Sunday, 26 March 2017


 (BY " BALAAM.")
 I know of no other word in the English language so generally misunderstood and so frequently misapplied, as the word freethinker. By a certain section of orthodox churchgoers (moral or immoral as the case may be) it is regarded as synonymous with atheist. Another section of the same community, in a mysterious and altogether inexplicable manner, associate the word with free love, while the ignorantly pious contingent, although they have no conception of its meaning, yet, with one accord, proclaim it to be something very bad, just as—being told to do so—they proclaim many things which they do not understand to be very good. Now, this widespread misapprehension arises from the prevalence amongst us of that social plague spot, the spurious freethinker. This noxious and objectionable animal may be found in any part of the civilised world, but his favorite haunt, or burrow, is in large towns. Not only a foe to Christianity, but absolutely without any religion, he writhes under the idea of individual responsibility to a higher power; all moral restraint, as far an the law will allow, he throws to the winds; his passions and lusts (again, as far as the law will allow) remain unbridled ; religion of any sort is hateful to him, involving as it does a necessity upon the part of its votaries to rise superior to the animal ; and boldly proclaiming that there is no God, no hereafter, no such thing as sin, he pursues his brute boast existence. And then, my friends, is the animal that calls himself a freethinker and so casts discredit upon a most estimable class of men—a class that as far as morality, honesty, and charity are concerned, will compare favorably with any sect or denomination upon the face of the earth. The bona fide believer in free thought—or as it is now generally termed, modern thought—is an individual whose mind is liberated from dogmatism and superstition. He asserts his individuality, and values at its true worth the reasoning power with which he finds himself endowed. The power he cultivates, and makes use of, regarding it as the most precious of all the "talents" entrusted to his care. Believing in his ability to distinguish between the probable and the improbable he will not accept of anything without evidence of, at least, probability. He understands the meaning of the word faith ; he also understands that "credulity is the disease of feeble intellects, and ill-regulated winds; believing everything, and investigating nothing, the mind accumulates errors, till its overgrown faith overmasters its untutored reason." Fully aware of his many imperfections, he yet refrains from grovelling in the dust, and calling himself a miserable offender, knowing full well that he is a decided improvement upon his prehistoric ancestor. He meets with a difficulty as follows
 —Supposing that scientists are right, and that the human race, instead of having fallen from a perfect state, have been gradually developing from a very low original; and as century succeeded century, most certainly rising instead of falling. Supposing such to have been the case, the tradition of man's fall must be rejected, and rejecting it, what then becomes of the Atonement? Meeting with such a problem, he does not cry " Get thee behind me Satan" and shut his eyes, but boldly, and to the best of of his ability, faces it, considering that he is not only justified in facing it, but that it is his bounden duty to do so. Earnest of purpose, honest of thought, open to conviction he grapples with the difficulty, and at length arrives at a conclusion of his own (not of his ancestors), and thus asserts his individuality as a reasoning, responsible being. He pays but little heed to the conflicting doctrines and dogmas of diverse churches, and the various and antagonistic creeds of religious sects trouble him not, what is opposed to reason he refuses to accept. He accept however, the certainties revealed by scientists, and if those should clash, as they sometimes do, with the traditions of a bygone age, why then, the latter must go to the wall. There are two words in the English language that the freethinker utterly disbelieves in, and those are the words atheist and devil. He cannot realize the possibility of any one—not wholly insane— doubting the existence of a God ; nor can he understand a rational human being believing in the existence of a devil. Looking things squarely in the face, he sees that the religious belief of the majority is entirely the result of their education and training, and in fact, it is not THEIR belief, but the belief of their teachers.
 " By education, most have been misled.
 They so believe, because they so were bred;
 The priest continues what the nurse began,
 And thus the child imposes on the man."

And pondering over this, he sees plainly that the man who accepts and believes without enquiry, completely ignores his individual responsibility, and forfeits all claim to be considered a rational being. To religious traditionalism the freethinker gives exactly the same weight that he does to any other traditionalism. His object is to arrive as nearly as possible at "the truth"; and he believes that the only method of doing so is by fearless and conscientious investigation, adopting what seems to him just and true ; and this he considers to be the only means by which one can ever reach a faith worthy of a rational human being. Appeal to the freethinker if you are in distress; ask him to co-operate in any scheme calculated to lessen the sorrow and suffering by which we are surrounded, and then you will find out what he is. But do not talk to him of such things as Adam and Eve, or the setting back of the sun—that is unless you wish him to bid you a hasty good day. This is no imaginary character that I have drawn, my friends ; he belongs to a class that is increasing daily, and that will go on increasing ; for the old order of things is passing away, as it has passed away before, and as it must assuredly pass away again, and yet again. It is an age of doubt— of scepticism, if you will—and better that than blind unreasoning follow-my-leaderism. Men are daring to think for themselves, to decide for themselves—sure sign to the thinking mind that the childhood of our world is passed.

Alexandra and Yea Standard, Gobur, Thornton and Acheron Express (Vic. : 1877 - 1908), Friday 4 September 1885, page 3

Friday, 24 March 2017


Finery, Frivolity, and Frailty.
 The " Will of God" and Wilful Women.

The judicial strictures lately passed on the marked increase in the number of sexual offences in this State, aroused but a passing interest in the public mind. The citizen of to-day recognises—consciously or sub-consciously —that sexual depravity is inseparable from the conditions under which modern society exists. It is also beyond dispute that the vast majority of sexual offences remain undiscovered, and that the offenders who are detected—and punished—are invariably the "bottom dogs" of society. Yet statistics compiled in more congested centres than any existing in this State show that while the so-called "liberal professions" furnish 5 per cent. of ordinary criminals, no less than 12 per cent. of those sentenced for child-violation belong to the professional class. Criminals belonging to this section of society possess, as a rule, ample means and have more facilities for concealing their crimes. Even when a case comes to light the social "pull" of the offender, and the soporific influence of wisely-placed cash, prevents his punishment. Within the past decade more than one clergyman in West Australia has been accused of tampering with female children, and although one of the degenerate men of God was "biffed" severely by an infuriated father, the Law, beyond a burlesque inquiry, took no cognisance of the prurient pranks of the pietistic perverts. Moderation is quite as necessary in sexual enjoyment as it is in the gratification of other human requirements. Yet no more intolerant section of society than the clerical exists to-day. The lack of self-control exhibited daily by pulpitpounders—it is only reasonable to suppose—is not confined to their utterances or actions in public. When the Lord leadeth a man beside still waters and maketh him lie down in green pastures, his lines are mostly cast in pleasant places. Few, if any, have so much idle time, or are thrown so much in the
as the practitioners of piety. And the parson is always a privileged person. At Sunday schools, church services, bun-banquets, gingerbeer jollifications, and other wowser festivities, he is, to use a colloquialism, "the white-headed boy." Can it be wondered if, surfeited and palled by superfluity, the sexual provocative offered by the charms of mature womanhood should be replaced by a desire for keener stimulation? Leading authorities on the psychology of sex assert that the man who is a universal favorite with women is invariably a sexual pervert. And, apart from the dictum of science, it is asking too much of the credulity of the average man to ask him to believe that spiritual satisfaction is the only solace sought in the circles of wowserdom.
 A more striking proof of the perverted morality of modern Christians is afforded by the universal recognition that the present form of marriage is inadequate. While it is piously proclaimed that "the sacred tie" is divinely ordained, no social stigma is attached to men who seek illegitimate gratification of their sexual impulses. Yet the intuitive reaching out for the fulfilment of her being—if it is sanctified by a marriage ceremony—is regarded as a sign of inborn depravity in a woman. This peculiar delusion that an ecclesiastical anathema tends to subdue the natural instinct known as sexual impulse, is undoubtedly inherited from
of the Middle Ages. It is the purpose of sex to propagate the race. The sex-instinct is a law which Nature demands that every individual must fulfil if his development is to be healthy and normal. Modern Christianity, while providing marriage as a means by which the natural desires may find expression, vaguely recognises the shortcomings of "the sacred tie" by tacitly approving of prostitution. It is, the Biblebanging boneheads deprecatingly declare, a necessary evil. Why it is imperative that, in a community that boasts of its Christian principles, its culture, and its civilisation, a woman should be forced to barter the supreme expression of the sacred passion the wowsers never attempt to explain. Possibly they imagine it is the will of God. Yet it is an irrational Deity if, in bygone ages, He willed that woman should be mastered, violated, and beaten into submission by the stronger animal— man. Was it His will that the natural, healthy, sex-nature of woman should become distorted and stunted by starvation until she was forced to offer her body to her master? Of course, should such be the case, the Divine will, naturally enough, was modified considerably by the march of Occidental conceptions of sexual relationship. He let it be known that modern woman was to be coaxed, flattered, and humored, until she consented to become a pleasant plaything. It is a humbling reflection, but nevertheless a bald and brutal truth, that precisely the same feeling animates the Kimberley aboriginal, who stuns his gin with a waddy, as animates the cultured gentleman of modern civilisation, who places his divinity on a pedestal and worships her. In neither case is she regarded as a comrade, a willing lover, or an individual standing on the same footing as man. She is the slave, or the idol, as the case may be, but ever and always the sexual appendage to man.
It is not to be wondered at that women to-day are not as sweet, as generous, or as wholesome as Nature would have had them. Although the welfare of future generations depends on the purity and intelligence of woman, modern conditions have kept her as ignorant of the great social evils which
as was her mediaeval sister. Her want of training, and the absence of any decent outlet for the tyrannical insistence of the sex instinct, has left her a sentiment-swamped creature whose outlook on existence is circumscribed by the narrow limits of the ring-fetter of a wife. Should the appalling monotony of work and a little sleep, which is the best bargain of ninetenths of married women, deter her from matrimony, she is looked upon as a naturally vicious woman and, denounced by her own sex for drawing worthy and innocent masculinity down into the depths of iniquity. Mrs. Walter M. Gallichan, in her book, "The Truth About Woman," says: "Idleness, frivolity, and the love of finery are the chief causes of a girl's downfall. The last is a far more frequent and stronger factor in determining towards prostitution than actual want, and one moreover, that is very deeply seated in the feminine character. Women must remember that, if they suffer through men's passion, men suffer no less through women's greed. We have got to remember that if many of our fallen sisters have been seduced by men, at least an equal number of men have received their sexual initiation at the hands of our sex. The seduction of young men by women is often the starting point of a young man's association with courtesans. The majority of prostitutes are simply doing for money what they originally did of their own free will for the excitement and the gain of some small personal gift. A chief cause of prostitution, which has not been sufficiently recognised, is sexual frigidity. This is the clearest explanation of the moral insensibility of the prostitute. I am certain that many of the courtesans I have known have never experienced passion. I believe that the traffic of love's supreme rite means less to them than it would do to me to shake hands with a man I disliked."
 Being a woman, Mrs. Gillichan looks upon "the social evil"
to the mere male. Yet despite the inside knowledge inseparable from her sex, few indeed will believe that a healthy, well-poised girl deliberately chooses a life of shameful barter. Few, very few women reach the brothel in one step, and take that step from choice. Yet although the fair writer will not admit that women instinctively shrink from sex-expression unless it is sanctified by love, she does not hold with any platitudinous piffle about the will of God. In fact, she insists that the ways of wilful woman are the determining factor.

Truth (Perth, WA : 1903 - 1931), Saturday 13 October 1917, page 5


Mr. J. Corbet, a recognised authority on insanity and kindred questions, contributes to The Arena a most interesting article on "Illustrious Lunatics," from which we quote the following extracts : —

At a moment when the grave sociological problem of the insane engages so much public attention and excites so much anxiety, and scientists and specialists are busy discussing the pros and cons on both sides, it may be interesting to bring to mind a few of the most remarkable personages who were either actually mad or whose mental deformity and moral depravity were such as to qualify them for place amongst the abnormal classes. At any rate, notwithstanding the "divinity" that, it is said, hedges kings, some plain speaking on the subject may have its uses.
 The verity of the aphorism expressed in the line " Great wits are sure to madness near allied," has many striking examples.
 One of the most remarkable instances of illustrious lunacy of a hereditary character in ancient times is that furnished by the family of the Cæsars. It would seem as if the insane taint originated with the great founder of the dynasty, who was afflicted with epilepsy, and, according to some writers, abandoned himself in his younger days to vice and intemperance. The youthful Caesar would have been more than mortal if he did not yield to the temptations by which he was surrounded on every side. He, moreover, when forced to fly from Rome, while yet in his teens, resided for a considerable time at the corrupt Court of Nicomedus, King of Bithynia, where immorality was rampant, and riotous living the rule.
 Cæsar's daughter Julia is said to have been a woman of the worst character. She had a son who was idiotic ; and several others of the immediate descendants and collateral branches of the family were hereditarily infected. It is unnecessary to go much further in this direction to show how moral brain-poisoning brought down the curse of insanity upon the Julian race, and how, even in the case of pagans, the sins of the parents were visited upon the children "to the third and fourth generation" and beyond.
 Alexander of Macedon furnishes another example of how the exercise of absolute power and the unrestrained indulgence of sensuality act upon the brain, destroy the faculty of self-control, harden the human heart, impair the understanding, and finally overthrow the reason. Numerous instances are recorded of Alexander's senseless savagery and bloodthirstiness. History credits him with sighing for more kingdoms to conquer, but his insanity was of the homicidal type, and his longing was not so much for more kingdoms to conquer as for more people to massacre. It is related of him that after the capture of Tyre he caused an immense number of persons, including non-combatants, to be put to death in cold blood. Nearly 20,000 inhabitants of Sangala were butchered by his orders after the city had surrendered, and his barbarities at the taking of Gaza were diabolical.
To come down to our own days, it is notorious that most of the Royal families of the present day have "the mad drop" in them—notably the Russian, German, Austrian, Danish, English, Portuguese, and Bavarian. The conservation and hereditary transmission of the insane taint in all these is assured by frequent consanguineous marriages. In fact, it may be said that all the Royalties of Europe are so married and intermarried amongst each other that there is considerable difficulty about fixing the degrees of relationship between their numerous members. Uncles, aunts, and cousins are jumbled up in a tangle that only the Herald's College could be expected to unravel. Those who are responsible for the making of such matrimonial alliances seem to ignore the fact that consanguineous marriages, especially where mental disturbance has already manifested itself on either side, are not only fraught with danger to posterity, but are certain to produce evil results, psychical or somatical The offspring of such marriages are rarely perfectly sound. If not mentally unbalanced they are not mentally vigorous, or else they are afflicted with physical imperfections, malformation of the limbs, scrofula, defective organs of speech, hearing, and the like.
 The Imperial House of Russia furnishes some examples.
 Ivan, called the Terrible, was nothing less than a violent lunatic. If an ordinary mortal he would undoubtedly have been shut up and ended his days in an asylum for the insane.
 Peter the Great was an epileptic, a drunkard, and a bloodthirsty tyrant. He left a legacy of all his evil qualities to his daughter Elizabeth, who was so dissolute and corrupt that her actions could only be accounted for by mental aberration, of which moral depravity was the outcome. So in the case of Catherine, generally known as the Great, who lead a life so shockingly debased, that, looking back on it from this distance, she also must be regarded as having been morally insane. Her son Paul, who succeeded her, became in the end a violent lunatic, and his subjects, wearied by his acts of cruelly and oppression, put him to death. His son and successor, Alexander, was, towards the end of his life, a victim of melancholia, and died in that state. Nicholas was of such an ungovernable temper that at times his frenzy amounted to temporary insanity. The mind of the late Emperor was supposed to be quite unhinged from fear of the Nihilists, and it is said his death was caused by his fears.
 The terrible tragedies in the Austrian and Bavarian Royal houses are so recent as to be within the memory of all. With regard to Bavaria, what the responsible statesmen could have been thinking about in allowing a madman like Louis II. to squander the substance of his people to the extent of millions upon licentious men and women, and in building palaces and castles in out of the way places, is inconceivable. 
 England also can supply many types and instances not only of hereditary ruthlessness and moral depravity in her sovereigns, but of insanity. The life of Henry VIII. was an uninterrupted career of crime, cruelty, lust, and murder. A gross sensualist and voluptuary ; his conduct towards his many queens, who he did not hesitate to put to death one after another when he grew tired of them, was such as to qualify him, if sane, for the hands of the executioner, and, if not, for a cell in a criminal lunatic asylum. His daughter, Elizabeth, despite her conspicuous abilities as a sovereign, showed clearly the hereditary taint. Her relations with men, and especially with Essex, and his subsequent fate, proved her to be "her father's own daughter," while her savagery in beheading the hapless Mary Queen of Scots, after keeping her in prison for twenty years, can only be attributed to the ruthless and sanguinary disposition inherited from her vicious and depraved parents.
 It is well known the Royal family of England is tainted on both sides. George I. and George II. drank to excess. There can do no doubt what ever their intemperance sowed the seeds which developed into positive insanity in George III.
 The mantle of the man-slayers, to whom reference have been already made, seems to have fallen upon the shoulders of another Eastern potentate, the modern lycanthrope, or wolfman, whose wholesale massacre of his own subjects have excited the horror and indignation of the whole world. It goes without saying that the army or fleet of any one of "the high contracting Powers," as they are pompously called, could stop the Imperial madman's career, and put him into a straight waistcoat at once. The only wonder is why they don't do it. The question may be asked, Is Abdul Hamid mad? Judged by his life, one of sensual excesses, and by his savage treatment of his Christian subjects, he is not only insane, but a criminal lunatic, qualified in every way to rank with the inhuman monsters of antiquity. Taking all these things into account, he may be set down as the most illustrious lunatic that has appeared upon earth from the days of Nero to the present time.

Burrowa News (NSW : 1874 - 1951), Friday 28 July 1899, page 1

Tuesday, 21 March 2017




"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled, by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? if you prick us do we not bleed? if you tickle us do we not laugh? if you poison us do we not die?"

—"The Merchant of Venice."

"FOR 19 centuries, the Jew has been hunted and persecuted by alleged Christians (writes Tom Johnston is Glasgow "Forward"). When the Emperor Titus destroyed Jerusalem (A.D. 72) and made of the temple a heap of ruins, "God's "peculiar people" scattered themselves throughout Europe. In every land where they sojourned, some of them amassed wealth; often thereafter having that wealth forcibly stolen from them, and counting themselves lucky when they were allowed to die in their beds.
Not only was the Jew a great trader and merchant and banker, but he was a great physician, and by applying experience and science to the cure of disease, as against the incantations of the ecclesiastics, he earned for himself the enmity of all the learned practitioners in the production of dry weather by prayer, and who made a living by the discovery of witches and sooterkins.

In Germany.

In Germany for centuries the Jews had a particularly thin time of it. If a Jew trader there amassed money, heaven help him when the local baron got to hear of it,for it was no trouble at all in the middle ages to start a story that a murdered Christian child had been found in the house of a wealthy Jew.

A human sacrifice! Away with the scoundrel to the gallows-hill, and hand over his money to the baron.

When the baron and the ecclesiastics were thus united, things usually looked bad for the Jew, but occasionally he and his family might be spared from the flames or the rope if he surrendered his shekels in time to the baron, and promised to keep earning more for him In the future.

Blamed For Plague.

During the XIV. Century, when Europe was decimated by a plague, the Jews in Germany were blamed for its causation, and at Basle numbers of them were publicly burned, their children being spared, so that they might be educated as good Christians. This was understood to be particularly gratifying to the angels.
 A great game was to issue a decree that the interest upon all debts due to Jews was cancelled. That was certainly done in Louis VIII.'s time in France. And in the reign of the same Christian King, no punishment was inflicted upon any Christian who killed a Jew.

In Britain.

In Britain, after the Norman Conquest, says the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," William II. found the Jews so profitably taxable a community that he refused to allow them to be converted to the Christian faith. And in the time of the good King John one method of raising taxation for the King was to take out a rich Jew from the town of Bristol and pull a tooth from his jaws every day until he paid up 10,000 marks as ransom for his remaining molars.

Henry III. sold to his brother all the Jews in England for 6000 marks,with full power over their person and property.

The "Protocols Of Zion."

Among civilised and semi-civilised peoples the cult of anti-Semitism has rather gone out of fashion in recent times. In America, for example, it is somewhat difficult to palm off all usury upon the Jewish bankers and financiers, so long as Rockefeller and Morgan are notorious Gentiles. But 10 years ago, the "Dearborn Independent" was seeking to raise a storm over the alleged Protocols, or world programme of some anonymous group of international Jews held at Basle about 1896 or thereabouts (if ever). These Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion were first published in Russia about 1905, by an anti-Semite called Professor Nilus. Where he got them from is not known.
Briefly, these Protocols are resolutions for racial domination of the world by the Jews (using inter alia Bolshevism as a weapon), but they seem to have fallen flat in this country, no one apparently giving them the slightest credence except a stray journalist on the staff of the "Morning Post" and a group called "The Britons," whose spiritual leadership, doubtless, Sir Oswald Mosley has now fallen heir.

Too Silly For Words.

The thing is too silly for words, Trotsky might be a Jew, but certainly Lenin was not. And it is surely manifestly absurd to ascribe the origins of the late war to Jewry. Whatever other form of wickedness International Finance may stand for, it does not stand for war. Certain categories of industrial capitalists may gain by war; but the moneylender, usually is strenuously opposed.

Yet it is this Protocol trash that Hitler has raved from Hamburg to the Polish Corridor.

The first Republican Secretary of Foreign Affairs in Germany was, he shouts, Haase, a Jew, Schiffer, a Jew, the first Minister of Finance. Ballin, the great shipowner. Rathenau, the chief man in industrial finance, Gwinner of the banks—all Jews! Germany is in poverty for no other reason than that the Jews have been in control; they sold the Nordics to International Finance, hence the beer is thin and there is dead dog in the sausage!

It is much too early yet to say that the International boycott by the Jews of German goods has beaten Daft Adolph. But as a test in the organisation of International economic pressure upon a nation or a Government gone berserk, the boycott has been magnificent.

Daily Standard (Brisbane, Qld. : 1912 - 1936), Saturday 27 May 1933, page 6


(Catholic News Service.)

PARIS.—The story of Nilus and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" of which he is the reputed author, is exciting much attention in Paris, particularly since the Russian paper, the "Posleidnier Novoeit" ("Latest-News"), Paul Milinkoff's organ, has published a series of articles dealing with the Protocols by a Don Cossack, one Mr. du Chayla.  Du Chayla says that he first met Nilus in the library of an Orthodox monastery in Russia; that he is a sincere man, though somewhat credulous and a trifle fanatical.  According to Nilus himself he received the manuscript of the Protocols from Gen. Ratchkosky, by means of a certain woman, Natalie Anastasia K ——. There is also a certain Marshal Soukhotin mentioned, whom Du Chayla is inclined to think serves as a blind to hide the identity of the mysterious Natalie. Anyway, Gen. Ratchkosky was Chief of the Russian Secret Police for a score or more of years. According to Du Chayla he was on the lookout for some imaginative and mystically-minded person who, close to the person of the late Czar, could combat the influence of a person who is known as "Lois Philippe, the mesmerist."  Nilus appears to have fulfilled the General's requirements, particularly as he had made himself notorious by prophesying the approach of Antichrist. Nilus was thus employed to write his book of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book which accuses the Zionists of a conspiracy to obtain world domination, and the information supplied to him was stated to have been filched from the archives of the Grand Orient in Paris. This is how Du Chayla makes out the case for Nilus, who, he says, is disowned by the Orthodox clergy of Russia, who are not particularly convinced by his mesmerists, his Illuminati, his veiled women, and secret police officials. He throws cold water on the Zionist contention that Nilus, the reputed author of the "Protocols," is a fictitious person who never had any real existence. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" has been published in almost every modern European language. Its authenticity has been disputed by numerous Zionist scholars and writers, who pronounce the work to be a sheer fake.

Southern Cross (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1954), Friday 9 September 1921, page 6



Sacred Ties and Slip-Knots.


Cant and Camouflage of Conventions.

There is a considerable amount of speculation going on at present concerning the changes which are expected as a result of "the greatest war of all times." Some enthusiasts predict a new social era, wherein the lion of capitalism will foregather amicably with the lamb of labor and all men shall be as brothers—neither robbing nor being robbed. A sort of economic elysium, where no one will have too much, and no one too little. Under such a social system each man will "do his bit" for the common weal, and in his spare time smoke the pipe of peace and plenty under his own fig trees, untroubled by tax-gatherers, debt-collectors, penny newspapers, or paranoiac politicians. Sin, or rather crime and criminals, will cease to exist—automatically wiped off the face of the earth. There will be nothing to sin or commit crimes for, these optimistic prophets point out, since want,
will be unknown save as a dim and unpleasant memory.
While all would hail such a desirable state of affairs with satisfaction, it is well to remember that there are two primal, or instinctive, wants—the food want or hunger, and sex hunger. And since man first shod his tail and started to walk on his hind legs, it is upon these two cravings that every social system has been built. Though food is the first essential, sex hunger is as equally an imperious and persistent craving, and plays such a part in determining the conditions of existence that it is difficult to distinguish which of the twin instincts is the dominant factor in shaping any system of society, it cannot be disputed that since Eve started industrial "problems" by condemning Adam to hustle for a crust—or its equivalent at the time of the eviction—the sex problem has caused man as much worry as the necessity of earning his bread by the sweat of his brow.
in all ages and in all climes, has ever been the prime disturbing factor and the chief source of annoyance to the superior animal—man. The feminine faculty for creating mischief has bred wars, instigated murders, and started rebellions. Since the days when she was clubbed into submission and dragged to the cave of her captor, she likes to feel that she has been mastered, conquered, and taken possession of by—she subconsciously reasons—one who can both protect and provide for her. Nor has this peculiar sort of pride diminished to any great extent under the stress of the alleged civilisation of more recent times. Although marriage by conquest has gone out of fashion, she still pines to be wooed and won, and likes to persuade herself that he who has stormed the citadel of her heart is
 The long-haired mate of man, taking her by and large, instinctively admires soldiers, athletes, and fighting men generally; and nothing so lowers a lover in a maiden's eyes than for him to be whipped in a personal encounter with a rival. Whether the best fighters make the best husbands and bread-winners—under modern conditions—is open to doubt. Natural selection possibly may be influenced by what the hereinbefore mentioned optimists call economic considerations. Yet, in vertebrates, it is an undeniable fact that sex and stoush run, so to speak, in double harness. The season of love is the season of battle, and when the fires of sexual ism burn low the torch of Mars flickers and grows dim. This biological peculiarity is referred to by Darwin in his "Descent of Man" where he remarks : "With social animals the young males have to pass through many a contest before they win a female, and the older males have to retain their females by renewed battles. They have, as in the case of mankind,
as well as their young from enemies of all kinds, and to hunt for their joint subsistence."
The highest among the social animals, modern man, while he may not have to fight with Nature's weapons, still has to struggle for his female, and, when he has got her, to hunt for their joint subsistence. In fact, he has to hunt so persistently that he is forced to delegate the duty of protecting her "from enemies of all kinds," to large and sinewy policemen whose labors are much lightened by the survival of superstitious beliefs and a firmly-fixed faith in the infallibility of the
of the day. The tendency of sexualism and slaughter to go hand-in-hand is noted, also by Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace, who says:
"Among the higher animals it is a very general fact that the males fight together for the possession of the females. This leads to the stronger or better-armed males be coming the parents of the next generation. Almost all male animals fight together, and from this very general phenomenon there necessarily results a form of natural selection which increases the vigor and fighting power of the male animal; the weaker being either killed, wounded, or driven away."
Whether the theory that
is the amalgam that unites the golden particles of physical perfection, rigor, bravery, and endurance, is subscribed to or not, it cannot be disputed that in the average female it is an instinctive belief that her sexual favors are a prize for which men must be compelled to struggle. From her knobby-kneed, angular-elbowed, bread-and-butter days the maiden's Prince Charming is ever a doughty doer of gallant deeds—he conquers giants, outwits his enemies, pulverises villains, and is in general an all-round holy terror to all wicked persons whose baleful influence, in the romantic damsel's imagination, prevents the union of two loving hearts. She strives by any and every means that feminine ingenuity can compass to make herself a prize. The birds of the air and the beasts of the forest are laid under contribution to decorate her body with furs and feathers. The bowels of the earth and the depths of the ocean are explored for precious metal and gems to adorn her person. Fashions are designed for the express purpose of providing her with raiment that
her physical charms. From her simpering "school-miss" days she is taught the tricks of provocation, the sly seductive arts that accentuate the lure of sex and arouse in men the passion for possession. Her whole aim in life, until time robs her of her sexual charm, is to make herself so attractive and desirable in the eyes of men that they will deem her favors a sort of victor's bays— the laurel wreath with which gracious Beauty decks the brow of the successful competitor.
While in the male sex hunger is satisfied by the gratification of the appetite, desire in the female is intensified by the stimulation of other instincts connected with the
 She is dominated by the maternal as well as the sexual instinct, and in her the call of sex is much more insistent than in man. Under the social conditions which prevailed up till the outbreak of war, sex-repression was forced upon unmarried women, and men were bred up in the quite erroneous belief that gifts which did not demand a certain amount of struggle and self-sacrifice were not worth having. And the supreme gift was the monopoly of a woman's sexual favors. That this mental dope—or instilled superstition, formed no part of the moral code of the ruling class has been abundantly exemplified by the periodical scandals provoked by the exposures of the prevalence of name-less vices among the idle rich. Suffering from surfeit, Sassiety folk sought to stimulate the sexual appetite by the means tersely forbidden in Leviticus, chap. 18, verses 22 23. But the perverted practices of "High" society may be dismissed as having no bearing upon the shaping of any social system. They are merely the scum that rises to the surface during the
 But it was of paramount importance that the majority of the people should hold fast to the belief that sex repression—until ecclesiastic or legal sanction was obtained— was a divine ordination. "Marriage is the basis of the family, the family is the basis of the State," and should marriage be superseded by some more satisfactory scheme of sex relationship, both the present social system and the State are doomed. Yet the marriage-tie has become more and more irksome to the bulk of the people under the conditions imposed upon them by modern civilisation. Woman's sex instinct in particular has never been permitted to find a full and free expression. As before mentioned, she had been taught to regard herself as a prize to be struggled for and sought after, and that inaccessibility was her most potent charm. After marriage her favors were monopolised by one man, and married life has been regarded by woman as her sole refuge, an asylum that offered a shelter from the storm and stress of the struggle for existence.
Yet notwithstanding the fact that an infraction of the moral code—insofar as it concerns the relations of the sexes—
in the case of a single girl, and forced upon a married woman the necessity of finding other means of securing food and shelter, sex repression in the unmarried, and conjugal fidelity in the married woman, has by no means worked out as the dour, dead-and-gone wowsers who invented our moral codes and social superstitions anticipated. Bastardy laws, and the right of a single woman to sue for prematernity expenses, and divorce laws and the right of a married woman to sue for reparation and maintenance, are merely the tardy recognition of a biological fact. Nature cannot be harnessed by codes, however cunningly contrived, nor can instinct be hoodwinked by the
As social and industrial conditions in Australia are mostly a reflex of those obtaining in England, the part now being played by the women of Britain is of more than passing interest. Since the outbreak of the war the "sacred bonds of wedlock" have become very elastic. So much so indeed that at the beginning of the present year more divorce petitions were filed in one month— January —than at any time since the passing of the Divorce Act. In February they were higher still, and each month since has shown a further increase. The petitions by husbands outnumber those by wives by five or six to one. And this astounding increase is not due to any sudden or unusual outbreak of immorality among the aristocracy or the idle rich. These petitions were almost all made under what is known as the "Poor Persons Rules" which have been introduced for the special purpose of dealing with
of the poorer or wage-earning class. In legal circles a still greater increase is anticipated and more accommodation is being asked for, and the appointment of additional Judges is urged.
 The British Parliament, alarmed no doubt by the swiftly growing tendency of the marriage tie to become a mere slip-knot appointed a Parliamentary committee to investigate and report on the possibilities of "Marriage Law Reform." With a perspicacity unusual in such bodies, the committee recognised the fact that the ease with which the knot was slipped rendered some sort of reform imperative. Getting married must be made as easy as getting unmarried, or the sanctity of the marriage-tie was doomed. The rigmarole of preliminary observances demanded by the law, and the itching palms of the pimps of piety, had made marriage a complicated, expensive, and tedious process, so much so that the wedding ceremony was beginning to be regarded as hardly worth the trouble and expense entailed. The committee therefore urged that—"At the present time while the manhood of the nation has been depleted,
—such as those which arise from legal technicalities and pecuniary circumstances—should be allowed to remain."
 Whether the committee's efforts to smooth the path to the matrimonial altar (or halter) will save that ancient piece of furniture from being scrapped is uncertain. An entirely new set of conditions has arisen in England since the outbreak of war. Woman has—to an extent hitherto undreamt of—displaced man in the industrial arena. She is doing practically the work of the nation. She will moreover have to keep on doing it as "the manhood of the nation has been depleted" to such an extent that it is estimated that only three girls in every ten in Britain have a chance of getting married. A healthy, well-poised woman who is industrially independent is not, now forced to
until, assisted by a parson, she can barter the sole right to her body for food and shelter. That she has recognised this is fairly evident, not only by the unprecedented boom in divorce, but also by the legislative anxiety concerning the marriage-tie. This anxiety is quite understandable when it is remembered that while, as mentioned, marriage is the basis of the family, and the family the basis of the State, its primary purpose was to obtain "legitimate" children. It was with the evolution of private property in lands, dwellings, and cattle, that the idea first originated of a permanent marriage between one man and one woman. Private possessions bred the desire that one's own children should inherit these possessions. Thus the custom of one man taking a woman and
of her genial favors sprang up, and has continued with little or no alteration down to the present day. Marriage as a divinely ordained institution is merely moonshine. The cant of monogamy in the churches is disproved by the facts of life in the divorce courts. Nor can the history of prostitution be separated from the history of private property in the earth and the fruits thereof. When the earth and its products came to be privately owned it naturally followed that large numbers of men and women were left without land, homes, or means of subsistence. The men, having nothing else, sold their labor, as also did those of the women whose sexual attraction did not appeal to the owners of things—the master class. Whatever may be the outcome of the
of the social scheme "after the war," it is fairly certain that marriage—as a monogamous institution—must undergo considerable modifications. Man, hitherto, has had a monopoly of the manufacturing of laws concerning matrimonial matters, and his handiwork entitles him neither to credit for his intelligence nor to respect for his humanity. When woman takes a hand—as she undoubtedly will in the near future—in the shaping of social affairs, she will find little in the existing, or past, legislation governing the relations of the sexes that will be useful as a guide except, perhaps, of what to avoid.

Truth (Melbourne ed.) (Vic. : 1914 - 1918), Saturday 12 October 1918, page 5

Saturday, 18 March 2017



There are many points in recent German domestic policy which must be considered in the light of history before we can pass judgment on them. We cordially accept the proposition that no person should be penalised because he is a Jew. But we also hold that no anarchist or oppressor should be excused simply because he happens to be a Jew. There are solid reasons for believing that the alleged persecution in Germany has been grossly exaggerated and misrepresented. So say the president of the Central Council of German Jewish citizens, and the American Ambassador at Berlin (not reported in the Australian cables). It is well known that the world's newspaper press is dominated by Jews. The three greatest news-collecting agencies — Reuters, Wolffs and Havas — are owned by Jews. They were described by William Liebknecht as the invisible orchestra which strikes the same note in London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Sydney and New York. The example of their perfect unanimity was shown in the Dreyfus affair and the Ferrer case. Jews control the big journals in the great metropolitan centres of Europe and America. Where they do not own papers, Rothschild or Mendelssohn money is often behind them.
 The action of Cardinal Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne, and the German Catholic Hierarchy, confirms our opinion that the Jewish press campaign is grossly exaggerated. They lifted the ban which prevented Catholics from joining the "Nazis," which they certainly would not have done if any section of the people were persecuted on account of their religion. In addition, the Lenten Pastoral of Bishop Gfollner, of Upper Austria, quoted in the London "Universe" of March 23, refers in the following terms to certain types of Jews, very numerous in Central Europe:
 Different from the Jewish nationality and Jewish religion is the international Jewish world spirit. No doubt many ungodly Jews exercise a ruinous influence on almost all fields of modern cultural life. Commerce and trade, business and competition, the legal and medical professions, revolutionary social and political changes are frequently penetrated and decayed by materialistic and liberal principles having their origin with Jews. The press and advertisements, the theatre and cinema are often filled with frivolous and cynical tendencies which poison the Christian soul of the people to the very heart, and, with equal frequency, are nourished and propagated by Jews. Depraved Jewry, in alliance with international Freemasonry, is also the main support of mammonistic capitalism and chiefly the founder and apostle of Socialism and Communism, the forerunners and pace-makers of Bolshevism.
 The Bishop declares that it is the conscientious duty of every good citizen to break that ruinous influence.
 No deep acquaintance with history is required to understand the Bishop's allusion. There is ample evidence that many Jews have forgotten their religion, and have become leaders of ungodly revolution. When Karl (Mordecai) Marx launched the First Communist International, at St. Martin's Hall, London, in 1864, his associates were Engels, Lassalle, Bebel and Singer (Germany); Neumayer, Victor Adler and Aaron Liebermann (Austria) ; Fribourg, Frankel and Haltmauer (France); De Leon and Kahn (U.S.A.). These leaders were all of the Jewish race, though most of them had become atheists. Their agents were busy in the Paris Commune of 1871. The "Cambridge Modern History" states that per sons of Jewish descent played an unexpected part in spreading Nihilism, as Czar Alexander II. was much more tolerant towards them than his predecessors. L'Olper, a Jew, was the counsellor of Mazzini, the anarchist; Isaac Artom was the secretary of Cavour, the arch anti-clerical. Nathan, the Anglo-Jew, who became Mayor of Rome, was a notorious Pope-baiter. Daniel De Leon, Marx's friend, founded the I.W.W. in America, and with the Jews, Hillquit and Berger, became the preceptors of the Jew Trotsky and Lenin, when they were exiles in New York. Bela Kuhn (Cohen), the notorious Hungarian tyrant of 1919, headed a Jewish Cabinet, which perpetrated atrocities ten times worse than those of Germany to-day.
 The rapid growth of Communism naturally alarmed intelligent Germans. They remembered the abortive insurrections of 1918 and 1920, if the British press and politicians conveniently forgot them. The Jews were busy then. In 1918, the faction then known as Independent Socialists, under its Jewish leaders, Dr. Liebknecht, Rosa Luxembourg and Daunig, adopted Soviet models. One of the leaders, Cohn, admitted receiving 12½ million roubles from Russia to foment rebellion. Two months' sanguinary fighting were required to suppress the movement, which ended when Liebknecht and Luxembourg were shot. After the establishment of the Republic, Independent Socialists, under the Jewish leaders, Dr. Levi and Klara Zetkin, joined the Red Internationale, and began a rebellion in Central Germany. Many lives were lost before it was suppressed. Levi was deposed; Zetkin figured prominently when, as Red Klara, she was made a vice-president of the 1932 Reichstag and delivered a fiery address. Nor can it be overlooked that leading German statesmen as well as "Nazis" have been assassinated within the last two years. Rathenau was an outstanding example. The new Government might very well realise that these insurrectionists, who, if tolerated, would attract millions of mischievous people to their cave of Adullam, must be suppressed by force, to preserve constitutional Government. If there are many Jews among them so much the worse for these Jews.
 Bishop Gfollner's allusion to the alliance of Jews and Freemasonry is well known to students of European history. Many years ago Disraeli, who ought to know, said, "Nearly all the secret societies have a Jew at their head." He also pointed out, in "Coningsby," that it was the Jews who, behind the scenes, pulled the strings of international intrigue and revolution. The founders of esoteric, or speculative, Freemasonry, the arch-foe of Christianity, were the Jews, Weishaupt, Pasqualis and Cagliostro. The kindly gentlemen in dinner jackets, who sing with gusto, "The More We are Together," and thrill at the sublimated punk about Hiram, Solomon's Temple, and the Brotherhood of Man, which passes for philosophy in innocent Australian Masonic circles, never dream that it was concocted by such a Jewish adventurer as Cagliostro. The worst harm their Masonry does is to pack the Civil Service and the offices of Joint Stock Companies with officials whose chief qualification is their Masonic membership. But in Europe Grand Orient Freemasonry is very different, so much so, that British Freemasons affect to ignore it. Leroy Beaulieu, a French Jew, whose literary reputation is world-wide, said that the "aims and ideals of the Jews are practically identical with international Freemasonry." The "Jewish Encyclopaedia" admits that "Jews have been most conspicuous in Freemasonry since the French Revolution." They make it a kind of Theosophic religion, and while they stand for internationalism, they reject toleration. Much of Mussolini's unpopularity in the Jewish-controlled press arose when he suppressed Masonry. But though of the Jewish race, most of these miscreants are not Jews. They are renegades, like those Catholics who neglect the practice of their religion, but yell for Catholic help when they lose their jobs through incompetence, though they protest that the cause was intolerance. As Bishop Gfollner says, Jewish Freemasonry is the main support of mammonistic Capitalism. There may have been exaggeration in the assertion that rivalry between the great Jewish financiers of London, Paris, Berlin and New York had much to do with the outbreak of war in 1914. But there is no doubt that the Rothschilds, Mendelssohns, Kahns and their satellites fanned the flames. The creation of the American Federal Reserve Bank was said to be a potent factor in this campaign. The Jews were behind the great financial scandals of last century, Humbert, Lesseps, Cornelius Herz, and Dreyfus. This pernicious influence led reasonable men like Chesterton, Belloc, and Henry Ford to resist Jewish financial domination. Ford ceased when he found it difficult to control selfish followers. That may be the experience of Germany. The victims of Jewish middlemen, labour sweaters and money lenders take advantage of civil trouble to wreak private vengeance. But the propaganda pointing to attacks on learning and culture is hypocritical. The books and papers destroyed were not the fruit of scholarship, but of decadence. And if Einstein was a great mathematician, he was also an aggressive leader of the International War Resisters' League, a body with a suggestively Bolshevik title.

Catholic Press (Sydney, NSW : 1895 - 1942), Thursday 18 May 1933, page 24

[This poisonous apology (after the book-burning) is quoted verbatim]