THE BLATCHFORD ARTICLES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 68, 21 March 1910, Page 6

THE BLATCHFORD ARTICLES.

(To the Editor.) —Your correspondent "Bara Fostus " gets slightlytf the-track when he says tlia-t "'I defend. Blatchford's late escapade with a vehemence worthy of a better cause." I d{d not attempt to defend the attitude fie had taken. I simply said that if he had erred then he had not erred alone, and that the others whom I mentioned fought to get a little of the blame, which all seems to fail upon R.B. What I did attempt to do wae to defend him against the-charge of twisting facts and fof appealing to the unthinking, which '.was hurled at hjtn by your previous correspondent. "Bara Fostus" asks mc why liS. did not use his own paper, "The Clarion," to spread his views? Weil, the only answer I can give to that is that he is Elatchford — see? He is sincere, and he wanted to reach the biggest possible audience —that he didby using the "Daily Mail." (There is no change of front .that I can see. He has always advocated the same thing in his own paper.''l have read and Teread his articles carefully, and I can find no justification for the charge that he is .bringing about a (brutal war. His sole object is to keep peace, and to be prepared for war, -with a chance of winning should war be forced upon us. Your correspondent says that the Liberals do not believe that Germany intends to attack England; yet he says England is spending another fifty millions this year on her navy. Wihy are they doing that? Is it all for defence? And if .against whom? He further attempts to shift the blame for England's defenceless position on the shoulders of those who sold , Heligoland. That argument reminds mc of the one used by the..Tories during the Boer war, .who said that that war was due to Gladstone's weak policy during; the first Boer war. Both arguments may be perfectly sound,'-tout useless all the same. Tis folly to- ask the Germans to give us Heligoland ihack, as we realise now that we mads a mistake in parting with it. No; ■what we ihav'e to do is take things as they are, and act accordingly. There is, 1 admit, no cause for a quarrel between the two pepples— is, ibetween the workers of the two countries, 'but with the capitalists 'tis different, They iboth want commercial supremacy, and (both cannot have it; and there is another and graver cause on the part of the rulers : of (both countries that was told us in a cable published the other day, which said that the rulers of Germany were alarmed at the enormous growth of Socialist victories. That's the real secret, I think. That is - why RJi. is so anxious to prevent war, because, ho knows that war would ibe 'a , terrible disaster for both countries, and also for •the growth of Socialism. etill, I think Ws fears are groundless, because we rW the other day ,that 26,000 troops wore kept in readiness in Germany to eon\rol 00,000 Socialists, -who were demonstrating in favour of an equal franchise. Now, if 20,000 troops are required for that purpose, how many would it take to keep the Socialists 'of Germany in order did her rulers declare war on England? Will "Bara Fostus" please tell mc that? I think that Blatehford un-der-estimates the strength in .bath countries of the party that he 'has done so much to create. .- , - •. Now, in reply to our friend "H.G.," who says I advocated Mr Blatchford as a leader of men. I did no such, thing. iAs a Socialist, I realise that our first duty is to get people .to think and rule themselves, not to trust (blindly to leaders. "-'He talks about that "Godleiss, hopeless creed." Is he aware that 150 clergy, ■men in England swear toy the sanie economic creed? As to the letter he quotes, well, if I were in England I would reply to that; (but as I am in Auckland I will just as willingly reply to the same arguments, if "H.G." cares to put them in writing himself. I would respectfully ask him, however, to read "Not Guilty and "God and My Neighbour" 'before he starts any argument, so that we may meet on common ground. And I would also remind him that the leader of the Tories in England, who came very neat being Prime Minister, is the author o! "Philosophic -Doubt," and can 'by no means .be claimed as one of the faithful, and also I would point out to him that Lord Morley, who is appointed -by Christian England Secretary for India, is a professed Agnostic, v and that several others of the present Cabinet are also Agnostics. These are the rulers whom "H.G.". ihas no clbje-ation to. "Why? Well, simply because they are liberal Atiheiets or Tory Atheists, and not Socialists; in other -words, they have a destructive policy in regard to religion, and no constructive one such as the Socialists have. I urge upon both these I correspondents of ours to put away all 'bias, and face the facts fearlessly," and then I think that 'by exchanging our views we shall increase the respect which I feel sure we all ■have, for each other, for we all love to meet an honest opponent.—l am, etc., ' THOMAS BL.OOOWORTH.