DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA.

Evening Star, Issue 23298, 21 June 1939, Page 12

DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir.—Mr G. Stool is Tory contradictory in In's letter last night. In tho one paragraph he states, “ British Israelites do actually desire (not only apparently) the impending warfare,” and later on says, “ Britain and any other nation can escape.” Mr Steel is Tory much concerned about prophecy, which anybody can interpret just as he pleases, but very blind to plain facts happening here and now. I should say that a loving and omnipotent Deity could and would usher in the era of “ Peace on earth and goodwill to men ” without tho preliminary slaughter of millions of innocent men, women, and children. Mr Steel says, “ if ‘ Popoffski,’ would only study the Bible.” 1 can assure him I read it from cover to cover before I was 12 years of age, and a fairly retentive memory has enabled me to quote some very contradictory statements which he has been unable to reconcile one with the other. Of Mussolini. Mr Steel says, “ He shall come to his end, and none shall save him ” —quite a safe prophecy. This also shall happen to me, not to mention my budgerigar. Just once more let me quote Solomon (of the House of David), who said, “ Man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; as the one dieth so dieth the other.” What a paradox that Mr Steel, who upholds the Capitalist system, should agree with the dictum in Leviticus (chap, xxv., verse 23), which says, “ the land shall not be sold for ever.” The British law will not recognise that fact, and according to Mr Steel tho British are the chosen people. Land, like every Other commodity, is not for the people's use, but, to use that word so dear to Mr Hamilton, an investment. 'Will Mr Steel answer a plain question. Can he call it God’s will that the Earl of Derby should draw the ground rent of 22,000 houses in 'Bootle alone? In the “ godless ” U.S.SJR. this would not be tolerated. All the land a man can occupy in the cemetery is all he is entitled to, when dead, but when living as a unit in collective society he is_ entitled to the maximum that collective effort can give to the individual. Mr Steel talks about a suitable acreage for a man’s sustenance. How could he get that, say, in Glasgow or Wigan? What chance would the vine and fig tree have in Bolton or Bermondsey? The day has passed for the ox treading out the corn. This is the day of the tractor and bulldozer.

Mr Steel, I am afraid, has a lot of writing to do to convince me that war has anything to do with a deity. It is a product of a rotten economic system, and if war comes Messrs Baldwin and Chamberlain, with the National Government, are equally .to blame with Mussolini and Hitler. They were returned on a programme of collective security which they immediately sabotaged. They hamstrung the legal democratic Government in Spain. Now Franco is a partner in the Berlin-Rome Axis. Right from the beginning they cold-shouldered the Social Democratic Government in Germany, and later made every advance to Hitler and Mussolini. Immediately on taking 'office, Mr Baldwin stated that had his party told the electors the truth the Government would not have been returned. Even now, with Britain “in extremis,” Mr Chamberlain procrastinates and vacillates, and shown clearly that his policy is still appeasement of the Fascist Powers. Why did he not consult the U.S.S.R., which was a member of the League of Nations, with the same alacrity as he consulted Munich ? Had the U.S.S.R. been Capitalist, Hitler would not have chirped as loud as a robin on a frosty morning.—I am, etc., PoroFrsKi. June 20. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr G. Steel writes: ‘‘Every man is entitled by God’s law to a suitable acreage to meet Ms family’s sustenance,” but, adds Mr Steel, it must not bo held and worked collectively, as the wicked Socialists suggest. It is well known that some people are more prolific than others, and with each addition to the family it is obvious that a greater acreage would be required. 1 would like your correspondent to explain briefly just how the redivision of the earth would take place with each advent of the stork. How would the initial acreage of the prolific be augmented when the land of all the others must neither bo sold nor given away? As, under Mr Steel’s policy, no man, without grabbing more than his share, could operate a mine or a factory, we would be compelled to revert to the primitive habits and occupations of our distant forefathers. Such amenities as sewerage, electric light, and so_ on would obviously have to be discontinued, as to operate them collectively as the corporation does would be Socialistic, and therefore wicked and sinful. _ Neither could they be operated by private individuals, as with each person producing his own sustenance, by the time he had tilled his individually-owned soil he would have no time to spare for any further effort. How long would it be before the population of Great Britain would be starving if all the land was apportioned according to the number of the various families, and each family were the individual owners of their plot, from which, without any Socialistic aid, an existence must be won? Truly a dismal picture should the world ever be controlled by British Israelites I I venture to predict that before long the faithful would be relying on the ravens for a daily ration of manna, while the unfaithful, the Socialists, would be devising means of cqllectivising their holdings and introducing mass production methods which would result in an abundance for all, faithful and otherwise, alike.—l am, etc., Philistine. June 21.