By the Way
Some of the printed matter which reaches me from time to time is intensely interesting. For instance, quite recently a church magazine was brought to my notice wherein the reverend sir was, of course, pushing his spiritual wares and, incidentally, dilating on the all-absorbing topic of air raids. This divine addresses himself thusly :
“My Dear Parishioners and Friends—We must be grateful that our homes and parish suffered no damage in the recent air raids, and take courage, trusting that He who kept and preserved us will continue to protect us in the future. There would not be the alarm and fear, I think, were people to repose more faith in God and look to Him, for ‘vain is the help of man.’ ”
The question of the people and their homes in other parishes, where death and destruction took place, does not seem to trouble this ambassador of the Lord, for he makes no reference to them whatever. To a poor heathen like me the Christian religion seems to be an absurd and extremely selfish one.
Our dear brother says “vain is the help of man,” and we ought to “repose more faith in God and look to Him.” This after millions of men and boys have been led like lambs to the slaughter, and hundreds of thousands of men and women have been engaged for three years at least in the manufacture of death-dealing instruments. Why pass military service acts and a hundred-and-one other acts if “vain is the help of man,” reverend sir ?
The colossal hypocrisy of this clerical ranter is further evidenced on another page of this magazine of pap-food, fit only for old women of both sexes. An announcement appears : “Evensong on Sundays at 6 p.m. until further notice.” Again one is tempted to ask the question, why change the hour of worship if all that is required is “more faith” ? And finally, why not disband the anti-aircraft defence corps ?
We have of late heard quite a lot with regard to the Allies War Aims, and yet withal one must confess that the information thus imparted has been of a very meagre nature. A day or so before that hard-working body of national service volunteers voted for a short holiday, in order to recuperate before setting themselves to the arduous task of passing a man-power Bill, several members of Parliament evinced a desire for a re-statement of “our” war aims. The Parliamentary Correspondent of the “Daily Chronicle,” commenting on the debate writes (20.12.1917):
“Mr. Balfour on war aims to-day was not enlightening. He took refuge in vague generalities, sheltered himself behind the imposing personality of President Wilson, and scolded Mr. Arthur Ponsonby with heat and acrimony. What Mr. Balfour would have said if Mr. Ponsoiiby had not spoken I cannot imagine. The debate was opened by Sir William Collins in a speech remarkable equally for its ability, moderation, and eloquence…..
Except for a passing courteous allusion, Mr. Balfour gave the go-by to this very persuasive utterance and flew to attack Mr. Ponsonby, whom presumably he regarded as fair game because of his pacificist antecedents. The Foreign Secretary was much less than fair to the member for Stirling, making even the grotesque imputation that Mr. Ponsonby’s speech was animated by a desire to help the enemy.”
To such depths have our rulers descended that even when supporters of the capitalist system of society touch them on the raw they begin to squeal about helping the enemy, in the pay of the enemy, and suggestively name our old friend (!) Bolo. If an avowedly pacifist organisation offends, then its offices must be raided, and all in the interests of “democracy” and the desire to put down “Prussian militarism.”
The same correspondent goes on to add : “What was remarkable in the debate was the number of influential members entirely untouched by pacifism who earnestly pleaded with the Government for a re-definition of our war aims.” A whole host of names are mentioned with the addition that they are “men of weight whose criticism no Government can lightly disregard.” Then we read : “All of them urged the Cabinet to fling away Imperialistic ambitions, to stand firmly by our original disinterested war aims, and to abjure the idea of an economic war to follow the present war of arms. There was stinging criticism of Sir Edward Carson’s recent speeches.”
These occasions when the House has what one might call heart-to-heart talks are like angels’ visits, few and far between. Sometimes the truth unconsciously leaks out, as, for instance, the reference to “our ORIGINAL disinterested war aims.” We have ourselves often thought that “our disinterested war aims” were on a sliding scale. We all remember theory in those far-off days about “poor Belgium” and know that many were ensnared thereby. But in how many cases was the question of Alsace-Lorrain and the prolonging of the war to the end that this might become part and parcel of France so apparent ?
A few meetings in London under the auspices of the War Aims Committee with questions invited would indeed be illuminating. Will they try it ?
To prevent misunderstanding and to make it plain to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear, be it known that OUR war aims are as follow: The establishment of a system of Society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community. The World for the Workers !
Fellow workers, come, then, and join us and help to secure peace and plenty for all.
Lld. George’s boss (or office boy), Mr. Answers—pardon, I mean Lord Northcliffe—recently paid a visit to America on behalf of the British Government. He has once again returned to this country, and the Yankees seem to be overjoyed thereat. On this subject the following will not be out of place :
“We confess to considerable relief at the news that Lord Northcliffe has landed in England, and trust that work of such importance in connection with the conduct of the war will be found for him as will preclude his return.” So says the New York “Evening Post,” and continues:
“We cannot feel that his recent utterances have been helpful to the United States. He has directly contradicted the President’s assertion that we are ‘fighting to make the world safe for democracy,’ saying that our real object is ‘to make the world safe for ourselves,’ and that ‘self-interest’ is our chief motive. Then he openly controverted the Chairman of our Shipping Board, Mr. Edward N. Hurley, declaring that the statement that we shall build six million tons of shipping was wholly wrong. ‘I see,’ he calmly said, ‘no signs of such tonnage in 1918. . . .’
“We cannot feel that Mr. Hearst or Mr. Munsey would be popular if they went to England and successively reproved the Prime Minister, the head of their Shipping Board, and the War Office; nor do we believe that either the British Ministry or the British people care to have this kind of talking agent in the United States.”—”Daily News,” 12.14.1917.
Yet the present chronicler seems to recollect additional honours being thrust upon him shortly after his return. A strange world, my masters !
One remembers hearing in one’s youthful days the riddle propounded : Why are parsons like finger-posts ? And later years and observation have fully justified the answer. Quite recently I read of a brother in Christ being charged with an offence under the “Food Hogs” Order. Now whether the event which lead to his undoing was a dispensation of Divine Providence or the Old Nick was getting a bit of his own back I cannot say, but sad to relate
“Defendant’s motor car broke down and it was found to contain a sack of sugar obtained from a local grocer.
Defendant, who pleaded that he was unaware of the control order, was fined £3 and costs.”—”Daily News,” 14.13.1917.
Evidently the “bench” did not accept the “ignorance” of the greedy pig of Knodishall, Suffolk, in this matter. He ought to have tried the yarn that it was for the poor of his flock. It might, at least, have left the way open for a special collection “to comfort our dear pastor in the trials and tribulations of his martyrdom.”
While we continue to read and receive advice concerning the amount of munitions we should allow the inner man and the need for saving food to “ensure victory,” signs are not wanting that our masters and their friends are still carrying on as of yore. A week or so ago the menu of a Masonic banquet was criticised at a meeting of the local Urban Council. The menu was reported to have consisted of—
“Oysters ; oxtail soup ; tomato soup ; boiled turbot (sauces Hollandaise); fried soles (sauce maitre d’hotel) ; chicken cutlets ; roast saddle of mutton ; roast sirloin of beef ; Yorkshire pudding ; punch a la Romaine; roast pheasant; macedoine of fruit; Swiss cream ; dessert ; coffee.”
A good selection here to choose from and something for the epicurean taste. However, a member of the aforesaid Council proposed —
“That while, in comparison with this menu, queues for margarine, tea, sugar, and other necessaries were of frequent occurrence, for the purpose of preventing class feeling and unrest, the Council, in its capacity as the authority in charge of the Food Control Committee, asks the Government to at once issue an order to prevent such reported gluttony during the war.—”Daily News,” 7.13.1917.
The above is not an isolated instance, and yet at the same time that our masters and pastors and their hangers-on are stuffing their ungodly guts our wives and mothers and sisters wait in queues for the common necessaries of life. When shall we wake up ?
When the slaughter will end. “Mr. Prothero, President of the Board of Agriculture, said at Nottingham yesterday that the war would be decided in the prosiac region of the human belly. Victory would go to the side which could command the last sack of wheat and the last stone of meat.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 9.12.1917.) The decisive military or knock-out blow gives place here to the economic.
We still remember the cry of the All-into-the-Army advocates who told us that “we” were fighting to crush Prussian militarism. We said then and say now that there are as many “Prussian” militarists, Bernhardis, and Nietzckes here as there are in Germany. This seems to be dawning on others at last. The following is a good example:
“The Rye Tribunal last evening discussed the case of a grocer named Jordan, who in addition to his business, has a delicate son and an afflicted aunt dependant upon him. The Tribunal had repeatedly given three month’s exemption, and their action was supported by the military representative. Now, it was stated, the case had been reviewed by the military authority and sent to the Appeal Tribunal at Hastings, who had reversed the local decision.
This action was described at last night’s meeting as grossly unfair, and as an example of “Prussianism,” and as a protest it was decided to suspend the sittings of the local Tribunal for three months. The Mayor has written stating that the matter will be discussed by the Town Council next Monday, and adding : “Its nothing less than the Prussian military spirit which we are fighting to crush out.”—”Daily News,” 7.12.1917.
One had almost despaired of hearing words of wisdom fall from the lips of a cleric, so accustomed had one become to the inanities of these rainbow-chasing mystery-mongers. But the unexpected happens. Dean Inge a short time ago let fall a veritable bomb, he referred to the war as being “Europe’s Suicide Club,” and gave utterance to a few truths which are acceptable to quite a number of people who were once in favour of spending the last shilling and the last drop of blood (other people’s, of course).
To a great deal of what he had to say there is no answer, and this seems to be appreciated by the powers that be. When questioned in the House as to what they intended doing with regard to the Dean’s speech, the official reply was “Ignore it.” Passages like the following take a large amount of honesty to reply to. He says : “You cannot break the spirit of a people by defeating its troops. If we were crushed in this war, should we take it lying down ? We should not, neither will our opponents.”
Moreover, of what avail is it to the workers if, in order to dethrone militarism in Germany, it has to be enthroned in England ? The only thing that matters is for the international working class to see that they are the people who are called upon to do the killing and be killed, and to suffer the greatest hardships ; therefore if they want peace on earth they themselves must institute it by ending the present system of Society and ushering in the Co-operative Commonwealth.
THE SCOUT