Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 8 July 1920, Page 14

Current Topics

Jingo Drivel ; > Sir James Allen made a speech in which he made allowance for the fact that there is a strong and growing movement in all parts of the British Empire in favor of separation. It is strong in Australia, stronger in Canada, strongest of all in South Africa; it has not a few supporters in England, and of course they are the saner and more intelligent people. In view of Sir James’s recognition of this fact we have had the usual Jingo daily drivel, and the usual assurances that the solidarity of the Empire is the most necessary article of faith of every true patriot who ever sent other people to die for the Empire. It is of course a matter of opinion as to whether or no independence is better for England and for each colony; but it is almost certain that all the other colonies will be many centuries recognised as nations ere New Zealand is fit to loose herself from grandmother’s apron-strings. And, of course, as our wonderful rulers in this country have securely tied us to grandmother by a many-coiled golden chain of debt we could not even dream of walking- alone for ages to come. Therefore we must earnestly pretend that it would be a crime for other bold, bad colonies to go away and leave us—“the softy of the family” — parental control even in old age. We have said nothing about Ireland. Do not- worry : Ireland is all right. Ireland As a proof that French and Mr. George and their tanks and their spies and their raids on women have not broken the spirit of the people we quote a few words from a paper, which we note was printed at Blackfriars Street, Manchester. Here are the words: “Take up that which is the ‘ particular pride of the English-speaking race,’ the English Bible, and turn to the second book of Moses, the book of the Exodus, and read the story of him ‘ who would not let the people go,’ to wit Pharaoh.”, And again: “The Ireland of to-day has set its teeth hard, and will not be cowed. Lloyd George and Bonar Law have declared that the British Empire must be broken up before Ireland is let go. If Ireland be held till then the British Empire will be broken up. The time has gone when Ireland would compromise with England or bargain with her. We demand the evacuation of Ireland by England absolutely and unconditionally. And the longer England persists in interfering with Ireland the worse it will be for her in the long run. England may be the Lord of the far-flung battle-line, but we also have somewhat of a far-flung battle-line. And in the last year we have done England far more damage than she has done us.”

That these words were printed in England shows that Sir James Allen has been brought face to face with . a snirit different from that of the marionettes among whom he moved out here. If they represent the grit and determination of the small nation that England has tried to cow by Hunnish methods for the past three years, then we can understand why the New Statesman said in April that Sinn Fein is going to win. But as Ireland is not part of the Empire, but only a small nation fighting for freedom, her case is different from the rest. As a proof of the way in which the English friends of small nations are ruling Ireland, take the following extract from an article by Henry Nevinson in Foreign Affairs: "I need not dwell on the present persecution of Irish patriots midnight searches in private houses, the arrests and imprisonments without charge or trial, the brutal treatment of my friend, Mr. William O'Brien, the Labor Leader. Such incidents recall what I saw in Russia under the Tsars. Equally characteristic of tyranny is the suppression of public meetings, of associations, and of newspapers."

Public Opinion From the tone of several English papers it is clear that public opinion is veering in favor, of Ireland’s independence. Robert Lynd, .Clement Shorter, G. K. Chesterton, the editor of the Nation, the, editor of the New Statesman, and the editor of the English Review have all spoken out bravely now in favor of the small nation which is giving the lie to the pledges of British politicians. These men and the papers they represent stand for the soundest thought and the most enlightened views in England to-day, and they reach millions of readers who know that the articles on Ireland are written by no mere penny-a-liners, but by men to whom justice is dear. Together with that fact, take the movement among the Scots in favor of throwing off English rule. The Scots who are true to their ancient traditions were never content to see their country in a position of servitude, and to-day thousands of them are working hand-in-hand with Sinn Fein. Again, Englishmen who consider that brave officers who fought with distinction during the war have now joined the Sinn Feiners must be compelled to think that the lies told by politicians and by the politicians’ press about Ireland are not true. When men like Major Barton, Major Erskine Childers, and Commander worthy say that they are sick and ashamed of the perfidy and brutality with which England is treating Ireland, the man in the street must needs say there is something in the complaint of the mere Irish. And when an Ulster Presbyterian clergyman one of the ablest and most prominent in his Churchboldly follows, a select Orange delegation to America, in order to tell the American people that the members of the delegation are telling downright lies about Ireland and calumniating their Catholic countrymen, even those who did think there was some truth in an Ulster grievance are beginning to sit up and look ai'ound them. Rev. J. J. North, the Christchurch Sun, the Orange Nation, the Auckland Herald and the Auckland Star may go on for as long as they please raving about Sinn Fein, but the fact is that they are as ignorant of Irish affairs at present as so many elephants are of turkey-trotting. It is sad to reflect, however, that a country has the press it deserves just as it has the government it deserves. Poor New Zealand, gassed from Parliament, gassed from Protestant pulpits, and gassed by the journalist jobbers in all the towns! Is it any wonder that the country is what it is—poor-spirited, uneducated, ignorant of religion, reeking with divorces, abortions, sexual crimes, unnatural crimes ? And of course of all these things Councils of Churches and councils of pressmen and councils of politicians devote themselves to zealously. Poor New Zealand indeed ! See what they have made of her that once men called God’s own country. A Case of Conscience A perplexed case of conscience has been put to us. As we are not by any means infallible we turn to an infallible authority for a solution. A body that calls itself the Council of Churches exists somewhere in New Zealand. Such a body is of itself not infallible, but it has at its head the most infallible person ever produced by the great and glorious British Empire, and as he is especially infallible on the point raised by our case, who better than the Reverend J. J. North can solve it ? Here it is

We understand that on the infallible authority of the Reverend J. J. North it is wrong in toto, and against the opinion of all moralists, to gamble—especially to bet. If that is the fact, then it is in the opinion of the aforesaid authority a sinful, thing to bet on horses. For if a thing is wrong in toto and against the opinion of all moralists, surely it must be sinful, if not criminal. That the Reverend J. J. North was supported in his view of the evil of gambling is clear from the following pronouncement by the Council of Churches (Wellington Post and N.Z. Times, May, 1906):

. "In a gamble reason is shown to the door, and the will and. the affections operate unhealthily. Gambling is therefore essentially unmanly. To engage in it. is degrading." ; ;> "". v :: '-': ■'■--' "'■■•v- ; ; >'-'■:■■[ ;:•■-' Now comes the problem. The King is Head of the Protestant Churches, in practice if not always in theory. The King's son and heir is, as we all know, regarded as sacred and worthy of infinite respect by all true Protestants. Now, there is no manner of doubt that when the King's son and heir was amongst us he spent a very considerable part of his time on racecourses, and that he did in fact bet at every meeting, or almost at every meeting, he attended. In other words, it is therefore the opinion of Rev. J. J. North that the Prince of Wales was engaged in a pursuit that was wrong in to-to and against the opinion of all moralists, and that he was, moreover, aided and abetted in his ways by the New Zealand Government. Further, in the opinion of the Council of Churches, he was guilty of conduct that was "essentially unmanly" and "degrading." If the Council of Churches was right why did it not _ reprimand the Prince, out of true zeal for his spiritual welfare and in accordance with "the custom of brave Protestant divines of the past who were not afraid to read wholesome homilies to Princes on occasion ? There is exactly the case that has been put to us.

Of course our own opinion is only a common-sense one. It is that

(1) The Prince was quite right to encourage the manly “sport of kings”; (2) He was quite right to have a bet if he felt inclined ; , s (3) So far from there being anything “degrading” or "unmanly” in his conduct, he showed forth in his actions a salutary example to a wowser-ridden country; (4) That the Council of Churches is woefully misnamed and ought henceforth be known as the Assembly of Busybodies, or, what comes to the same thiim of the Northites; (5) That the- N.Z. Government, which blows hot and cold at the same time, by encouraging races to please the Prince, and by kow-towing to the wowsers m dealing with betting, is a Government that is a credit to the wowsers ; (6) That pious Protestants have much reason to ask themselves if it is for the pure love of God that the Council, of Churches will condemn a lottery, say in a Catholic bazaar, but will remain as silent as Lot’s wife when a Prince has “a flutter.” Points for Meditation The war is over—for a while at least. There is no longer the urgent demand for penny-a-liners who could spit forth lies to inflame the base passions of the people. _ It is no longerat least among ordinarily decent peoplea crime to tell the truth. The Propaganda, as the gigantic deception of the poor, ignorant masses was called, has done its work : its last task was to foist on the people as rulers for the time being the same old gang of secret diplomatists and profiteers that brought on the war. Thus, it happens that by degrees the truth us coming out. Lord Loreburn told us that we did not go to war either for Belgium or for Poland or for any other small nation, but because we were bound by secret treaties to the most corrupt military power in Europe. He has said it, and the world knows it is true, and no fool-politician has stood up in his place in a talking-shop to demand his head. For a little while common-sense has prevailed. Philip Gibbs has written a book called Realities of War, which will, we 1 ?J ope ’ do much to give common-sense a long lease ° } e ’ na y which may do much to prevent the public —the poor, deluded public that bleeds and dies and pays from being readily driven into any such war tor years to come.' We welcome the book because it is a true book; and also because it has vindicated us in

no small way, and born© out to the last tittle every word of criticism for. which, we were blamed by press liars for the past four years. <:> It is a book that will be read eagerly in England and in America, in Australia and in Canada; but unless we are much mistaken it will not receive the solemn blessing of that vast number of interested persons in New Zealand to whom the truth is hateful. In fact it is exactly the sort of book that a Council of Churches would put on its index expur gat orius— which means to say that it is not an indecent, dirty book like the Black Prophet and similar “Protestant literature.” Anyhow, it will be wholesome to dwell briefly on a few points in this honest and sincere book, which the people will, assuredly not be encouraged to read : for it is good reading and wholesome. ■' ' i y V : L Referring to his going to Cologne at the end of the war, Mr. Gibbs says: “What fools the Germans had been, what tragic fools! What a mad villainy there had been among rival dynasties and powers and politicians and peoples to lead to all this massacre! What had anyone got out of it all? Nothing except ruin. . . - : ’ “The German people received us humbly. They were eager to show us courtesy and submission. It was a chance for our young Junkers, for the Prussian in the hearts of young pups of ours who could play the petty tyrant, shout at German waiters, refuse to pay bills, bully shop-keepers, insult unoffending citizens. . . “I looked round the Cafe Bauer—a strange scene after four jmars Hun-hating. English soldiers were chatting with Germans, clinking beer-mugs with them. . English people still talking of Huns, demanding vengeance, the maintenance of the blockade, would have become hysterical if they had woke suddenly to this German Cafe before the signing of Peace. . . “But the innocent were made to suffer for the guilty, and we were not generous. We maintained the blockade, and German children starved, and German mothers weakened, and German girls swooned in the tram-cars, and German babies died. Ludendorff did not starve or die. “In every country there are individuals, men and women, who are going about as if nothing had happened. . . There are others who see clearly enough that they cannot govern or dupe the people with old spell-words, and they are struggling desperately to think out new words that may help them to regain their power over simple minds. The Old Gangs are organising a new system of defence. . . The angry —highly organised and disciplined, trained to fight —is already approaching the outer bastions. “When not put on their defence by accusations against the whole Fatherland, the German people revolted in spirit against the monstrous futility and idiocy of war, and were convinced in their souls that its origin lay in greed and pride of the governing classes of all nations who had used men’s bodies as counters in a devil’s game. That view was expressed in the sign-boards put above the parapet : ‘ We’re all fools. Let’s all go home’; and in that letter by the woman who wrote: ‘ For the poor here it is terrible, and yet the rich, the gilded ones, the bloated aristocrats, gobble up everything in front of our very eyes. All soldiersfriend and foe—ought to throw down their weapons and go on strike so that this war . . . may cease.’ ... It was that view which led to Bolshevism. It is the suspicion creeping into the brains of the British working men and making them threaten to strike against any adventure of war, like that in Russia,' which seems to

them (unless proved otherwise) on behalf of the ' gilded ones ' and for the enslavement of the peoples. Not to face that truth is to deny the • passionate convictions of masses of men in Europe. . . . It is the belief of many brooding minds that almost as great as the direct guilt of the German War Lords, was the guilt of the Whole political society of Europe, whose secret diplomacy (unrevealed to the peoples)

was based oil, hatred and fear " and rivalry, in play for Imperial power and the" world's markets, as common folk play dominoes for penny points, and risking the lives of common folk in a gamble for enormous stakes of territory, Imperial prestige, the •personal vanity of politicians, the vast private gain of Trusts. and Profiteers. ■. .

"To-keep the living counters quiet, to make them jump into the pool of their own free-will at the word 'Go!', the statesmen, diplomatists, Trusts, and Profiteers, debauch the name of Patriotism, raise the watchword of Liberty, and play upon the ignorance of the mob, by inciting them to race hatred, by inflaming the brute passions in them,* and by concocting a terrible mixture of false idealism and self-interest,. .

. . . little knowing that they are but pawns in the game which is being played behind closed doors by the great gamblers in the Courts and Foreign Offices. . . "Base passions were stirred easily. Greedy was the appetite of the mob for atrocity tales. The more revolting they were the quicker they were swallowed. The foul absurdity of the ' -factory ' was not rejected any more than the tale of the ' crucified Canadian ' (disproved by our own G.H.Q.), or the cutting off of children's hands and women's breasts, for which

I could find no evidence in the districts where such horrors were reported. . . Preachers and Professors denied any quality of virtue or genius to the German poets. A critical weighing of the evidence was regarded as Pro-Germanism and lack of. patriotism. Truth was delivered bound to Passion.

"Surely if the leaders of the warring nations were put together for even a week in some such place as Hooge, or the Hohenzollern Redoubt, afflicted by the usual harassing fire, poison gas, mine explosions, lice, rats, and the stench of rotten corpses . . . they would settle the business and come to terms before the week was out."-

Sound common sense! But Carson did not fight, Lloyd George did not fight, Massey did not fight. It was the people who fought and died. And O Lord for what, for what? On laying down this terrible book—this scorching exposure of the brutality of generals who threw away men's lives recklessly, of the blundering and the incapacity of fools protected from high places, of the awful sufferings of the men and women and children who got nothing out of it all, we ask ourselves how long will the people endure it? And we look around and see the politicians—the "Old Gangs"—at the old games again. They are talking of fleets and forces and defences, just as if they did not tell us that we had won a war that was to end all wars for ever. The people are the injured, but are the guilty going to remain for ever lords and masters of our lives and deaths ?