NIETZSCHE. DID HE MAKE THE WAR ?

HIS OPINION OF THE GERMANS

BY ARCHIBALD T. STRONG

During the last few weeks I have repeatedly heard the question asked how far Nietzsche may be held responsible for the present war. It cannot be seriously doubted that a vast body of German public opinion regards, or pretends to regard, it as a struggle after the very heart of him who scouted pity; as the most contemptible of the Christian "virtues," regarded war as one of the main activities of the Superman, and gave unto his chosen ones the supreme commandment "live dangerously."       
Before and since the outbreak of hostilities all sorts of queer statements have been made by public men in Germany from the Kaiser upwards, which sound to any true student of Nietzsche much as the notes of a great singer might sound when transmitted through some cheap and blaring megaphone. To the grotesque misapplication of Nietzsche's teaching regarding the transvaluation of all moral values is in large measure due the mean and cynical repudiation of national honor, which caused Germany to dismiss the Belgian treaty as "a scrap of paper," and to make to England the disgusting proposal that she should stand quietly by while her chief ally was robbed of her colonies.
Nietszche, again, had, in a certain context and with marked reservations, defended slavery, and had declared that the weaklings of this earth existed only for the sake of the Superman, that sovereign incarnation of the Will to Power. It is seemingly to a perverse misrendering of this precept by a hundred brutal militarists and professorial pedants, that we owe the German official policy of "Schrecklichkeit," or "awfulness," which has resulted in a succession of organised horrors probably unparalleled in the world's history.

RECENT ATROCITIES

If anyone still doubts these occurrences, I repeat, let him go up to the newspaper room at the Public Library and consult "The Times" of September 16 for the official report of the Belgian Commission on the behavior of the German army in Belgium. This testimony is confirmed up to the hilt by the special war correspondent of "Nash's Magazine," who, in the current number, describes a few of the horrors he has lately seen. The report just mentioned and the other reports of the Commission should be sufficient proof, of these things even for the most uncompromising Australian Anglophobe, or Teutophil.
I may add that I am not recurring to this subject because I like it, or be cause I, expect other people to like it. The details given are as odious to me as they must be to every normally constituted man or woman. My sole object is to point out to Australians that they have to expect this, and worse if worse were possible—should German troops ever set foot on English or Australian soil: and if I can help in nerving the heart and will of every Australian of fighting age to enlist at once, and make such a hideous contingency impossible, my purpose will have been amply served.

NIETZSCHE ON GERMANY.   

To return to our subject, we have for long been informed that modern Germany is steeped in Nietzsche's teaching, and that his influence has been especially strong in German universities, Gerhart Hauptmann, the leading German playwright of the day, in his contribution to the manifesto recently addressed to America by German writers, enlarged on the "culture"—convenient and elastic word!—of the German army, and said that it was common for a German soldier to go to the front with one of Nietzsche's masterpieces in his knapsack.
One is tempted to ask whether all Nietzsche's works are equally acceptable to the "cultured" spoilers, of Louvain, or whether any are placed on the index by the military censor. Certain it is that if the German army reads Nietzsche extensively, it must get some rude shocks. The following is a literal translation of a passage in Nietzsche's "Ecce Homo," and I would draw special attention to the last sentence:— 
Not only have the Germans entirely lost the breadth of vision which enables one to grasp the course of culture and the values of culture; not only are they one and all political (or church) puppets; but they have also factually put a ban upon this very breadth of vision. A man must first and foremost be German, he must belong to "the race"; then only can he pass judgment upon all values and lack of values in history—then only can he establish them. To be German is itself an argument.
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" is a principle. The Germans stand for the "moral order of the universe" in history. There is such a thing as writing history according to the lights of Imperial Germany there is, I fear, anti-Semitic history—there is also history written with an eye to the Court, and Herr von Treitschke is not ashamed of himself. When I listen to such things I lose all patience, and I feel inclined I even feel it my duty, to tell the Germans, for once in a way, all that they have on their conscience. Every great crime against culture for the last four centuries lies on their conscience.

SOME TERRIBLE INVECTIVE

The reference to Treitschke is interesting, and bears out what I stated a few weeks ago that in certain German Universities European history is "made to order" at the sweet will of the authorities, and that students are carefully  guarded from those truths which would lead them to favor a peace based on a fair view of their neighbors. But Nietzsche's loathing of the German character was vast, and various. As a writer in "The Times" has recently pointed out, one of his main causes for disliking Wagner was the fact that "he condescended to the Germans, and became German Imperialist."
Nietzsche expressly repudiates any identification of his own teaching with the spirit of modern Prussia, and instances as a sign of that Teutonic stupidity which he despised, the fact that his book, "Beyond God and Evil," was seriously regarded in Prussia as a genuine and typical example of "Junker-Philosophie." He thus repudiated by anticipation the exact misapplication with which I am now dealing. When living in Switzerland he almost hugs himself with joy at his remoteness from Germany.
The following extracts, one imagines, must have caused the volume which contains them — "Ecce Homo" —to weigh rather heavily in the Prussian knapsack:—

It is even part of my ambition to be considered as essentially a despiser of Germans. I express my suspicions of the German character even at the age of six-and-twenty (see "Thoughts Out of Season," Vol. II., pp. 164, 165). To my mind, the Germans are impossible. When I try to think of the kind of man who is opposed to me in all my instincts, my mental image takes the form of a German. 

As Nietzsche continues to speak of the Germans, his language becomes "curiouser and curiouser":—

You can scarcely even fathom their depths —they haven't any, and that's the end of it. Thus they cannot even be called shallow. That which is called "deep" in Germany is precisely this instinctive uncleanliness to   wards oneself of which I have just spoken. Might I be allowed, perhaps, to suggest the word "German" as an international epithet denoting this psychological depravity?

And again: —
A man lowers himself by frequenting the society of Germans. The Germans have not the faintest idea of how vulgar they are; but this in itself is the acme of vulgarity—they are not even ashamed of being merely Germans.

It is not my present object either to justify or refute this estimate of the Germans; all that I wish to do is to point out that perhaps some of them are carrying more in their knapsack than they may be aware of.

GERMAN VANDALISM HATED

Enough has probably been said to show that to judge by Nietzsche's utterances, Germany on the whole is somewhat mistaken when she claims him for her prophet and seer, and claims that if he had been living today he would have favored the present war. An esteemed friend of mine has pointed out to me that Nietesche's love of beauty alone would have led him to repudiate utterly the nation which has destroyed Rheims Cathedral, and given to the flames the immemorial treasures of Louvain.
How utterly he detested this kind of thing may be gathered from a letter of his to Baron von Gersdorf, apropos of the German excesses In Paris and the burning of the Louvre in 1871.
The following sentences seem especially striking if read in relation to the crimes of two months ago:—

We shall do wrong if we consider with a peaceful conceit the unchaining of a war against culture, and if we impute the fault merely to the unfortunates who do the deed. When I heard of the firing of Paris I was for some days utterly powerless, lost in tears and doubts; the life of science, of philosophy, and of art appeared to me as an absurdity when I saw a single day suffice for the ruin of the finest works of art.

In his autobiographical notes of 1870 he writes:—"The War : my profoundest affliction, the burning of the Louvre." His biographer, M. Halévy, further tells us that when he heard the news he "walked the roads like a desperate man," and subsequently recalled his own words that "without discipline, without a hierarchy, culture cannot subsist."         

The love of beauty, too, beauty manifested in the moral sphere, would, certainly have kept him from sympathy with the recent German outrages on innocent human life. Transvaluer though he was of moral values, he never wavered in his allegiance to the noble, as he understood nobility, nor strove to transvalue it into the ignoble; and if ever there was a supremely ignoble act; it was surely the German invasion of Belgium. No, as far as the present war is concerned, Nietzsche must be treated as a hostile witness by Germany. I must postpone an analysis of his general teaching till a future article.

Weekly Times 2 January 1915

THE WORLD IN WARLIKE MOOD

THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK.

"The future historian of the first decade of the twentieth century will be puzzled. He will find that the world at the opening of the century was in an extraordinarily belligerent mood, and that the mood was well-nigh universal, dominating the New World as well as the Old, the Orient no less than the Occident. He will find that preparations for war, especially among nations which confessed allegiance to the Prince of Peace, were carried forward with tremendous energy and enthusiasm, and that the air was filled with prophetic voices, picturing national calamities and predicting bloody and world-embracing conflicts."

So writes Charles Edward Jefferson in the "Atlantic Monthly." His subject is "The Delusion of Militarism," and his, article takes a world-wide sweep. He continues thus:—

"Alongside of this fact he will find another fact no less conspicuous and universal—that everybody of importance in the early years of the twentieth century was an ardent champion of peace.

A LOVER'S WALK THROUGH GUNS.

"A crowd of royal peacemakers in a world surcharged with thoughts and threats of war, a band of lovers strolling down an avenue, which they themselves had lined with lyddite shells and twelve inch guns, this will cause our historian to rub his eyes.

"His perplexity will become no less when he considers the incontrovertible proofs that never since time began were the masses of men so peaceably inclined as in just this turbulent and war-rumour tormented twentieth century. He will find that science and commerce and religion had co-operated in bringing the nations together, that the wage-earners in all the European countries had begun to speak of one another as brothers, and that the growing spirit of fraternity and co-operation had expressed itself in such organisations as the Interparliamentary Union, with a membership of twenty-five hundred legislators and statesmen, and various other societies and leagues of scholars and merchants and lawyers and jurists. He will find delegations paying friendly visits to neighbouring countries, and will read, dumbfounded, what the English and German papers were saying about invasions, and the need of increased armaments, at the very time that twenty thousand Germans in Berlin were applauding to the echo the friendly greeting of a company of English visitors.

AFTER PEACE MORE GUNS.

"His bewilderment, however, will reach its climax when he discovers that it was after the establishment of an international court that all nations voted to increase their armaments. Everybody conceded that it was better to settle international disputes by reason rather than by force, but as soon as the legal machinery was created, by means of which the sword could be dispensed with, there was a fresh fury to perfect at once all the instruments of destruction. After each new peace conference there was a fresh cry for more guns.

"When he finds that it was only men who lived all their life with guns who were haunted by horrible visions and kept dreaming hideous dreams, and that the larger the armament the more was a nation harassed by fears of invasion and possible annihilation, he will propound to himself these questions: Was it all a delusion, the notion that vast military and naval establishments are a safeguard of the peace ? Was it a form of national lunacy, this frenzied outpouring of national treasures for the engines of destruction? Was it an hallucination, this feverish conviction that only by guns can a nation's dignity be symbolised, and her place in the world's life and action be honourably maintained?

WAR TO KEEP THE PEACE.

"Those are questions which our descendants are certain to ponder, and why should not we face them now? If this preparing for war in order to keep the peace is indeed a delusion, the sooner we find it out the better, for it is the costliest of all obsessions by which humanity has ever been swayed and mastered. There are multiplying developments which are leading thoughtful observers to suspect that this pre-Christian maxim is a piece of antiquated wisdom, and that the desire to establish peace in our modern world by multiplying and brandishing the instruments of war is a product of mental aberration. Certainly, there are indications pointing in this direction. The world's brain may possibly have become unbalanced by a bacillus carried in the folds of a heathen adage. The most virulent and devastating disease now raging on the earth is militarism.

"But it is not true that the world has gone mad. The masses of men are sensible; but at present the nations are in the clutches of the militarists, and no way of escape has yet been discovered. The deliverance will come as soon as men begin to think and examine the sophistries with which militarism has flooded the world.

THE COST OF ARMED PEACE.

"Certain facts will surely, some day, burn themselves into the consciousness of all thinking men. The expensiveness of the armed peace is just beginning to catch the eye of legislators. The extravagance of the militarists will bring about their ruin. They cry for battleships at ten million dollars each, and Parliament or Congress votes them. But later on it is explained that battleships are worthless without cruisers, cruisers are worthless without torpedo boats, torpedo boats are worthless without torpedo boat destroyers, all those are worthless without colliers, ammunition, boats, hospital boats, repair boats; and these all together are worthless without deeper harbours, longer docks, more spacious navy yards.   

"And what are all these worth without officers and men, upon whose education millions of dollars have been lavished? When at last the navy has been fairly launched, the officials of the army come forward and demonstrate that a navy, after all, is worthless unless it is supported by a colossal land force. Thus are the Governments led on, step by step, into a treacherous morass, in which they are at first entangled, and finally overwhelmed.

NATIONS - WITH HEAVY DEFICITS.

"All the great nations are to-day facing deficits, caused in every case by the military and naval experts. Into what a tangle the finances of Russia and Japan have been brought by militarists is known to everybody. Germany has, in a single generation, increased her national debt from eighteen million dollars to more than one billion dollars. The German Minister of Finance looks wildly round in search of new sources of national income. Financial experts confess that France is approaching the limit of her sources of revenue. Her deficit is created by her army and navy. The British Government is always seeking for new devices by means of which to fill a depleted treasury. Her Dreadnoughts keep her poor. Italy has for years staggered on the verge of bankruptcy because she carries an overgrown army on her back.

"Even our own rich Republic faces this year a deficit of over a hundred million dollars, largely due to the one hundred and thirty millions we are spending on our navy. Mr. Cortelyon has called our attention to the fact that while in thirty years we have increased our population by 85 per cent., and our wealth by 185 per cent., we have increased our national expenses by 400 per cent.

'It is within those thirty years that we have spent one billion dollars on our navy. And the end is not yet. The Secretary of the Navy has recently asked for twenty-seven new vessels for the coming year, four of which are battleships at ten million dollars each, and he is frank to say that these twenty seven are only a fraction of the vessels to be asked for later on.

"The militarists are peace-at-any-price men. They are determined to have peace even at the risk of national bankruptcy. Everything good in Germany, Italy, Austria, England, and Russia is held back by the confiscation of the proceeds of industry.

The Mercury 10 May 1909, 

PEACE OR WAR ?

QUITE recently a handful of citizens at a Sunday evening gathering of the Society of Friends decided to inaugurate what they termed a "Peace Society," and judging from the published remarks of some of the speakers at that meeting, the main object of the proposed society is to disabuse the minds of Australians that there is any danger to their country by its being kept in an unprepared and defenceless condition. These people are, no doubt, actuated by noble and humane sentiments, but will their arguments bear even the weakest criticism? Miss Rose Scott, one of the speakers at that meeting, spoke of "defence against imaginary enemies." This lady would advocate total disarmament in Australia, because, as she says, "for 15 centuries, war had been a standing libel on Christianity, a cruel and stupendous burden on the people." Any person who would stand up as a champion of Christianity and at the same time advocate disarmament, should remember that the Christianising of the heathen races— raising them to the higher levels of civilisation— has been brought about, not by the more preaching of the gospel, but by the Sword and the Bible — the emblem of England's greatness.  
During the past few days the news comes to us by cable that "Dr. C. Gore, Bishop of Birmingham, has declared that he is profoundly convinced that the way to avoid the dangers of militarism is to strengthen the civic army." The peace-at-any-price individuals in our midst seem to forget that after all the maintaining of naval and military forces is but a system of national insurance, and would they advocate the abolishment of that insurance, because there is no "guarantee" that Australia will be attacked by some aggressive Power ? If people in commercial and private life suddenly came to a determination on these lines, then the insurance companies would have to put up the shutters. People insure their property not because they know there will be a fire, but because of the possibility of a fire.
All will agree, no doubt, that "the courage children should be taught is the courage to do right." Can a child be taught anything better than love of home and country, loyalty to King and Empire? Such teaching must necessarily embrace the inculcation of the military spirit, for under present conditions universally existing patriotism and loyalty must go hand in hand with militarism. If our young Australians are taught to regard defence preparations as superfluous, and to follow the principle of trust and be trusted, without any regard for what is being taught to the children of other nations, then there will grow up in Australia an army of milksops and fools, unprepared and unfit to defend their country in the hour of peril, and who, when that time comes, will have to bow their heads in shame, suffer national disgrace, and submit to absorption by the enemy whom they "trusted."          
Those Peace Society people must be regarded as enemies within the gates. They are as dangerous to their country's security as the few whose rebellious utterances a few years ago, during the progress of the Boer War, made their names to be abhorred by every right-thinking British subject. It is contended that the spirit of war is a return to the ideals of barbarism. If this be so, then we are not living in such an enlightened and progressive age as is supposed, for the spirit of war is as strong to-day as at any time in the history of nations. It has been left to a member of the Sydney "Peace Society" to convey to the world the startling information that none are civilised, but all are barbarians.
Universal peace is a dream of the future, and a present-day impossibility, and taking past history as a criterion so long as commercial rivalry between the nations continues to exist, and unclaimed territory and hidden wealth remain to be won, then so long will there be a desire for war, and consequently the necessity for maintaining armaments.
It seems a feasible argument that so long as the nations of the world remain divided in their religious, social, and political beliefs, and until they combine practically as one great nation, speaking the one language, and with interests and aspirations in common, there will continue to be racial quarrels, international disputes, and wars and rumors of wars. Some people speak confidently of international friendships; but, judging from the results of the Hague Conference that friendship is a false one. There can be no question in the world that the attitude of Germany to-day is one of aggression, the plain and admitted reason of this being that owing to her failures of the past in the direction of colonisation, she is being forced into the position of seeking an outlet for her vast population. In other words, Germany is arming not particularly to defend herself against a possible enemy, but with the hope one day of, if possible, dealing a death-blow to some other nation (do we need to ask which nation ?) with the object of opening up the way for an expansion of her territory. Of course, if the denunciations of our Peace Society "friends" in Sydney should reach the ears of the German Emperor, he may at once issue an order for the complete disarmament of the German nation, but it is very doubtful. Need we for one moment question the attitude of Germany, in regard to defence preparations when by cable there has just come to us the news that Dr. Karl Liebknecht, a German Socialist, has been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in a fortress for high treason in fomenting anti-militarism opinion. We may not be able to accuse our Peace Society "friends" of high treason, but were they in Germany their society would go into compulsory liquidation, and they would go to a fortress, where there would be a good opportunity for each of them to allow his or her bump of self-preservation to more largely develop.
Have our peace-at-any-price "friends" yet turned their eyes to the north-east ? If they have, what do they sea ? They see millions of Japanese and Chinese be coming skilled in the arts and science of war, and with these races, it is not a case of their going back to barbarism, but they are merging from a state, of barbarism into a high state of enlightenment and civilisation. We may well ask, Where, and how, is it all going to end ? One may venture the opinion that this feverish competition in the building of battleships and the manufacture of implements of war can never be stopped by agreement or treaty. International treaties are not worth the paper they are written on, and are merely instruments for temporary diplomatic use. Authorities who have made a life study of this subject appear to be convinced that international rivalry, hatred, and jealousy are destined to be stamped out, as far as it is possible to do so, only in one way — by force of arms, a war probably between two great military combinations. And when the great struggle is over, and the spoil divided, what then ? Who will be the masters of this great continent ?
Despite the sense of security which is felt and expressed by some people, and despite the careless indifference of a few wooden-headed legislators, it is gratifying to note that the Press organs of this country are now paying a good-deal of attention to the question of Australian defence. On this point the words of Lord Charles Beresford in his preface to "Nelson and His Times" (1905), are applicable:—
"The Press and the people have awakened to the importance of the question, and none too soon. In Europe, and, indeed, in the world, we have no friends, but many bitter enemies. Other people are naturally jealous of our vast possessions. It may be that our Empire will have once more to face the troubles, difficulties, and dangers which have accompanied the beginning of each century."  
We have been asked to forget, and to teach our children to forget, the name of Nelson. Surely such a request from a British subject could be made only out of the deepest ignorance of the glorious work achieved by the greatest of British heroes. It was Nelson's great victories that placed England in the position of a first-rate Power. For the freedom that we enjoy and the accomplishment of the national greatness of which we are so proud, Nelson fought and died. It was Nelson's great achievements that placed England in the position or wielding a mighty influence in the interests of peace, civilisation, and progress in the councils of the world.
Are we Australians, by neglect of our own beloved island continent — a part of the Great British Empire — going to be guilty of helping to undo the great work so well and nobly begun by one whose name should be deeply engraven in the heart of every true British subject. The words of Shakespeare are as true to-day as when they were written centuries ago:—      
"It is most meet we arm us 'gainst the foe,    
For peace itself should not so dull a kingdom
Though war nor no known quarrel were in question,
but that defences, musters, preparations,
Should be maintained, assembled, and collected,   
As were a war in expectation."
—WALTER H. CLUTTON. 

Sunday Times 20 October 1907, 

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE.

The reduction of the strength of the British military forces and the modification of the naval programme so far as to abandon the building of one of the large armoured cruisers and a battleship of the Dreadnought class may find a certain justification from a mere financial point of view, but is indefensible when contrasted with the increasing armaments of neighbouring Powers. The naval programme of Germany has been increased, and German military experts do not regard the invasion of England as a particularly formidable task, should Great Britain be seriously embroiled somewhere else; yet instead of meeting, preparations of this kind by counter-preparations, there is only a decadent desire for avoidance of expense and the responsibility of maintaining national efficiency. This comparative indifference on the part of the mother country has had a mischievous effect on the colonies, and particularly on Australia, which has not yet realised the dangers to which she is now exposed from the eager desire of European countries for oversea expansion. There is the keenest competition for possession of the world's waste spaces, and as the Monroe doctrine forbids European Powers meddling with American territories, and as the war in the Far East has temporarily put an end to European aggression in Asiatic countries, the line of least resistance is found across the Pacific. Here Australia, with its scant population, its wide open spaces, rich tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate soil, is the richest prize for a nation desirous of colonisation. What is our defence ? Has this question ever been seriously considered as a whole, and has any true answer ever been given ? In the first place there has never been a true recognition of the responsibility of defence as an essential part of every man's citizenship, and there is a grotesque anomaly between the amount of money devoted to military expenditure as contrasted with the way in which the local naval and coastal defence forces have been starved. The question is not one of militarism, but of national safety, and of the inculcation of self-reliance in making adequate provision for what is the first requirement of every nation. The appeals which Lord Roberts is continually making to his own countrymen should come with even greater force to Australians. Preparations for war, said the veteran Field Marshal recently, mean nothing more nor less than the application of all that is best in the mind and intelligence of the country to the business of defence. In an article contributed to the "Nineteenth Century" last year he said : "I maintain that it is the bounden duty of the State to see that every able-bodied man in this country, no matter to what grade of society he may belong, undergoes some kind of military training in his youth, sufficient to enable him to shoot straight, and carry out simple orders if ever his services are required for the national defence." And where can this training be better given than in connection with the education of children ?" It is," said Lord Roberts, "because I fear that nothing short of a national disaster will make the people of this country realise this that I earnestly press for the boys and youths of Great Britain to be given an education which will teach them their duty to their country, and imbue them with that spirit of patriotism without which no nation can expect to continue great and prosperous." These principles hold equally good in the case of Australia, where there is better material to work upon, and where the expansion of the cadet system is a step in the right direction. But in every country a defence system must be organic, and must be directed to providing against the particular dangers to which that country is exposed. In the case of Australia it would be hardly too much to say that the defence system is chaotic, and that ninety-nine people out of every hundred could not give any coherent account of what bad been done in the way of military defence. The only thing certain is that so much money is expended every year, and that troops occasionally take part in Important State functions. It would, therefore, appear that the best method of reform would be to wipe the slate clean. For our land defences we need no elaborate military forces, and if adequate training were given at school it should be easy enough to organise a volunteer system on simple yet comprehensive lines which would give much better results with less expenditure. This again would enable the Commonwealth to pay greater attention to the first line of defence on the coast, and here the training of naval cadets should be regarded as of quite as great an importance as the encouragement of military cadets ; yet in what Mr. Deakin referred to the other day as "a systematic and continuous policy of defence" no provision whatever had been made for naval cadets in our seaport capitals, where the bulk of our population is concentrated. Captain Creswell, who is now returning from London, has apparently been successful in his mission for the encouragement of an Australian navy, the very nucleus of which will entail a greater naval expenditure ; but this will readily be met if naval and military defence be placed in their true proportion and relation to each other, without any immediate need for drawing more heavily on the Treasury.

The Brisbane Courier 13 June 1906,

THE EVILS OF MILITARISM.

To the Editor.

Sir— It is one of the inevitable results of all acts of oppression and injustice that the penalty imposed upon those who have been guilty of them does not necessarily take the form of a retaliation, but almost invariably proceed as a consequence of its own acts. Such being the case, it is therefore not surprising to find that a nation like the English, who have violated and destroyed the liberties of two brave little republics in South Africa, who cruelly wasted thousands of human lives, and squandered upwards of £228,000,000 in order that Rand millionaires might have cheap labour to work their mines, should be visited, not so much by remorse for their cruel and inhuman conduct as by a haunting sense of insecurity, which a fateful Nemesis ever invokes against those who, possessed of higher ideals, have descended to lower and ignoble ones. And so it happens if we are to continue to follow the insane and incapable leadership of those who involved us in this most iniquitous war, that the only thing now left for us, it would appear, as per our military expert, Lord Roberts (who declared the war was over two years before peace was finally patched up,) is to secure our freedom by adopting those methods of military enrolment, which, among the nations of Europe, have done so much to maintain the iron grip of despotism over the masses of tho people, which has checked liberty, encouraged corruption, and retarded their moral and material advancement more than any other factor in modern times. In the United Kingdom and British India during the current year nearly £90,000,000 is being expended upon the army and navy— the largest sum ever spent by any people by way of current expenditure upon a defence force which it is still contended is inefficient. What are things coming to in this twentieth century, about which so much loudmouthed, boastful nonsense has been spoken and written, if the issue of all this intelligence, the aggregation of all this wealth, is merely that we may more effectively provide the means for blowing each other up? What comes of all this vapouring talk of human brotherhood and of the glories of our common Christian faith when the end and aim of all our institution is to set each Christian nation in battle array against each other, each equipped with the most deadly weapons that human ingenuity can devise for securing each other's mutilation and destruction? It is, of course, not denied that if we are bent upon carrying out the insane Imperial policy of Cecil Rhodes of grimly "painting the world red" we shall certainly require a very large army and a most powerful navy. But we who are just plain ordinary folk, who will be expected to "pay, pay, pay," may reasonably ask whether it is necessary that we should submit to this enormous and ever-increasing drain upon our resources— an expenditure which will benefit no one but a few commanders-in-chiefs, moneylenders, millionaires and other parasites, with but the inevitable result of arousing the jealousies of surrounding nations and of provoking that very opposition to our policy against which it was professedly designed this huge expenditure upon armaments was to render us invulnerable. The grim iron man of military aggressiveness is never satisfied.
A few years ago it was thought to be sufficient, for defence purposes if the English Navy was equal to that of two first-class Powers; but now, notwithstanding the millions spent upon the construction of new ships, which frequently have become obsolete before they have scarcely been put into commission. Admiral Fischer, our naval authority, declares that to maintain our naval preponderance we must increase our strength as three to one. In view of the increasing strength of the German Fleet he has given further expression to the utterly cynical opinion that if England is to smash up the German Navy now is the time to do it, before it becomes too strong. It is this reckless sort of talk of these professional butchers, as if human life was generated solely for the purpose of being employed as a target, to be shot at, that so much of this increasing and extravagant expenditure is due. And thus it happens that, instead of every battleship constructed, or battalion formed, adding to our defensive strength, this aggressive activity on our part serves only to excite a similar activity on the part of our supposed opponents, with the consequent result of a general increase of burdens on all sides, without any addition of strength to either. The interests of the masses of the people are ever in favour of peace. It is only the military cliques and classes ambitious for opportunities for destruction and promotion that derive any advantage from war. And when once the people realize what are their true interests, and refuse any longer to be deluded by appeals to a false and narrow patriotism that would induce them to seek the mortal injury of a neighbouring people, it will then be recognised that the only statesmanlike way for the settlement of disputes between nations as between individuals is to come to a calm understanding upon the points at issue and to agree to submit them to arbitration. In conclusion, permit me to add that while I believe under a wiser and more moderate policy resort to a conscription or some form of compulsory military service will be utterly unnecessary, it must be clear to all that we cannot continue our present policy of arrogant self-assertiveness without increasing our military and naval forces in order to secure us from that attack which our aggressive attitude is certain in the near future to provoke.
I am. Sir. &c,
W. H. POPE.
 The Register 18 August 1905,

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ITALY

By the Editor of the " Western Christian Advocate"

It was our privilege recently to have a long conversation with a person who has spent a number of years in Italy. The Roman Church became the chief subject of conversation. He knows that body of Christian believers as it operates at the centre. He has seen it at the home base. He understands its genius. His familiarity with its policies gave us courage to draw him out in extended discussion of the subject. . . . .

 Change of Conditions.

" What did she find when she began to move?"

"The pope and his vassals found at least four things that gave them a surprise. They failed in their interpretation of the spirit of the times. They seldom do this. They acted with out reckoning with their host. Some how the much-prized and trusted infallibility failed or was misinterpreted. First, the pope found his own ranks divided. Thousands of devoted Catholics who looked upon the mother church with deep affection had come to believe in the separation of state and church. Second, he found a high degree of patriotism controlling the population. He had not reckoned on this. The Italian people had come to have great faith in Italy. Rome and native land were behind held in fond affection. The church had become subsidiary to the state. Nationalism had become the paramount issue. Third, he also found that the opposition had somehow become united: liberal, radical, atheist, socialist, Protestant, Free Masons, and everybody against the old order. There they stood, joined and agreed in the support of the same policy. The Catholic leaders had formed a Popular political party and was ably led by a priest, Don Sturzo, and this organisation had appealed to the masses as a great hope. Its leader was as keen an Italian as had appeared for two or three generations. The hour of the return to power of the Vatican had surely come. Fourth, he found that the Nationalist party felt that Italy could not be a great nation because of her poverty and depleted resources. They saw that the influence of the vatican would be of no assistance. The nations of the Catholic world were on the verge of bankruptcy. But the pontiff and his advisers did not see this. They thought the hour had struck. The people were in a mood to do anything that would lend help in the time of their great distress. Discontent and rumblings were seen and heard everywhere. Even revolution and the overthrow of the present form of government was a possibility. Socialism was rampant. Then came the Fascisti. The black shirt and the strong arm appeared like a spirit in the night. It struck hard blows against the prevailing anarchy. It assumed a dictatorship that ruled with a rod of iron. Men were compelled to bow to its authority. The old regime that had been so helpless and compromising and fearful was turned out as old and senile to graze in the tall grass until it returned "ashes to ashes and dust to dust." Mussolini, a man of the people, and having come up from the depths of society, became the statesman of the hour. He held power in the interest of all the people. He sounded his slogan of nationalism and started on his programme of reconstruction. The marvellous changes he has made are not appreciated by the peoples outside of Italy. He has made good. He will continue to do so. He is not giving the Vatican its way. He is working in the interests of the Italian people. He has come to an understanding with them. He has consented that the time of his control shall be limited to a certain period to be agreed upon by mutual understanding. He is slowly but surely lifting that nation out of its mediocrity to a place among the influential nations of the world. The financial world is gaining confidence. American money is being invested there in helping to solve great national problems. Extensive hydro-electric power plants are being constructed in the southern Alps that will supply motive power and lighting for all the country. The nation is coming into new spirit. Her mind is breaking forth into new creative force. Her literature is being raised to the high level of world interest. The greatest and most popular book on the market to-day which the presses cannot turn out with sufficient rapidity to supply the demands is written by an Italian, Giovanni Papini. The inventors are giving the nation the lead of the world. Marconi with his wireless, and Caproni with his work in the field of aeronautics, have done the most wonderful work in their respective specialities. No man can tell where that people will go in their present development if their leadership acts wisely and wins the sympathy and keeps the growing confidence of the nations."

Italian Progress.

" So you think that Mussolini is making good "

"He has been acquitted before the public mind of despotism and is now being hailed as a patriot of the first rank. He will no doubt in years to come be regarded as a national hero and take his place by the side of Garibaldi and other notables."

"This surely means," we continued, "that the Italian government is going to become closely related to other nations. It is going to recognise the helpfulness associated with trustfulness it will give her people in the coming years. She is not going to four American, or British, or French, or German influence within her own borders. Does not that mean also that she is not going to fear the influence of American ideas in religion?"

" This certainly means," he replied, "that tolerance is going to be the policy of Italy henceforth."

. . . . . .

The World Waits.

"The world waits the outcome of the Mussolini escapade. Do you have confidence in it?"

"Most certainly," he replied. "He has meant a new day in that country. We all await the outcome when days of his control come to an end and the matter is put up to the people. But down deep in my heart is the conviction that they will not fail the hour that places in their hands some direction of the government. The new day in Italy has come to stay."

The, evening shadows were falling across the waters of Lake Erie. The vision he had given us of Italy and the Roman Catholic Church remained with us. It was the apocalypse of the struggle between aristocracy and democracy. While the world awaits the outcome there will be those who will give themselves for a final victory.
 

Watchman 17 April 1924, 

BRITISH TRADE.

—      

To the Editor.      
Sir,— Last week you published a cable from London stating that "The Times" says British trade is declining. Nearly a year ago, from what I could see, and from what I could hear, and from what I read in the press, I came to the conclusion that the decline of British trade was inevitable. Since then I have been closely watching the British trade returns, but these, to my surprise, seemed to indicate that the trade was expanding. Now, however, "The Times" steps forward and says the trade is declining. There can be no doubt that "The Times" has closely examined all the figures, and we can rest satisfied that British trade is on the decline. I feel quite certain that when the special fillip given to trade by the wars in South Africa and China is over, the decline in trade will be most marked, and the effect very far reaching indeed.
So far the remarks of "The Times" have not been noticed by the local press. If this decline of trade were one of the ordinary vicissitudes of trade it would not call for any particular notice, but if my judgment is correct, this is not an ordinary fluctuation of trade, but probably the commencement of a decline of trade that will never be recovered, and will ultimately leave England far behind other nations in the matter of commerce. On this subject I base my conclusions on the fact that the character of the English nation has changed, and is becoming solely militant and imperialistic. As John Burns recently said, "An industrial people have become imperialised, a peaceful people ; militarised." I submit that this change will result most injuriously to the growth and development of trade, and has done so throughout the history of the world. Its evil effects are to be seen everywhere. The attention of the people is withdrawn from commercial pursuits and directed to what is called military glory. In England to day there are thousands and thousands of young men just leaving school who a few years ago would have entered on commercial pursuits, but who are now clamouring, and clamouring too successfully, to their parents to be allowed to join the army. The same thing is taking place in the ranks of the working classes, and labour for the factory is daily becoming scarcer. In fact, the evil has permeated the whole of the British people. Not only is this evil raging in England, but it is raging still more in these Australian colonies, and here, as in England, it is encouraged by wretched Jingo Governments and by a money-making press. How can we expect England to compete in the matter of trade with a nation like America, when we find the British Government encouraging the growth among the people of every national sentiment that is antagonistic to trade.
In America, Germany, France, and other countries we find the Governments devoting the utmost attention to the question of developing trade. It is part of the national policies of these Governments to do so. In England the Jingo Government ignores such questions as part of their policy, but adopt with success the policy of encouraging militarism and imperialism. If my judgment is correct, there can be one result only from this policy, and I shall expect to see British trade continue to decline and England lose her place as the first nation of the world. If we read the proceedings of the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, held in London last June, we will notice many references to the dangers that beset English trade, and when a deputation was appointed by the Congress to wait on Lord Salisbury and ask him to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of British trade, he declined to meet them, saying he considered the time was inopportune to discuss the matter. And this generally is the attitude of the British Government to matters of trade.
That the character of the British people has changed, and is still changing, cannot, I think, be denied. That this change is for the worse, I also think, cannot be denied. Moral considerations have not now the weight with the British mind that they once had. In the popular estimation might is becoming right. The nation is growing hypocritical. It professes to be Christian and to follow the teachings of the founder of that religion, but as a matter of fact they cheer for everything that is deadly opposed to His teaching. Even the clergy, almost without exception, have joined in singing the glory of battlefields instead of teaching the doctrines of peace and arbitration. They have become the blind leaders of the blind. At a time when the conscience of other nations of the world seems to be turning to peace and arbitration and trade development, the British conscience seems to be turning to imperialism and militarism. Nations that once almost looked with envy at England's moral worth now regard her from the opposite standpoint and are boycotting her merchandise. As a result of Jingo Government in England the people will shortly find £200,000,000 added to the national debt, increased taxation to meet the interest on this sum and to provide for increased military expenditure, a rapidly declining trade, and something worse than a second Ireland established in South Africa.
Would to God the people in Australia, would awake to the evils of imperialism and militarism, and that the press would assist to crush the thing out of the public mind, is the wish of
Yours, &c.,
ANTI-JINGO.
Rockhampton, 14th January, 1901.

 The Capricornian 19 January 1901,

COLONEL OSBORNE ON THE PROGRESS OF ISLAM.

From the Scotsman.

The correspondence under this title which has appeared the Times is concerned with a subject that has more than speculative interest for the inhabitants of Great Britain. In India there are about fifty millions of Moslems the subjects of her Majesty; and our relations, political and commercial, with Moslems in other parts of the world are numerous and complex. And there can he no doubt that the many and costly blunders which this country has from time to time perpetrated in South-Eastern Europe, in Egypt, and Afghanistan were largely owing to an imperfect understanding of the Mohammodan character and religion. Apart, however, from these personal considerations, the religion of the Prophet has spread over so large a portion of the earth' s surface that its effects upon the minds of those who em brace it and its probable destiny in the future, must awaken the interest of every thoughtful man. The reason that it does not seem to do so is due to the obscurity of the subject, and the extreme difficulty of getting clear and trustworthy information. As is nearly always the case when a matter is in the exclusive possession of "specialists," a great deal of passion and prejudice has been imparted into the discussion. The disputants are concerned, not so much with the character and effects of Islam, as either to exalt, or depress it in relation to something else. This has notably been the case in the letters which have appeared in the Times. Here the method has been for each writer to select these phenomena political, social, or otherwise, in any part of the Mohammedan world which told in favour of his view, and assume that these, and these only, were the legitimate products of Islamism. Canon Isaac Taylor, fixing his eyes on what Islam is reported to have done for the savage tribes of Central Africa, dogmatically declares that "Islam has done more for civilisation than Christianity." His opponents, fixing their eyes on the Ottoman umpire and the Khanates of Central Asia, pronounce Islam to be the great—perhaps the greatest—enemy of civilisation at present existent in the world. Which is right ? Both parties adduce facts in support of their respective contentions. Is there no way of mediating between them—of showing what measure of truth there is in views which seem, at first sight to be destructive the one of the other? It is as an attempt in this direction that I would ask you to publish the following contribution to the controversy.
To appreciate the after effects of a religion we ought, I think, in the first place, to ascertain the element, or elements, in it which laid the strongest hold upon the spiritual life of its first converts—which had the profoundest influence in moulding their character and conduct. As regards Christianity, there can hardly be a question that this element is to be found in the preaching of the Resurrection of Christ. That determined for all the first Christians, the relation in which the visible world stood to the invisible, the relative importance and significance of each; and Christian controversy ever since has been occupied with the determination of this cardinal doctrine—the relations subsisting between man in the flesh and the powers of the invisible world. Popery, Protestantism, religious persecution, and religious toleration are all in different ways expressions of the form in which these relations have shaped themselves in the minds of men. Similarly, if we desire to ascertain, not the accidental but the enduring effects of Islam, we must ascertain those elements in the teaching of the Prophet which determined in the minds of his first followers their relation towards the invisible world. They were, in my mind, two. These have dominated the fortunes of Islam ever since and it is I think,easy to show how, as one or other comes chiefly into play.
Islam becomes a regenerating power in Central Africa —a destructive one in Mohammedan Asia. When Mohammed entered upon his career as a religious reformer he was impelled thereto by his abhorence of the idolatrous practices of the Arabs. At this early stage his zeal against idolatry was directed as much against the worship of the black stone and the annual pilgrimage of the Arabian tribes to Mekka as to the other parts of the national creed. His ambition was to wean the minds of his fellow-tribesmen from these practices altogether and to induce them to find a new centre of holiness and devotion in Jerusalem and the Jewish temple. In the earlier phases of his teaching there is little or no insistence upon his own personal dignity or authority, and he aimed at winning back his countrymen to the Monotheism of the Jews as being identical with the faith of their common father, Abraham, which faith he declared had been corrupted by the idolatory and superstition of the Arabs. So long however, as he held to this creed, his teaching met with no success. He was, on the contrary forced to fly from Mekka, and with his few followers find an asylum in the rival town of Medina. It was during his residence at this latter place that the conviction was gradually formed in the mind of the Prophet that to win the adherence of his countrymen he must make some sacrifice to the inordinate pride of race and ancestry what was the great governing characteristic of the Arab people. They could not and would not endure to be told by a mere camel driver, that they and their ancestors had been wallowing in the mire of ignorance, while the despised Jews, living among them, had been in possession of a higher and purer light.
In submission to this feeling, Mohammed, when at Medina, declared Mekka, and not Jerusalem, to be the sacred city in the new dispensation, and tacked on to his Monotheistic teaching the worship of the black stone, and the meaningless ceremonial of the annual pilgrimage to Mekka. This concession to idolatry has ever since been one of the great determining factors in the spiritual history of every Moslem people. As a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, so for the Mohammedan world the nature and character of the Deity has been determined by the nature and character of this annual pilgrimage. The due celebration of an unmeaning rite has constituted the highest obligation imposed upon the Faithful. The other determining factor has been, in my judgment, the doctrine of Fatalism. It is easy for the apologist of Islam to produce from the Koran many passages which are inconsistent with this doctrine. The Koran is not a reasoned system of philosophy and ethics evolved by a quiet thinker in the seclusion of his study. In order to be understood it must be interpreted, at every step by a reference to the varying fortunes which marked the career of the Prophet. In the earlier Suras there are few, if any, traces of the doctrine of Fatalism. Mohammed at that time was full of hope and onlooking thoughts. He summoned men to repent and believe, in the confident expectation that they would respond to his call. It is plain that, so long as he entertained this expectation the doctrine of man's free will would form a part of His teaching. But when the prophet found that his appeals knocked unavailingly at the stubborn hearts of his fellow tribesmen, he fell back upon the doctrine of Fatalism to explain his ill success. A new conception was put forth of the relations subsisting between God and man. God, now, was He "who creates in the soul its wickedness and piety." " No soul can believe but by the permission of God." " Whom God shall please to guide that man's breast will be open to Islam; but whom He shall please to mislead, straight and narrow will He make his way, as though he were mounting up into the very heavens." As his life drew to a close, the Prophet insisted with increasing vehemence on this doctrine of predestination. To those who murmured at the sanguinary defeat at Ohod, saying, "Were we to have gained aught in this affair, none of us had been slain at this place," Mohammed made answer, "Had ye remained in your homes, they who were decreed to be slain would have gone forth to the places where they lie." In the sayings of the Prophet handed down by tradition, this doctrine is repeatedly insisted upon "There is not one amongst you whose sitting place is not written by God whether in the fire or in Paradise," "Whatever happens to thee is from Fate and if thou shouldest die without believing in Fate, thou most certainly wouldest enter into hell-fire."
Now, it is a recognised principle of interpretation that where two passages in the Koran appear to contradict each other, the later revelation cancels the earlier. Accordingly the recognition of man's free will which is to be found in the earlier utterances of Mohammed, counted for absolutely nothing in the minds of his followers. It was annulled and obliterated by his later teaching, insomuch that the fatalistic view of life has ever since been the distinctive tenet and principle of conduct among the followers of the Prophet all the world over. The doctrine of Fatalism it is which gives to Islamism during its periods of expansion, its tremendous destructive force, the worship of the black stone, on the other hand is that which makes it absolutely destitute of the power of assimilation. Hence the seemingly contradictory character of its effects in Central Africa and in Central Asia. So long as Islamism is in a state of expansion the doctrine of Fatalism is transfigured, so to speak, into in emphatic oppression of the will of God. The barbarians of Central Africa, tormented as they are by the terror of supernatural powers for ever lying in wait to do them injury of one kind or another, are in precisely the same frame of mind to fit them to receive the Monotheism of Islam. The Moslem evangelist who appears among them believes as profoundly as they do in an unseen world peopled by demons, in the power of magicians, witches, charms, amulets, and the like, but he introduces some degree of order into this reign of chaos and old night by the revelation of One mightier far than all these secondary agencies, whose will it is that men should act thus and thus. Practically,however, the essence of this revelation is that if men desire to be saved from the torments of hell-fire, they must adopt and rigidly adhere to the manners and customs of the Arabian tribes. For here it is that the other great doctrine of Islam, which I have mentioned, comes into play. The sanctity affixed to the black stone by the Prophet practically consecrated, not merely that and the whole ceremonial of the pilgrimage, but with the single exception of infanticide, all the social and other customs of the Arabs as they existed in the time of Mohammed. We see this in the singular fact that as the Arabs were in the lifetime of the Prophet, so they remain to this day. And thus it is that when Islam penetrates to countries lower in the scale of humanity than even the Arabs of Mohammed's day, it suffices to elevate them to that level. That it is powerless to do more than this is evident from the effects which have followed in its wake elsewhere.

In Asia, in Europe, in Egypt, in Northern Africa, there no country where Islam has held undisputed sway for a length of time which has not been ruined and barbarised by it. It is a common but most erroneous notion that the ancient splendour and magnificence of Baghdad and Bokara are a proof of the civilising influences inherent in Islam. They are nothing of the kind. For many centuries after the first introduction of Islam, there was throughout Mohammedan Asia a struggle for supremacy between the ancient Persian civilisation and Arabian barbarism, consecrated and stereotyped by the authority of the Prophet. The magnificence of Baghdad and Bokhara is coeval with Persian supremacy. It perished as that decayed. Until now broad deserts, peopled only by a few Turcoman robbers, have taken the place of flourishing cities and richly cultivated lands. For that very doctrine of fatalism, so strong as an aggressive force, brings about a profound apathy of mind as soon as the period of expansion has been brought to a close. There is in Islam no power of assimilating new truth, because there is in it no logical continuity between the character of the Deity and the ceremonial code which He is supposed to have enjoined, upon men. No Moslem can reject the worship of the black stone without arrogating for himself a knowledge of the will of God superior to that possessed by the Prophet himself. The result is that the spiritual destinies of the Mohammedan world have always been determined by the most ignorant and fanatical of the population. A (so-called) Mohammedan revival has invariably been a revolt from liberality and toleration—a reaction to a narrower bigotry and a spirit of persecution. In no country has this been more strikingly illustrated than in India.
It is very generally supposed that the British are the successors of the old Moslem sovereigns of Delhi. This is a great mistake. It was as the friends, and not the supplanters, of Moslem sovereignty that we generally took the field in India, and such remains as still survive of that sovereignty are due to our aid and protection. The splendid period of the Emperors of Delhi was of very short duration, and was entirely due to the fact that the Emperors Akbar, Jehan gir, and Shah Jehan, being Moslems only in name, adopted a large and liberal policy towards the great body of their non-Moslem subjects. Aurungzebe, the son and successor of Shah Jehan, reversed this policy. He was determined to govern India according to the strictest tenets of the Mohammedan faith. His memory is, in consequence, still held in devout reverence by all pious Mohammedans in India; but beyond all question he brought the empire in a few years to ruin, and inaugurated that period of war and tumult which only terminated when the British troops under Lord Lake entered Delhi, and found a blind, half-starved, wretched, and poverty-stricken old man, the surviving relic of the power and magnificence of Akbar.
Shortly after the British capture of Delhi there began in India a propaganda for the reformation of the Mohammedan religion —the Wahabee movement, as it has been called—which has been carried on with little intermission to this day; and the radical antipathy which exists between a vigorous assertion of Islam and all that we Westerns understand by civilisation is seen in the teaching of these Wahabee missionaries. The duty of the Faithful, they declare, is to leave India altogether. That country, owing to the pernicious toleration extended by the British Government to all the creeds of its subjects, has become a dar-al-harb, or land of the infidel, in which no unbeliever can remain without the certainty of perdition to his soul. The following is a passage from one of their sermons:—" Now, you should know that it is incumbent on all Mahommedans to leave a country which is governed by an Infidel, in which, acting according to the Mahommedan laws, is forbidden by the ruling power. If they do not abandon it, then in the hour of death, when their souls will be separated from their bodies, they will suffer great torments. When the angel of death will come to separate their souls from their bodies, he will ask them the following question:—' Was not the kingdom of God sufficiently spacious to enable you to leave your homes and settle in another country?' And, saying, this, he will subject them to great pain in separating their souls from their bodies. Let all know this. In a country where the religion is other than Mohammedan, the religious precepts of Mohammed cannot be enforced. It is incumbent on Moslems to unite and wage war with Unbelievers. Those who are unable to partake in the war should depart to the country of Islam. At the present time —in this country (i.e., India)—flight is a stern duty."
Here speaks the true, unadulterated spirit of Islam. Civilisation is an offence to it, religious equality a blasphemy. Its mission is not to learn anything from the unbelieving world, but to make perpetual war against it, until its population has been reduced to its divinely-ordained condition, as the subjects and tributaries of the Faithful.

The Sydney Morning Herald  1888, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article13668796