OUR LETTER FROM FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, 6 November 1913, Page 23

OUR LETTER FROM FRANCE

Paris, September 14. A Parliamentary Outrage. What could show more clearly the abnormally low state to which the Parliament of France has come than this: The members have just been wasting the nation's time and money doing what, would you think Discussing and decreeing the official celebration of the second centenary of the birth of Diderot! What would you think, if you heard of the British House of Lords and House of Commons passing a law commanding a public official celebration of the birthday of Tom Paine or of Bradlaugh ? Yet Tom Paine and Bradlaugh were decent when compared with Diderot. Diderot was a dogmatising materialist of the grossest and most pronounced type. In his books Interpretation de la Nature, Lettre sur les Aveugles, Reve de D'Alembert, etc., he taught that in the universe there is nothing but matter eternally whirling and circling in a blind movement, yet the fruitful mother of all things, of all changes, of all productions—even of the ideas and highest thoughts of man, of Milton's poems as well as of the sensations of a lobster. Unlike our university agnostics and concealed professorial- materialists of the 19th and 20th centuries, who cover up the hideousness of their principles with fine words, Diderot, like our street-corner socialist orators, drew out all the logical consequences of materialism in their pure nakedness. He taught that the idea of God was It plus grand fleau de Vhumanitc. He ridiculed Christianity as a system of religion, which, if honestly practised, would only make fools of men. He taught that the traditional Christian morality—the Ten Commandments— a silly bugbear, and that the laws of Christian States were artificial inventions, the device of scoundrels and tyrants to exploit their subjectsdevices unnatural and hurtful to the race because calculated to restrain the animal passions and natural instincts of men. As to female modesty, chastity, and self-restraint, Diderot taught his friend and pupil, an apt pupil she was, the infamous Catherine of Russia, that these glories of womankind were merely vertus imaginaires, guenilles usees, worn out rags, to be despised and cast away. In the filthiest terms, he recommended promiscuity of the sexes. He held up before his countrymen the Tahitianssexually the most depraved of savages— models of domestic life! As to law and order he said: 'Always distrust the man who speaks of law and order.' Ni Dieu ni maitre (Neither God nor master)—the modern anarchist's mottosums up his philosophy as to religion, morals, and society. And the Senate, the elected makers of laws, the elected guardians of order and morality, the protectors of peace and of the general good of the community, have decreed that the birthday of this man shall be cele-

brated .parliament and people with processions and laudatory speeches ! "Unnecessary to say that all the truly Catholic members of the House, and all decent men, vehemently opposed the'passing of this decree. M. de Lamarzelle, an eloquent Catholic member, scourged with scorpions M. Martin, the and M. Henriot, the seconder of the decree.. But all to no purpose; the decree was passed, and all the admirers of Diderot and his philosophy—-Masons," radicals, and socialists go in procession to the Pantheon to lay flowers on the master's tomb ! Could a nation's moral and social degradation, shown in this act of its elected representatives, descend to a lower level ? Not Wasting Your Time. It is not a waste of time to call your attention to this affaire Diderot. We must be on our guard. We must look beyond the hedge of our cabbage-garden. The doings of one nation this year may be the doings of a distant nation next year. Ideas travel now with electric rapidity. There is now really ■ no distant nation. The telegraph and the steamship have annihilated distance. You may frown, my masters, at my recital of the gross doctrines of Diderot: you may sav 'What's the use, he has been dead these 150 years?' Ah, true, but his doctrines live and they are spread around you in ten thousand papers, magazines, and books. The comrade who planes the plank beside you in the wood-factory may preach them to you. The young lady who, next to you at the counter, sells the latest in hats and skirts, may have her head filled with them. These people have no idea whence their opinions have come, nor perhaps have the writers and orators who .supply the public with such mind-food. These may think they are the able exponents of twentieth century ideas, fresh, original, and we must not forget, progressive.' They are really echoes of that strange but clever body of men, deniers, . scoffers, cynics, rebels against all things established—the EncyclopedistsDiderot, d'Alembert, d'Holbach, Voltaire, and Rousseau. They were a queer lot. They lived in a very queer age— age of Louis XV. and of the Parc-aux-Cerfs. For twenty years (1744-1764) a butcher's daughter, but the king's chief concubine, Madame de Pompadour, threw the mantle of her protection over them. Royal courtiers, like the depraved Due de Richelieu and the infidel Malesherbes, helped them, while the lewd nobility, imitators of an utterly debauched court, entertained and' applauded them. Their age was an age of mud, says a French historian, but they changed it into an age of blood. They were the fathers of the French Revolution—a movement not yet exhausted or spent. Present-day liberals, radicals, and so on are glorifiers of the Revolution. To it they attribute all their light and all their licence. • Why, then, not celebrate the festivals of their fathers in the faith? Why not commemorate the anniversary of Diderot Clemenceau's Ruling Passion. An idea of the thoughts and ways of our French politicians should prove instructive to colonial people. ■ You will have men like them abroad with you one of these days. France still leads, not merely in giving the fashion for ladies' skirts, corsets, and blouses, but in most things. Say what you will as to her eccentricities, still she is an intensely brainy nation. Well, take a glance at two or three of her brainy political leaders. Take Clemenceau, Jaures, and Gustave Herve. Clemenceau is one of the few French politicians (to vary is a striking weakness with politicians be amenable to circumstances), who do not vary in their opinions. What is the secret of this? It is a great predominating motive, directing all his thoughts, words, acts, passions, and impulses. What is that motive or principle It is an ardent, positive, personal 'hatred of God. In his speeches and newspaper articles he never misses an opportunity to insult and defy the Almighty. Ah,' he replied a little time ago, to adversaries who called him a mere obstructionist and rebel, Ah, that terrible reproach "rebel," which Jehovah himself addressed to Satan in revolt; I do not fear it, I am a rebel. Like my noble father, the great fallen archangel, I have no stomach for submission ' !

For the forty years of his political career he has gone on blaspheming in this way. He means to go on doing so to the end. 'Without the aid of the lying promises of any religion I shall go to my great repose, with a lofty resignation, content to have lived and proud to have, at least, made the attempt, like the Titans of old, to pull down the heavens.' A blasphemer of this kind must rejoice in having an opportunity of voting to commemorate the birthday of. an atheist and anarchist like Diderot. Mind you, Clemenceau is working hard to oust Berthon, and become the next Prime Minister of France. He is a great defender of the godless-school system and of the atheistic schoolmasters who should, he holds, not be interfered with in the ' enlightenment' of the children by any authority, not by the parents, not even by the Government. At the same time, the mention of permission to nuns, or Brothers, or priests to open a school is enough to make this lover of liberty and equality jump skywards with rage. A Bull of Bashan in the Chamber. Unlike Clemenceau, his adversary, M. Jaures, is a very shuttlecock in religion and policies. In both he has gone the whole roundaccommodating himself to circumstances. He began as a pious Christian; he is now an extreme freethinker. He began as a moderate liberal; he is now an ultra-socialist. At the elections of 1893 a good number of socialist candidates was returned to the Chamber. Jaures, who must be a leader, saw his opportunity. He began at once to talk free thought and extreme socialism. He was soon a leader of the party. Jaures is a huge, clumsy man with a great rough voice. Without tiring, this born demagogue can keep ■on roaring like a bull of Bashan for two, three, or four hours. He has sometimes spoken during a whole ""sitting of the House. To the old, Eternal Law of God he opposes his new interpretation of the Rights of Man. In a speech glorifying free compulsory godless education —this neutral system is pearl in the eyes of all these men —Jaures exclaimed: 'lf God Himself appeared in visible form to (the people, the first duty of man would be to refuse Him obedience, to consider Him not as a Master to Whom he should submit but as an Equal with Whom he might argue.' To this defiant declaration he added: ' In this doctrine of independence and liberty lies the beauty of our lay education.' Yet parents, who subject their unfortunate children to this system of education, whose special beauty lies in inspiring disobedience even to God, complain that children are growing up ,now conceited, disobedient, irreverent. In the same speech he asserted: ' The idea we must cherish above all is this —that there is no sacred truth; that no doctrine, no power can limit the unending quest of the human race. Humanity sits as a great commission of inquiry, whose powers are unlimited.' Magnificent sweep of oratorical gush all this, -but how fearfully absurd.

The National Flag to be Buried in a Manure Heap. There is a league of ‘ anti-patriots ’ among our politicians. The object of this league is to destroy that venerable sentiment-—duty towards our country, patriotism. These faddists preach universal peace, the abolition of natural frontiers, the fusion of all peoples into one nation, co-extensive with : the human race. Rather a big proposition ! But they have set about realising the idea by means of a huge output of speeches, newspapers, v books, and tracts. Of course they attack the army they declare it a savage, shameful, uncivilised institution. The principal spouter of this clique is one Gustave Herve. The league spreads books and tracts among the soldiers, encouraging them to mutiny in time of war. As a result of this propaganda there have been four or five serious mutinies in our large barracks this summer. The league is particularly anxious to get hold of the schoolmasters; these should" prove so useful in teaching the youth of the country the sweet reasonableness of anti-patriotism. It is wonderful how all parties have become alive, in our dav, to the importance of getting hold of the school and of the children. Herve has succeeded so well with the schoolmasters that 14,000 of them subscribe for the

review edited by himself. His doctrines are concentrated in a famous declaration of his: 'I hope to see the French flag buried in the dunghill.' Poor distracted France, torn to death by her own sons, by her own political leaders! Knowing the principles of these POP •UTT-l.QY'a ia flmv/v f„„ .-» ~Jli- „4- *."U rt TVJ i. "* wl »i**V*o itJ Oiiwxc IUUUI IUI O/OUUXIXOJ-IiU'CXJ.U Of LUC XflUCtUb celebration? They out-Diderot the master. Why should they not? In the road of 'progress,' begun by him and his fellow-Encyclopedists of the eighteenth century, are they not 150 years in advance? Yes, in advance in the work of degrading and ruining their country. No Need to Despair. But there is no need for despair, terrible though the state of France is. There is yet left a sufficient number of men with faith and truthfulness, with honor and virtue to bring about the resurrection of their country. Learning the lesson of organisation from their adversaries, they are combining in Catholic confederations through the land. Disunion among their enemies gives them at present good grounds for hopefulness. The revolutionary cliques are very much divided. Jaures and Clemenceau rend and tear one another like demoniacs. Indeed, Clemenceau already sees danger in the rising Unions Diocesaines. In a recent number of his paper, I'Homme Libre, he classifies the adversaries. On the one hand is what he calls the autocratie clericale romaine, on the other the idee revolutionaire de Vesprit Mere. He says the separation of Church and State has not closed the struggle tongue et terrible between these contradictory principles. With an admonishing finger he points to the divided and squabbling cliques of liberals, radicals, socialists, and antipatriots : We have seen many offensive returns of the adversary; we shall see more of them.' I should think so, unless the hoary-headed blasphemer goes to his 'long repose' very soon.