutal forced labor regime in King Leopold II’s Congo Free State. Leopold II of Belgium provides a stark example: he privately controlled the Congo in the late 1800s and extracted rubber and ivory at the cost of millions of Congolese lives through murder, starvation, and forced labor. Yet Leopold propagandized his role as one of philanthropy and uplift. He set up the Congo Free State under the guise of an “international benevolent association” and declared his goals were “to suppress the slave trade…, to modernize the peoples of the Congo, to bring morality…to the natives” (Congo Free State propaganda war - Wikipedia). In 1884 he proclaimed that opening up central Africa was a “crusade…in the name of progress” and insisted he had no selfish motives (Congo Free State propaganda war - Wikipedia). This was grotesquely absurd: while Leopold spoke of morality and progress, his agents were cutting off people’s hands for not meeting rubber quotas. Nonetheless, many in Europe believed or tolerated these justifications initially. It took years of advocacy and evidence (by figures like E.D. Morel and Roger Casement) to pierce the illusion and reveal the atrocities in the Congo (Congo Free State propaganda war - Wikipedia) (Congo Free State propaganda war - Wikipedia). Colonial ideology thus made the European public complicit by painting a veneer of righteousness over exploitation. Whether in the Spanish Requerimiento (which told New World natives they would be warred upon if they didn’t submit to Christianity) or the doctrine of Manifest Destiny in the United States (which held that American expansion across indigenous lands was preordained and beneficial), absurd beliefs in racial, cultural, or religious superiority allowed colonial societies to view oppression as just. The result was the enslavement, displacement, or deaths of countless indigenous people—atrocities executed with the moral self-assurance Voltaire warned against.

1.5 Nazi Germany: Ideology and the Holocaust

Nazi Germany (1933–1945) stands as one of the clearest illustrations of Voltaire’s quote. Adolf Hitler’s regime engineered perhaps the most infamous atrocity in history—the Holocaust—by first inundating a society with absurd, hate-filled beliefs presented as truth and moral imperative.

Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories:

The Nazis rose to power exploiting a wellspring of antisemitism and adding their own elaborate absurdities. They propagated the myth of an international Jewish conspiracy: claiming that Jews were responsible for Germany’s defeat in World War I, for communism, for capitalist exploitation—an all-purpose scapegoat. Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels repeated lies that **“the Jew” was simultaneously a subhuman corrupter and a secret mastermind controlling world events. These paranoid falsehoods were published in school textbooks, newspapers (like Der Stürmer), and even children’s books. Over years, the German public (and many in occupied Europe) were conditioned to view Jews not as fellow humans, but as malignant, almost demonic figures. Nazi propaganda relentlessly dehumanized Jews by comparing them to disease and vermin: “rats, lice, cockroaches” that infested society (How Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to facilitate the Holocaust | Society | EL PAÍS English). This language was not incidental—it was a calculated psychological tactic to remove moral hesitation. By 1939, a significant portion of the German population truly believed these absurd calumnies about Jewish people.

From Belief to Genocide:

With these beliefs in place, the Nazis were able to initiate the Holocaust (1941–1945), the systematic genocide of Europe’s Jews (as well as the mass murder of Roma, disabled people, Slavs, and others). Soldiers, police, and ordinary citizens became willing participants or complicit bystanders in genocide because they had been made to believe it was necessary. The Nazi regime portrayed the extermination of Jews as a defensive and heroic act—“self-defense” of Germany against a lurking enemy within, and a purification of the Aryan race. Absurd racial science was invoked to give pseudoscientific legitimacy to mass murder. Crucially, the regime had by then overcome the moral barriers that usually prevent humans from killing innocents (How Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to facilitate the Holocaust | Society | EL PAÍS English) (How Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to facilitate the Holocaust | Society | EL PAÍS English). As one analysis notes, years of dehumanizing propaganda depicted Jews as evil creatures “incapable of human feeling” and as a deadly threat, which served to “justify atrocity” and make ordinary Germans feel that extermination was morally acceptable (How Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to facilitate the Holocaust | Society | EL PAÍS English). The result was that many otherwise normal men and women carried out shootings, gassings, and round-ups. They had absorbed the absurd belief that their victims were not fully human or were irredeemably malevolent. For example, during the Einsatzgruppen massacres (mobile killing units in Eastern Europe), Nazi officers often reminded their troops of the grand anti-Jewish conspiracies and the need to preempt “Jewish Bolshevism.” Similarly, at Auschwitz and other death camps, staff could perform their lethal duties in part because they saw their prisoners as a danger to be eliminated, not as families or individuals. By war’s end, around six million Jews had been murdered, a crime facilitated at every step by false beliefs—a grotesque validation of Voltaire’s maxim. Nazi Germany demonstrates how an entire state mobilized absurd ideology (racial purity, antisemitic conspiracy, Führer-worship) to enable atrocity (genocide and total war) on an unprecedented scale.

1.6 The Rwandan Genocide: Propaganda and Fear

In 1994, the East African nation of Rwanda experienced a brutal genocide that killed an estimated 800,000 Tutsi (and moderate Hutu) in about 100 days. While rooted in historical ethnic tensions, the genocide was precipitated and driven by an extremist Hutu propaganda campaign that made the population believe outrageous falsehoods, echoing Voltaire’s warning in a modern context.

Dehumanization and Hate Propaganda:

Years before 1994, hardline Hutu political leaders and media began demonizing the Tutsi minority with slurs and conspiracy theories. The Hutu regime’s mouthpieces portrayed Tutsi not as fellow Rwandans but as inyenzi (cockroaches) and snakes—vermin to be exterminated. The hate radio station RTLM (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) was especially influential. It broadcast inflammatory messages that explicitly called Tutsi “cockroaches” and urged listeners to “kill” them (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines - Wikipedia). Such language was designed to annihilate empathy: if Tutsi were vermin, killing them seemed more like pest control than murder. Simultaneously, propaganda “created events” and lies to stoke fear (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)). One key propaganda tactic used was “Accusation in a mirror,” where Hutu leaders accused Tutsi of plotting exactly the sort of violence the Hutu themselves were planning (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)). For example, they spread false rumors that the Tutsi rebels and their civilian sympathizers had a secret plan to massacre Hutus, or to re-enslave them, restoring a historical monarchy. By imputing genocidal intentions to the Tutsi, the propagandists convinced ordinary Hutus that they were at risk and that striking first was an act of self-defense (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)). These absurd conspiracy theories found fertile ground in a population scarred by civil war and manipulated by fearmongers.

Genocide as “Self-Defense”:

Once the plane of the Hutu President was shot down in April 1994 (an event immediately blamed on the Tutsi), the pre-planned killing spree was launched. Many Hutu civilians joined in the massacres of their Tutsi neighbors. They had been primed to believe that eliminating the Tutsi was not only justified but urgent to protect their own families and nation. One propagandist’s directive captures the horrific absurdity in action: “You [Tutsis] are cockroaches! We will kill you!” (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines - Wikipedia). Machete-wielding mobs, militias, and even local officials turned on men, women, and children with astonishing ferocity. The propaganda had normalized the absurd idea that an entire ethnic group was an enemy within, collectively guilty and not truly human. Hutu participants often claimed they feared the Tutsi would enslave or kill them if they didn’t act first—showing how deeply they believed the invented narrative (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)). In reality, it was the Hutu extremists who orchestrated the carnage. The Rwandan genocide underscores that even in the late 20th century—with international law and human rights ideals well known—mass atrocities can erupt if a critical mass of the population is persuaded to accept blatant falsehoods and hateful myths. In a matter of weeks, centuries-old communal bonds were shattered by violence, all because those committing the acts were convinced of an absurd falsity: that their neighbors were dangerous “cockroaches” and that killing them was a tragic necessity.

1.7 Other Notable Examples:

While the above cases are among the most prominent, Voltaire’s dictum has echoed in many other historical moments, globally. To mention a few: Stalin’s Soviet Union in the 1930s, where paranoid delusions of “enemies of the people” led to purges and gulags; Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1969), where absurd ideological zeal (e.g. the belief that bourgeois elements lurked everywhere) drove youthful Red Guards to persecute millions; the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, where nationalist propaganda incited ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo; and the propaganda of extremist groups like ISIS, which convinced followers that even suicidal atrocities were holy acts. In each instance, leaders inculcated a belief in some grand falsehood or extreme ideology—be it class struggle, racial destiny, or religious apocalypse—and that belief unleashed terrible cruelty. The pattern is consistent with Voltaire’s insight: no atrocity, from genocide to terrorism, comes out of a vacuum—it is fueled by toxic ideas that take hold of the human mind.

2. Mechanisms Used to Convincing the Masses

Having examined historical cases, we turn to how leaders and movements are able to implant absurd beliefs and spur ordinary people to commit or support atrocities. The process typically involves sophisticated psychological manipulation and rhetorical strategies. Key mechanisms include propaganda and mass communication, exploitation of obedience and conformity, the construction of binding ideological worldviews (often enabling moral disengagement), the stoking of fear with scapegoats, and appeals to religious or nationalistic fervor. Modern social psychology and historical analysis together shed light on these factors:

2.1 Propaganda and Mass Communication

Propaganda is perhaps the most direct tool for making people believe absurdities on a large scale. It involves the deliberate, systematic dissemination of often false, biased, or emotionally charged information to shape public perceptions and behavior. Totalitarian regimes like the Nazis and the Rwandan Hutu government were masters of propaganda, but even democratic governments and movements have used propaganda techniques in wartime or political campaigns.

Effective propaganda employs mass communication channels — newspapers, radio, posters, television, and now social media — to repeat simple messages and slogans until they become familiar truths in the public mind. Often, these messages appeal to emotion over reason: they might invoke fear, pride, anger, or hatred rather than factual analysis. For example, Nazi propagandists flooded Germany with lurid films and posters “demonizing the enemies” of the Reich (Jews, Bolsheviks, etc.), and the Rwandan RTLM broadcasts bombarded listeners with hate and conspiracy every day. Over time, such saturation normalizes extreme ideas. Propaganda also frequently simplifies complex problems into a clear narrative of good vs. evil, so that people can channel their frustrations at a scapegoat or rally behind a utopian solution.

One insidious propaganda tactic is the “Big Lie” concept (often attributed to Hitler’s own philosophy): the idea that if you tell a colossal falsehood and repeat it, people will assume no one could have the audacity to lie about something so grand, and thus it must be true. This worked, for instance, with the Nazi lie that Jews were responsible for both capitalism and communism — an absurd contradiction, yet many believed it because it was so emphatically asserted. In Rwanda, the “big lie” was that the Tutsi minority had a secret plan to annihilate the Hutu majority; constant repetition of this lie via radio made it real in the public imagination (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)).

Propaganda also thrives on media control and censorship. Authoritarian leaders often suppress opposing viewpoints and flood the public sphere with their messaging, creating an information bubble. Within that bubble, absurd ideas face little challenge. Nazi Germany silenced independent press and made Der Stürmer and state media ubiquitous. In the Internet age, we see attempts to use algorithms or information silos to similar effect, where disinformation spreads unchecked within closed communities.

Crucially, propaganda can lay the psychological groundwork for atrocity by dehumanizing the target (as discussed) and by creating a sense of urgency and inevitability. When people constantly hear that “we must act now or be destroyed by X,” they become primed to accept drastic measures. Thus, propaganda is a force multiplier on other mechanisms: it leverages fear, repetition, and authority to forge public belief. As Voltaire recognized, once the belief is in place, getting action (even horrific action) is far easier.

2.2 The Psychology of Obedience and Conformity

Human psychology contains some well-documented tendencies that make individuals likely to follow group norms or obey authority figures, even when it conflicts with personal conscience. Leaders who wish to convince people to commit atrocities exploit these tendencies, whether consciously or intuitively.

Obedience to Authority:

The classic Milgram experiment (Yale University, 1961) showed that ordinary people would administer what they thought were dangerous electric shocks to an innocent person simply because an authority figure (the researcher) calmly instructed them to do so. In the original study, a shocking 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock, despite the apparent screams of the victim (Milgram Experiment: Overview, History, & Controversy). Milgram concluded that under the right conditions, people obey orders even against their moral qualms, deferring responsibility to the authority (Milgram Experiment: Overview, History, & Controversy) (Milgram Experiment: Overview, History, & Controversy). Authoritarian regimes cultivate this effect by establishing a strong chain of command and an ideology of obedience (e.g. Nazi slogans like “Führer command, we obey” or military training that drills following orders without question). When superiors frame an atrocity as an order or duty (“round up those people,” “fire on that crowd”), many subordinates comply, especially if non-compliance is punished. Each person feels less personally accountable (“I was just following orders” is a common refrain) — a dynamic psychologists call displacement of responsibility (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia). In genocides and war crimes, obedience can thus turn large numbers of normal law-abiding citizens (soldiers, police, civil servants) into tools of atrocity. They may believe the absurd justifications given, or they may simply choose to trust their leaders’ judgment over their own. Either way, the internal moral brake is released.

Conformity and Peer Pressure:

Humans are social creatures strongly influenced by peer behavior and social norms. Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments in the 1950s famously demonstrated that individuals would agree with a group’s obviously incorrect judgment (like matching the wrong line lengths) rather than contradict the majority. In situations of societal stress or fervor, this tendency amplifies. If “everyone else” seems to believe an absurd idea, any given person is more likely to accept it or at least not speak out. Moreover, if those around them start acting on those beliefs — say, neighbors joining a mob or fellow soldiers participating in a massacre — the pressure to conform can override moral hesitation. The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) showed how quickly people adopt group-assigned roles: volunteers acting as “guards” in a mock prison became abusive, and “prisoners” became passive, both conforming to expectations of their roles in a matter of days. The experiment underscored that situational pressures and roles can prompt individuals to behave in ways they’d never predict in isolation. Both Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies concluded that participants readily conform to social pressures and role expectations, even against their own values (Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia). In real-world atrocities, leaders create environments where cruelty is normalized and even rewarded. For example, in Nazi death squads, new recruits often felt pressure to keep up with veteran killers to avoid seeming weak. Similarly, in revolutionary or genocidal situations, those who hesitate may be ostracized or punished, whereas those who conform to the violence are praised as loyal patriots or true believers. This group dynamic pushes atrocities forward as individuals strive to fit in and obey amidst a climate of extremist consensus.

2.3 Ideology and Moral Disengagement

Another mechanism is the development of a cohesive ideology that redefines morality in terms of a grand goal, allowing people to commit reprehensible acts while viewing them as righteous. Ideologies provide a framework that labels one group as entirely “good” (the in-group) and another as “bad” or less human (the out-group), and they often include a utopian vision that justifies extreme means.

All-encompassing Ideology:

In Nazi Germany, the ideology was a combination of Aryan racial theory and Führer-worshipping nationalism. In Stalin’s USSR, it was Marxist-Leninist class struggle taken to a dogmatic extreme (“eliminate the kulaks as a class”). In the Spanish Inquisition, it was militant Catholic orthodoxy. What these ideologies share is a totalizing narrative that claims absolute truth and moral certainty. Believers come to see serving the ideology as a higher law that transcends ordinary ethics. For instance, a Nazi might think, “Normally killing is wrong, but eliminating Jews will purify the world and fulfill our racial destiny.” Likewise, a zealous inquisitor might think, “Torture is unfortunate, but it’s justified if it saves souls from eternal damnation.” The ideology provides a moral justification that reframes evil acts as good (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia). Albert Bandura, a psychologist, described this process as moral disengagement: people disable their self-condemning mechanisms by persuading themselves that their harmful actions serve a higher moral purpose (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia). Leaders play a key role in constructing these justifications and disseminating them through propaganda, education, and ritual.

Moral Disengagement Strategies:

Bandura identified several cognitive strategies that facilitate atrocities by reframing or distorting morality (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia). These include:

  • Moral justification: Portraying harmful actions as serving a noble cause. (e.g. “We are killing for freedom/God/security.”) Nazi and communist propaganda constantly invoked grand ideals to morally justify violence (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia).
  • Euphemistic labeling: Using sanitized language to describe atrocities, making them seem routine or benign. For instance, Nazis spoke of the “Final Solution” or “special treatment” for extermination, and the CIA might talk of “enhanced interrogation” instead of torture. Such euphemisms blunt emotional reaction.
  • Advantageous comparison: Comparing one’s atrocities to something worse to excuse them (e.g. “Yes, we intern civilians, but at least we don’t massacre them like that other group did.”).
  • Displacement of responsibility: As noted, blaming authority (“just following orders”) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia).
  • Diffusion of responsibility: When many are involved, each individual feels less personally culpable (“it’s a collective decision”). Modern bureaucratic genocides like the Holocaust were highly compartmentalized—clerks, train conductors, guards each did a task, so each could feel minimally responsible for the end result.
  • Distortion of consequences: Minimizing or denying the harm done. Perpetrators often convince themselves the victims didn’t suffer much or that casualties were exaggerated (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia).
  • Dehumanization: Denying the victim’s humanity or dignity, as we saw with terms like “cockroaches” or medical analogies like calling genocide “ethnic cleansing” (implying a cleaning operation). This is perhaps the most potent, because seeing victims as subhuman removes empathy entirely (How Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to facilitate the Holocaust | Society | EL PAÍS English) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia).
  • Attribution of blame: Claiming the victims brought it on themselves (“it’s their own fault for resisting/usurping/etc.”). For example, during the Holocaust, Nazis often claimed Jews were being punished for purported treachery or economic crimes; during lynchings in America, white mobs justified violence by falsely accusing black victims of crimes.

Together, these mechanisms create a psychological buffer that allows individuals to commit atrocities while maintaining a self-image as good or justified. Ideological training—from youth groups like the Hitler Youth to political education sessions in Mao’s China—reinforces these mental tricks. By the time atrocities begin, many perpetrators have fully internalized the ideology, so that not only do they obey orders, they believe in what they are doing. This was evident in the extraordinary zeal of some SS officers or revolutionary guards who went beyond orders in cruelty, because they had come to see their victims as absolute evil. In sum, strong ideologies can hijack moral reasoning, replacing it with a rigid cause that permits no doubt. Under its influence, absurd beliefs (like racial purity or class war necessitating mass murder) take on a sacred aura, and atrocities become sanctified as acts of virtue in the minds of the perpetrators (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia) (Moral disengagement - Wikipedia).

2.4 The Role of Fear and Scapegoating

Fear is a primal emotion that can override rationality and empathy. Leaders who seek to instill absurd beliefs often deliberately create or exaggerate threats to put the populace in a state of fear, then offer an atrocity as the “solution” to eliminate that fear. This typically involves scapegoating a minority or an external enemy for all problems.

Scapegoating Dynamics:

A scapegoat is a person or group blamed for misfortunes they did not cause, used as an outlet for anger and anxiety. History shows a pattern: during times of crisis (plague, economic collapse, military defeat), societies are more vulnerable to demagogues pointing the finger at some “Other” — be it witches, Jews, immigrants, or political subversives. Those demagogues feed the population’s fear and then channel it into hatred against the chosen target. The target is accused of absurd things (spreading disease, betraying the nation, corrupting society from within), as we have seen in various case studies. This fear-mongering was explicit in Rwanda: Hutu radio broadcasts warned that if the Tutsi were not stopped, they would enslave or kill all Hutus (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)). Similarly, Nazi propaganda films like Der Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) depicted Jews as lurking dangers, rapacious and conspiratorial, to instill a constant sense of threat in German viewers. By making the public afraid for their very survival or way of life, leaders can then justify extreme “defensive” actions. It becomes a small leap, psychologically, from “we must defend ourselves from these dangerous people” to “we must eliminate these people before they eliminate us.”

Manufacturing Crisis:

Often the fear is stoked by manufacturing incidents or conspiracy theories (recall the “accusation in a mirror” tactic: accuse the other side of exactly what you intend to do (Propaganda and Practice (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999))). For instance, the Nazis faked or exaggerated incidents (like the Reichstag Fire in 1933, blamed on communists) to justify crackdowns. In Stalin’s regime, supposed plots by Trotskyists or foreign spies were constantly unveiled to justify purges. When people live under a constant narrative of siege — the idea that “Enemies are everywhere and disaster is imminent!” — they may accept otherwise absurd and heinous measures as desperate but necessary. Fear can shut down critical thinking; in a panic, people may rally around a strongman or a simple solution that promises safety. Demagogic rhetoric often includes vivid us vs. them language and horrifying allegations about what “they” will do if not stopped. In the witch hunts, for example, preachers warned that witches would destroy crops and bring God’s wrath — instilling terror of an unseen enemy. Fear-based belief is highly emotional and resistant to fact-checking, since frightened people may reject evidence that undermines the narrative (they might suspect the evidence itself is a trick by the enemy).

Obedience through Fear:

Beyond creating belief, fear is used to enforce obedience and silence dissent. In regimes pushing absurd ideologies, those who question or refuse can be branded as traitors or heretics aligned with the feared enemy. This threat coerces people into outward conformity even if inwardly they have doubts. Over time, the difference between genuine belief and fearful compliance can blur, as outspoken skeptics are eliminated and only believers or the silent remain. Thus fear, as a tool, not only generates initial buy-in through scapegoating but also maintains the belief system by punishing deviation.

In summary, by scaring people and giving them a scapegoat, leaders tap into a deep survival instinct. A populace that feels endangered may suspend its usual moral and logical judgment, accepting even monstrous actions (atrocities) if convinced those actions will remove the source of danger. Voltaire’s insight recognizes this: make people believe an absurd threat (often by scapegoating innocents), and they will feel justified committing an absurdly evil response.

2.5 Religious and Nationalistic Rhetoric

Appeals to religion and nationalism can be especially persuasive because they touch on identities and values that many hold sacred. Throughout history, demagogues have cloaked absurd and hateful ideas in the language of divine will or patriotic duty, giving atrocities a transcendent justification.

Religious Rhetoric:

When leaders claim a mandate from God or interpret events in a religious framework, they tap into believers’ deepest convictions. Religion can inspire great good, but in the wrong hands it’s a potent way to sanctify absurdities. During the Crusades and Inquisitions, the Church taught that violence against infidels or heretics was not only permissible but holy. Phrases like “Deus vult” (“God wills it”) in the Crusades literally told knights that God wanted them to wage bloody war in the Holy Land. Similarly, Islamist extremists today recruit suicide bombers by promising divine rewards and framing terror as jihad (holy struggle). The key mechanism is transferring moral authority to a divine source: if an atrocity is presented as commanded or approved by God, believers may suppress their own moral doubts out of piety. They accept the absurdity that an all-merciful deity desires cruelty, because charismatic preachers or texts persuade them the target is an enemy of the faith. Additionally, religious rhetoric often involves demonization of the other side (literally, in witch hunts and satanic panics, or figuratively calling one’s enemies agents of evil). This makes it easier to kill or torture them. The Thirty Years’ War in Europe, for instance, saw Catholic and Protestant armies commit atrocities while each side’s clergy portrayed the other as ungodly. Religious fervor can override secular reasoning; it creates a mindset where following the perceived will of God is paramount, regardless of worldly ethics.

Nationalistic Rhetoric:

Nationalism, like religion, provides a larger-than-self cause. Ultra-nationalist leaders persuade people that their nation or race is superior, uniquely virtuous, or existentially threatened by others. Nazi ideology is one extreme case of this, as is Hutu Power propaganda in Rwanda. But even less extreme nationalism can enable atrocities: people might condone war crimes if told they are for the glory or defense of the fatherland. Nationalistic rhetoric frequently uses glorification and duty – e.g., “sacrifice for the nation,” “rid the nation of traitors,” “achieve our manifest destiny.” It often harkens to a mythic past or utopian future that justifies present violence (Hitler evoked an ancient pure Aryan past; Serbian ultranationalists evoked the Battle of Kosovo of 1389 to justify 1990s ethnic cleansing). By appealing to pride and belonging, nationalism can make loyalty trump empathy. If an out-group is labeled as a foreign or traitorous element, harming them becomes a show of patriotism. During World War II, Japanese imperial propaganda encouraged soldiers to treat Chinese and other Asian peoples brutally by instilling a chauvinistic pride and contempt for others as inferior. In the American context, manifest destiny and later the “war on terror” rhetoric sometimes lapsed into portraying enemies in quasi-racial or civilizational terms, resulting in abuses (e.g., mistreatment of Native Americans under manifest destiny, or excesses against Iraqi civilians under dehumanizing labels).

Righteous Language:

Both religious and nationalistic propaganda share a self-righteous tone. They frame conflicts as absolute good vs. absolute evil, leaving no room for compromise or mercy. Phrases like “axis of evil” or “crusade” (used even in modern politics) cast opponents not just as adversaries, but as embodiments of evil. This moral absolutism creates zealots. A person who believes they fight for God’s kingdom or their people’s survival may come to see atrocities as lamentable but necessary crusades against evil. For example, members of ISIS were taught that beheading “infidels” on camera was a holy act to terrorize unbelievers and please God—a shocking absurdity believed by thousands due to intensive indoctrination.

In summary, rhetoric invoking God or Country gives atrocities a higher sanction. It taps into loyalty and love (for God, nation) and perverts them into hatred for the out-group. Under such rhetoric, even educated or “civilized” people can commit barbarism convinced it is sacred duty. Voltaire, as a critic of religious dogma, was keenly aware of this danger: much of his quote’s spirit warns against the unreason that comes from fanatical piety or blind patriotism. When those fervors are manipulated, no atrocity is off the table.

3. Preventative Measures and Remedies

If believing absurdities leads to committing atrocities, then preventing atrocities in the future requires inoculating societies against absurd and dangerous beliefs. This is a complex challenge, but scholars, educators, and policymakers have proposed and implemented various strategies. These range from fostering critical thinking in citizens, to building institutional checks on power, to promoting cultural narratives of tolerance and shared humanity. Below, we outline key preventative measures and remedies:

  • Education and Critical Thinking: Perhaps the most fundamental long-term safeguard is education that promotes critical thinking, historical awareness, and ethical reasoning. When citizens are taught from an early age how to think, not what to think, they are better equipped to question false claims and resist manipulative rhetoric. This includes education in logic, the scientific method, and basic psychological biases (so people recognize, for example, scapegoating and groupthink dynamics). Holocaust education and genocide studies are now common in many curricula precisely to illustrate how ordinary people can be led to atrocities, and to instill a “never again” mindset. UNESCO and other international bodies stress that teaching the history of atrocities (like the Holocaust, slavery, genocides) and the patterns that led to them helps “build awareness and resilience” against hateful propaganda (What you need to know about UNESCO’s teachers guide and lesson activities to counter Holocaust denial and distortion | UNESCO) (What you need to know about UNESCO’s teachers guide and lesson activities to counter Holocaust denial and distortion | UNESCO). Education can also foster empathy by engaging with the stories of victims and “the other,” humanizing those who might otherwise be dehumanized (What you need to know about UNESCO’s teachers guide and lesson activities to counter Holocaust denial and distortion | UNESCO). A population that has learned to empathize across ethnic or religious lines is less likely to embrace demonization of a group. In essence, education is an antidote to absurdity: it can inoculate minds against wild conspiracy theories and ideological extremes by providing knowledge and encouraging healthy skepticism. As Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers believed, spreading reason is key to overcoming unreason. This is a slow, generational solution but arguably the most deep-seated one.
  • Media Literacy and Fact-Checking: In the digital age, propaganda and misinformation spread rapidly. Thus, a modern emphasis is on media literacy – training individuals to critically evaluate sources of information, discern fake news or biased coverage, and understand how social media algorithms might skew their exposure. Media literacy programs act as a “shield against propaganda,” teaching people to “spot fake news, think critically, and make informed choices” (8.4 Media Literacy as a Defense Against Propaganda - Fiveable). By learning to question what they see on Facebook, YouTube, or television, citizens are less likely to fall for the next demagogue’s campaign of lies. This includes knowing how propaganda works (as we analyzed earlier) so that its techniques lose some power. The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) advocates investing in Media and Information Literacy (MIL) education, noting that it “helps individuals develop critical thinking skills to resist violent extremist propaganda” (Media Literacy: Tools for Building Resilience to Violent Extremist Propaganda | UNAOC). Research and best practices show that MIL “positively affects how people engage with propaganda, encourages them to re-think discriminatory and violent media messages” (Media Literacy: Tools for Building Resilience to Violent Extremist Propaganda | UNAOC). In practice, this might involve school lessons on analyzing advertisements and political speeches, public workshops on verifying online content, or even browser plug-ins that flag dubious claims. Additionally, independent fact-checking organizations and investigative journalism are crucial. A strong tradition of journalism that challenges official narratives can expose absurd claims early and prevent their spread. For example, when hate speech or conspiracy theories circulate, prompt debunking by trusted voices can stop them from taking root. Media platforms themselves are increasingly pressured to remove or label dangerous misinformation (though this raises free speech issues). Overall, a media-savvy and information-savvy public is less likely to be duped en masse.
  • Political and Legal Safeguards: Democratic systems have attempted to build institutional safeguards against demagoguery and mass atrocity. One approach is the separation of powers and rule of law: strong, independent courts can check illegal orders, and legislatures can hold leaders accountable, ideally preventing a single extremist from wielding unchecked influence. Another approach is protecting freedom of speech and association in a way that allows opposition voices to challenge prevalent absurdities. Ironically, free speech is a double-edged sword (it allows propaganda too), but in a healthy democracy, a diversity of viewpoints and a habit of public debate act as a prophylactic against one narrative dominating unchecked. However, too much tolerance of intolerant speech can be dangerous (this is known as the paradox of tolerance by philosopher Karl Popper). Liberal democracies thus sometimes outlaw the most dangerous speech: for example, Germany bans Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols, aiming to prevent a revival of the absurd beliefs that led to its darkest chapter. Many countries have laws against incitement to violence or hate speech, which, if enforced, can stop demagogues from using mass media to target minorities. On a structural level, some political systems use minority rights protections and power-sharing to reduce the likelihood of one group demonizing another. For instance, in post-genocide Rwanda, the government forbade ethnic political parties and hate speech in an effort to eliminate the Hutu/Tutsi divisive narratives (though Rwanda’s approach has its own criticisms). Internationally, there are also frameworks like the Genocide Convention (1948) which obligate states to prevent and punish incitement to genocide. While international law often reacts after the fact, the prospect of international intervention or prosecution (e.g., via the International Criminal Court) can deter leaders from openly propagating genocidal ideas. Another safeguard discussed in political theory is ensuring pluralism and civic engagement: a strong civil society with NGOs, community organizations, and interfaith groups can build resilience by promoting dialogue and understanding, cutting off the oxygen for scapegoating rhetoric. Ultimately, the goal of political safeguards is to make sure no leader or clique can monopolize information and to maintain a culture of lawful, rational governance where policies must be justified with evidence, not just fiery rhetoric.
  • Ethical Narratives and Cultural Norms: Societies can arm themselves against Voltaire’s predicted chain (absurdity→atrocity) by fostering cultural norms and narratives that emphasize human dignity, critical inquiry, and moral responsibility. One example is the global human rights movement that emerged after WWII. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and subsequent human rights education push the narrative that all humans, regardless of race, religion, or creed, have inherent rights and deserve respect. This ethos directly challenges dehumanization: if people internalize human rights values, they are less likely to accept claims that “those people have no rights or value.” Similarly, promoting stories of positive coexistence and unity can counteract divisive propaganda. Many post-conflict societies use intercultural dialogues, truth and reconciliation commissions, and public memorials to reinforce lessons of tolerance. For example, Germany’s remembrance culture (memorials at concentration camp sites, Stolpersteine, etc.) keeps the moral memory of the Holocaust alive as a cautionary tale and part of national identity—“never again” is taught as a German value. Another cultural approach is empowering satire and art to ridicule absurd claims; Voltaire himself used satire to lampoon the fanaticisms of his time, robbing them of their mystique. A populace that can laugh at or critically dissect a would-be demagogue’s absurdities is less likely to follow him blindly. Additionally, religious and community leaders who preach peace, compassion, and critical self-reflection provide a counterweight to those who would hijack faith for hatred. In essence, a culture that prizes open dialogue, empathy, and factual truth will create social antibodies against the spread of dangerous nonsense. Developing such a culture is an ongoing process—through literature, film, public discourse, and collective rituals, societies can continually reaffirm norms that reject cruelty. It is encouraging that after many historical atrocities, societies often go through soul-searching and eventually emerge with stronger norms against those same atrocities (for instance, the slogan “Never Again” after the Holocaust, or “Never Forget” after genocides). By turning those lessons into widely shared narratives, future generations can be steered away from repeating them (What you need to know about UNESCO’s teachers guide and lesson activities to counter Holocaust denial and distortion | UNESCO).
  • Early Warning and Civic Resilience: On a practical level, monitoring mechanisms can watch for the warning signs of mass atrocity – usually a spike in hate speech, extremist propaganda, or political movements blaming an out-group for all problems. NGOs and international organizations now use hate speech trackers and atrocity early-warning systems. When alarms are raised, diplomatic and grassroots interventions can be applied to defuse tensions (for example, counter-messaging campaigns, sanctions on leaders spewing hate, or bolstering the security of targeted communities). Empowering local voices of peace and providing platforms for moderate views can also prevent extremists from dominating the narrative. For instance, in some countries, local radio stations broadcast peace programming and conflict resolution content in regions at risk, to inoculate listeners against incitement. Building resilience also means ensuring that in times of crisis, community ties and ethical principles hold – disaster response plans might include strategies to prevent rumor-panics or scapegoating. Essentially, society needs a kind of moral and informational “immune system” that detects malignant ideas early and marshals a response before they metastasize.

In combination, these measures – education, media literacy, strong institutions, human rights culture, and vigilant monitoring – provide a toolkit to heed Voltaire’s warning. They aim to create a citizenry and a state that are skeptical of demagogic absurdities, resistant to fear-mongering, and steadfast in upholding humane values. While no society is immune to the allure of simplistic answers or the pull of tribalism, a concerted effort on these fronts can greatly reduce the likelihood that absurd lies will gain such traction as to unleash large-scale atrocities.

Conclusion

Voltaire’s aphorism is not merely a witty observation; it is a profound diagnosis of a recurring pathology in human societies. As this analysis has shown, belief in absurdities – whether they be racial myths, fanatical ideologies, paranoid conspiracies, or demonizing stereotypes – have repeatedly paved the way for atrocities by convincing groups of people that immoral acts are moral, or at least necessary. From ancient Athens to 20th-century genocides, we see that no society, however advanced, is entirely safe from this danger. The historical case studies underscore how otherwise normal individuals can be led to commit horrific deeds once they accept false justifications. Psychological and rhetorical mechanisms explain how those false justifications take root: through propaganda, authority pressure, fear, and re-framing of morality, among others.

The grim pattern can, however, be broken. Understanding the pattern is the first step to breaking it. By studying history and psychology, we gain insight into the warning signs and the methods used by those who spread dangerous absurdities. Armed with this knowledge, we can strengthen educational systems to produce critical thinkers, design institutions that check extremist power, promote media literacy to filter truth from lies, and cultivate a moral culture that prizes empathy and truth over tribe and dogma. As the world becomes more interconnected, the stakes of misinformation and hateful propaganda are as high as ever – lies and extremist content can spread globally in seconds online, potentially inciting violence anywhere. Thus, Voltaire’s 18th-century warning rings with renewed urgency today.

In closing, preventing future atrocities means remaining vigilant against the seeds of absurdity that precede them. It requires ordinary citizens to exercise what Voltaire himself championed: reason, skepticism, and humanity. When a claim is made about a group or an idea that urges hatred or violence, people must ask, “Is this true? Is this logical? Is this just?” If enough people do so, the chain from absurd belief to atrocious act can be broken. Societies must remember that every genocide or persecution began with words and beliefs — and by challenging lies before they harden into “truth,” we guard the precious boundary between civilization and barbarism. In essence, to prevent the next atrocity we must ensure that absurdities do not go unchallenged; we must uphold truth and compassion even when demagogues roar the contrary. The lesson of Voltaire’s quote is ultimately one of responsibility: we must not allow ourselves to be made to believe absurdities, lest we be made to commit atrocities.

Sources:

Comments

Related

Latest

The Enigma of the Collatz Conjecture
Math&Physics

The Enigma of the Collatz Conjecture

Paul Erdős famously remarked, “Mathematics may not be ready for such problems.” We are exploring its mathematical structure, historical and computational efforts, theoretical barriers, and connections to other domains like dynamical systems and computability theory.

,   and  Eduardo Bergel
Members Public
Is Spacetime Doomed?
Math&Physics

Is Spacetime Doomed?

Exploring the Demise of Spacetime: Insights from Quantum Gravity, Holography, Post-Spacetime Models, and Foundational Philosophy—What’s Our Role as Observers?

,   and  Eduardo Bergel
Members Public