Socialism is an active propaganda which is international in its scope. It deals with the economic and political conditions of life and stands entirely for revolution, denying that reform is possible.

The existing conditions, industrial, financial, religious and economic, are objected to by Socialists who declare that these conditions must all be absolutely changed: that they were never properly founded; are not subject to reform, but must be revolutionized or annihilated.

The basis of Socialism is the “Materialistic Conception of History,” by which is meant an atheistic theory of creation, ascribing no creative force to God as a Divine Being, but attributing all creation to matter and motion. That God as a creative force has never existed; that man as a creature has evolved from lower orders of animal life, and being such, has no future life, but the best good that may accrue to man shall be attained only in this present existence. That God being non-existent could never have given man any moral laws for his government, as relating to himself and his Creator, or as obtaining between himself and his fellow men.

Socialism asserts an atheistic evolution of all life and matter and ascribes to all industrial and social affairs an evolutionary process, which Socialists claim will inevitably produce their system of industry and ethics, displacing all forms 01314of industrial organization and the morals as laid down by religion.

Socialism is atheistic, not having any definite morals or ethical principles.

It is an enemy of private property and of the family. It is disloyal to all forms of government, except that it advocates—an international co-operation of all men in all conditions—and in that respect is disloyal to the governments which now exist, and in which individual Socialists reside.

The principles of Socialism are uncharitable in that they desire to abolish all forms of alms, private hospitals and the bestowal of charity by a more fortunate to a less fortunate person; holding that even the act of one person to benefit another in a material way shows the unequal distribution of wealth, which from the Socialist view amounts to robbery. In this respect hospitals as benevolent institutions have never been erected under the present form of Socialism anywhere in the world. Utopian Socialism has passed away, and has been succeeded by what is termed Scientific Socialism. This so-called Scientific Socialism is a jargon of undemonstrated hypotheses, conjectures and unproved theories. This Science, so-called, does not fulfil the requirements of any legitimate definition of the term “Science.”

To supply between men, “the Social state” claims the power to enact laws which are binding upon men, and in the absence of such laws the Materialistic Doctrine of the Survival of the Fittest obtains, and that force is the only right which the Socialistic system recognizes. In the final analysis, the Ten Commandments being null and void, there is no such thing as natural rights or moral law, and this nullifies the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, that men have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

From the foregoing, the Socialist declares, “No God, no Master.”

Religion affirms with the immortal David, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God, but the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork.”

The Socialist says, “Live your own life, get pleasure; there is no future accountability.”

The Jew and the Christian say that “I was created in the image and likeness of God, a little lower than the angels, and that there is a future accountability, for I shall be rewarded or punished according to the deeds done in the body, and for my guidance I have the Ten Commandments.”

In the platforms of Socialism two demands are made: One is the “Immediate Demand,” and the other is the “Ultimate Demand.”

The immediate demands are usually for the public ownership of waterworks, telegraphs, railroads and other like utilities, and are not essentially Socialistic, for any voter or any party may advocate such measures without being Socialistic.

But these state owned institutions (mail, telephone, telegraph, railroad services) are not Socialistic institutions, as is eroneously assumed. The institutions are exploited by the state, according to the same capitalistic principles as if they were privately owned. Neither the officials or the workmen are particularly benefitted by them. The state does not treat them differently from a private employer. .... These are not Socialists, but capitalistic actions, and socialists have every reason to protest against the assumption that the present state-owned institutions are Socialistic in character and to be regarded as a realization of Socialistic aims.—Women and Socialism, August Bebel.

But the leaders offer these alluring enticements to the people for the purpose of leading them forward into the doctrines of International Socialism,—or to cultivate the Socialistic Mind.

The “Ultimate Demand” of Socialism is that all means of 01516production, lands, mines, forests, and the tools of production, and the means of distribution, shall be owned by the Social State. That all people shall be employed by the state, clothed by the state and fed by the state.

Under Socialism there would be no choice of work and the worker could do nothing but the labor assigned to him by the Governing Committee. There would be no private property or capital. The family as now known would cease to exist—for all buildings would be common property, and families could remain in one house only so long as permitted by the Governing Committee.

Leading Socialists have demanded the abolition of the family, decrying it as the chief bulwark of capitalism, saying so long as husband and wife formed families with children, they had the motive to accumulate property or “capital,” and the ultimate end of Socialism is to abolish private property. Another expression is that so long as a wife is dependent on a husband for support, she is a “sex slave” and cannot leave him at her will and be sexually or economically free.

To abolish this “slavery” they propose to make all women “economically free;” that is, that the Socialist State shall furnish all women with work independent from the home, and have her recompense separate and apart from the control of the husband.

To this end they propose state nurseries for the infants, where the baby will get Socialistic state milk in a Socialistic state bottle, administered by a state nurse. All this is done to liberate the mother from “sex slavery,” that she may not depend on the father of her child for support. This is done to destroy the “family,” which is, in the Socialists’ view, an institution established by religion to promote capitalism.

Our modern marriage is very far from fulfilling its true purpose and has therefore no claim to be regarded as either sacred or moral.—Woman in the Past, Present and Future, page 49.

The form of the family corresponding to civilization and becoming it pronounced custom is monogamy, the supremacy of man over woman, and the monogamous family as the economic unit of society. The aggregation of civilized society is the state, which throughout all typical periods is the state of the ruling class, and in all cases mainly a machine for controlling the oppressed and exploited class. In Germany it was originated by the priests in order that the honest German might bequeath his property to the church without any interference.—The Origin of the Family, page 214.

A common expression of Socialist and feminist writers is that marriage, where sex fondness does not exist, is legalized prostitution, and marriage should be easily dissolved at the will of either of the parties.

Socialism puts out as many definitions for itself as there are dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Perhaps the most condensed definition is:

The phrase that all property shall be “used for the common good” sounds well.

We would laud a man who strove to provide his family with good food and clothing, but when a political party claims that it will so furnish the whole human family, we at first feel like awarding it great applause and glory.

If we knew that this man proposed to supply his family with good things which he should obtain by burglary and theft from their rightful possessors, our laudations would turn to denunciations.

It must not be assumed that the professions of Socialism to do all these good things for humanity will be accomplished.

And we shall find examination that the Socialistic methods are those of the thief and burglar.

They claim that confiscation of private property by the 01718authority of a majority is right, but when done by an individual it is wrong.

This is the doctrine that might makes right, and that minorities have no rights which the majority are bound to respect. This doctrine of Socialism is poor logic and worse morals.

What is essentially wrong for an individual to do is wrong for a collection of individuals to do by superior force.

Socialism would destroy the “free will” of man, which is the principal distinction possessed by him over animals, and would subordinate his will and acts to the “common herd”—“the collective will of the Social State.”

The free will of man is a faculty by which he is enabled to be a free agent, and gives him his freedom as contra-distinguished from slavery. Under free will man has the opportunity to do, to be and to become, but under Socialism, the state owning an controlling all the natural resources, all the means of transportation, the entire educational system, and being the dictator and payer of compensation to all individuals of the state, would make man, even for his clothing and food, absolutely dependent on the state, without any personal ability to obtain raw materials with which to labor for himself, or not being able to find any market for any product which he possibly might manufacture.

Not having any choice of education for the purpose of the improvement of himself as a wage earner, the Socialist citizen under such a regime would be the most abject slave ever known or conceived of in the entire history of the world.

The foregoing epitome of the principles of Socialism will be elucidated in the chapters to follow. The method being used is to fairly state the proposition of Socialism taken from a large number of leading authors of Socialism's standard works from both Europe and America, quoting them freely and fairly.

It is also the intention to show the intimate relationship of Socialism to Feminism and Female Suffrage.

This connection will become more apparent as the subjects are elucidated and the baneful influence of the THREE ISMS on the established state of society, and on morals and religion, is shown.

The Socialists ascribe all life, actions, developments and consequences to the theory of “matter and motion.” They assert that the irresistible course of nature will proceed, and no force can modify it; that all actions and effects are pre-destined by evolution; that humanity just happened, “growed up like Topsy,” and that our first parents evolved from apes.

Excluding and denying God, Socialists give to man no moral responsibility. They deny that man was endowed by his Creator with “memory, understanding and free will,” and not having these attributes, man is not morally responsible for his actions. Hence will be observed in some of our large cities psychopathic hospitals, where a man who styles himself “Doctor of Pychopathy,” undertakes to examine and analyze certain evil-doers, whom he classifies as “morons,” etc., and who excuses their sins for which they should be punished or restrained, on the ground of irresponsibility. The old legal maxim that “every one should suffer the consequences of his wrongful acts,” is voided by these professors.

They are trying to persuade our courts that there is no such thing as moral responsibility, dependent on freedom of will and deliberate choice, but that all actions depend on materialistic conditions of the body—that the criminal is not spiritually wicked, but physically sick. This is a development and a consequence of the “materialistic conception of the universe.” It is the easy way to avoid punishment for sins, and has been adopted by both Socialists and Feminists, and these classes constitute a majority of the Suffragettes.

Their materialistic doctrines have led them to deny the “free will” of man, and that from it man is competent to choose good acts and perform them, or to elect bad acts and do them. According to moral law, in the one case he is to be praised and rewarded; in the other, condemned and punished.

Socialism, aided by Feminism and Suffragism, aims to overthrow the philosophy of the ages, and destroy our theory of family and school governments, and our system of public justice, and substitute in their places atheistic anarchy.

To assume the possibility of uncaused acts is to consign the world to chaos and abolish the reign of law under their theory that there could be no reward for virtue—no punishment for vice.

The Socialists and Feminists believe in the “Total Depravity Theory” which the Widow Bedott remarks, “is a very good doctrine if well lived up to,” and both classes are living up to it and are trying to drag others down to it.

The absence of Free Will implies lack of responsibility. The gifts of Reason and Free Will make the owner a responsible being subject to punishment as well as rewards. The Socialists, Feminists and Suffragets are afraid of moral responsibility and merited punishment, and therefore they morally anaestheticize themselves and take on a comatose state like a criminal, who deadens his moral senses with drugs or liquor. Small wonder that they cry out in the terror, “No God, No Master,” for they fear a reckoning. They dread just punishment.

“I use the term ‘historical materialism’ to designate that view of the course of history, which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggle of these classes against one another.

“Now up to then science had but been the humble handmaid of the Church, had not been allowed to overstep the limits set by faith, and for that reason had been no science at all. Science rebelled against the Church.”—From Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.

With Socialism everything must be defined by statute, whereas in truth, actions, unless on minor indifferent matters, are either good or bad in themselves without the sanction or the forbiddance of the Law. Caring for the poor is good without legal sanction, murder was bad before the statute forbidding it was enacted. But Socialists, as materialists, hold that the material human law is superior to the moral law.

The materialism of Socialism is the opposite of the idealism of Knighthood. The man of Socialism is a mere brute, descended from an ape; more likely he is the offspring of a bear. He craves for nothing but his food, his berries, field mice, wild honey, his hollow log in which to hibernate and forget his materialistic miseries. The feminist is a mere she bear with claws and teeth and a growl. Her association with the he bear has taught her selfishness and has made gentleness a myth. These two brutes are warring on Knighthood and Ladyship, and would destroy them together with the chivalry and modesty which adorn them.

The Idealist is a Knight—he possesses honor and loyalty and courage and gentleness—above all he is a gentleman. He is the soul of honor, the advocate of truth, the defender of the weak, the promoter of justice. His pride is in his lady, who is modest affectionate, loyal and charitable. They are the possessors of two worlds, the material and the ideal. The material is for temporal purposes and the ideal for both the present and the future life. They are doubly rich. Not dependent on the hollow log of earth. Their family is a trinity, one in three, the father, the mother, and children, blessed in 02224one, united by supernatural idealistic love. One purpose unifies all, unselfishness and submerges each. Unlike the Socialist and his Feminist, they believe in the indissolubility of marriage and are opposed to the novitiate of matrimony. Their union is blessed with chaste love, not cursed by mere “Sex fondness,” while the Socialists and Feminists are not as ideal as the wild asses of the plains, for like mules they have no pride of ancestry and no hope of posterity.

“I was astonished to find that his (Walter Thomas Mills) very first lesson contained two fallacious teachings on questions of fundamental importance to what we term scientific Socialism, viz: First, the teaching of a design in nature (hence a designer); Second, the teaching that men have inalienable or natural rights.

“As to the first, I will advance no argument beyond the statement that it is totally at variance with the teachings of modern science. The importance of refusing to sanction it in a work on scientific Socialism lies in the fact that when we get involved in intricate sociological questions we find that our main or basic arguments, and indeed our general views, depend upon our ultimate philosophic conceptions. For example: Without the materialistic conception of history, Socialist political economy would not be scientific since it would have no relation established between cause and effect. But a materialistic conception of history is dependent upon a materialistic philosophy, hence it conflicts with idealistic doctrines.

“The second fallacy: The doctrine of natural rights is one that probably more than any other distinguishes the old academic metaphysical school of political economy from the modern scientific school. It is fallacy that it refuted by all the teachings of history, and no person with any valid claim to a knowledge of scientific Socialism would teach it. It implies that conditions are changed by a recognition of rights, i. e., by ethical teaching, and not by superior force exerted in the interest of classes favored by economic conditions. To permit the teaching of such doctrines is to vitiate the movement by destroying its class conscious and sternly revolutionary character.”—The Chicago Socialist, July 11, 1903.

Socialist authorities announce through propaganda the claim to be based on the fact and not the theory of evolution.

Therefore Socialists claim to be “Scientific.”

This claim of “science” based on evolutions is made in all their platforms and speeches delivered by Socialists in good standing.

A few expressions of this avowal of evolutionary scientific socialism will serve:

“Thus, both techniques, the teachings of Darwin and of Marx, the one in the domain of the organic world and the other upon the field of human society, raised the theory of evolution to a positive science.”—Marxism and Darwinism, page 18.

“The logical consequences of Darwinism and of scientific evolutionism applied to the study of human society lead inexorably to Socialism, as I have demonstrated in the foregoing pages.”—Enrico Ferri's Socialism and Modern Science, page 158.

“They supplement each other in the sense that, according to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the animal world develops up to the stage of man, and from then on, that is, after the animal has risen to man, the Marxian theory of evolution applies.”—Maxism and Darwinism, page 33.

As expressed above, Socialists accept the theory of evolution in regard to the material organic and inorganic creations as being “an established and exact science.” They also go further and claim that the doctrine of evolution, its former development, and its future progressive effects apply to all human institutions, legal, moral economic and religious, and that the economic condition of man in the future will determine without reference to his free will, by immutable laws carrying him on to his destiny in his industrial and living conditions.

In harmony with this theory, the following from “Socialism Utopian and Scientific,” page 26, is of interest:

The complete theory of Socialism in regard to man is a doctrine of blank despair in that it denies the effect of man's reason operating by means of free will, to work out his destiny and produce any other effects than those which were fore-ordained for him by a cruel and soulless operation of the laws of nature.

The theory of evolution is still only an hypothesis and the Socialist assumption that they are teaching “scientific government based on the fact of demonstrated evolution” is absurd.

There is no evidence whatever for the common genetic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism.

Neither the Jewish nor Christian theologies accept the probability of evolution in regard to the origin of the life of man's body and soul which they logically assign to a great First Cause or God for his power in the creation of all things. 03133Both schools of theology harmonize in the theory that man has a soul, and that this soul could not have had its origin in matter; that the soul is a special creation of the Almighty, which is akin to the divinity in its attributes, that throughout its earthly existence, it is responsible to its Creator, and like God, will have immortality. This is dualism.

The Socialistic-atheistic theory of evolution rejects the assumption that the soul was created separate from matter and considers the creation of the body of man an ordinary materialistic effect. This is monism.

The Jewish and Catholic religions hold that is it quite comprehensible that God should have made use of natural evolutionary causes in the production of man's body. This doctrine will be seen in the Jewish Encyclopedia and it was also propounded by Saint Augustine in a very early day; but these theologies agree that the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute. Since the soul is of a spiritual nature, therefore the soul is the effect of a special creative act of God.

The Jewish term for “day” in the story of creation does not imply that a day, as described in Genesis, was but 24 hours in duration, as the Jewish language has no expression for the periods of time, and used the world “day” without reference to its being a period of 24 hours.

From the beginning no theological authority has held by any means that the world was created in 144 hours or six calendar days, and the theory of evolution that a long period of time transpired before creation was completed, with the days each representing thousands of years is perfectly consistent with the narrative in Genesis.

The scriptures were never intended as scientific text books.

If God had revealed every material fact to man, there 03234would not have been anything remaining for the reason of man through his free will to do.

The special faculties of man would have been idle, and he would have been unhappy from lack of accomplishment.

“The beaver builds a dam, and the bird a nest, and the bee a cell; but while beavers’ dams, and birds’ nests, and bees’ cells are always constructed on the same model, the house of man passes from the rude hut of leaves and branches to the magnificent mansion replete with modern conveniences. The dog can, to a certain extent, connect cause and effect, and may be taught some tricks; but his capacity in these respects has not been a whit increased during all the ages he has been the associate of improving man, and the dog of civilization is not a whit more accomplished or intelligent than the dog of the wandering savage. We know of no animal that uses clothes, that cooks its food, that makes itself tools or weapons, that breeds other animals that it wishes to eat, or that has an articulate language. But men who do not do such things have never yet been found, or heard of, except in table. That is to say, man, wherever we know him, exhibits this power—of supplementing what nature has done for him by what he does for himself.”—“Progress and Poverty.”

On the other hand the Socialist attitude towards a divine Creator is that of ridicule and blasphemy, and ascribes to the creator a malice towards his creatures which would be unworthy of satan in its malevolence.

Quoting from the “Origin of the Family,” page 5, we find the following:

“By using the human art principle man augments his vision by the telescope, the microscope and the X-ray. With the telephone, the telegraph and wireless telegraphy he extends his power of communication—of speech. With the derrick and the steam shovel he adds strength to his arm. With the railroad, steamship and airships he extends his power of locomotion. Whence came this positive art principle by which man may first create his design and then work it out in substance, if not God given? It is not merely more of the same instinct to which the animal negatively responds in carrying out the designs impressed upon him by the Creator of the heaven and the earth. The atheistical biologists have not even a suggestion which covers this great gap in their theory. Evolution from their standpoint is a mock to common sense.

“We repeat this discussion does not properly fall upon the process of forming man's body, but rather upon the impassable gap which separates him economically from whatsoever animal. To be cock-sure of what is without satisfactory proof to any biologist of standing; to be silent upon the latest pronouncement that ‘animals do not think,’ and to ignore the common, ordinary facts, in the experience of all men at all times, in all places, is audacity carried beyond the limit not merely of right reason, there is an impudence in it that savors strongly of ill-will towards Almighty God. Indeed, rebellion is the very first and the rotten, ripest fruit of malignant minds. Yet for one to declare his belief that his ancestors were not monkeys, would be a gross display of ignorance from the Socialist standard of intelligence.”—Socialism, The Nation of Fatherless Children, page 71.

The adoption of atheistic evolution by the Socialists as the cause of human life, and denying dualism, which is the theory that spirit is a distinct entity from the body with attributes of immortality. The Socialists bring men to the lowest possible animal level, with no attributes above the brute and no aspirations in this life nor for the life hereafter. Hope is abandoned, and despair is adopted.

Socialists claim that their theory of economic and industrial government is based on an exact science, and go before the public in their platforms, by means of their literature and speeches announcing this new government, which they claim will relieve the world of all present ills of industrial life and will assuredly bring forth a harmonious system of industry and production, which will be of the greatest benefit to mankind.

Speaking for themselves, the Socialists assert that their system is based on Darwinian Evolution and applied to Social affairs.

The following quotations are given:

“Man is the product of evolution, that has been in process through millions of years.”

“Before proceeding to that specific theory let us clearly understand that evolution has ceased to be a theory merely, it is also a well established fact.”—Evolution, Social and Organic, page 42.

“The principle now about to be applied belongs to this latter class. It is the most luminous principle ever employed in the interpretation of the phenomena of society. This principle is that the intellectual life of a people is determined by its mode of wealth production and the social classes arising therefrom.”—Evolution, Social and Organic, page 90.

“Granted this theory as a premise, and Weismann's conclusions cannot be gainsaid.”—Evolution, Social and Organic, page 68.

“Natural science has made a myth of creation; astronomy, mathematics and physics have converted heaven into airy space, and the stars on heaven's system where the angels sat enthroned, into fixed stars and planets, whose nature quite excludes the presence of such beings as angels. The ruling class, which sees its existence threatened, clings to religion as the support of all authority, a dogma which all rulers have upheld up to the present day. The bourgeoisie believe nothing; it has itself destroyed all belief in religion and authority by its own process of development, and by science to which it has given birth. Its belief is a farce, and the church accepts the help of this false friend because it needs help.”—“Woman in the Past, Present and Future,” page 146, Bebel.

“This does not alter the fact, however, Socialism is, after all, in its fundamental conception only the logical application of the scientific theory of natural evolution to economic phenomena.”—Socialism and Modern Science, page 94, Enrico Ferri.

The Encyclopedia definition of Science is given below:

“Knowledge duly arranged and referred to, general truths and principles.”

Science denotes a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge, and hence we speak of reducing a subject to science.

“Encyclopaedic Dictionary”—Knowledge amassed severally tested, coordinated and systematized specially regarding those wide generalizations called laws of nature.”

Those resting only on probable evidence are not really science or knowledge.

No one can be a truly scientific student unless he considers truth of priceless importance and is prepared to sacrifice all preconceived notions whenever he discovers these to be erroneous.

Illustrating the Socialistic view and esteem of evolutionary 03639science, quotations will be made from some of their leading writers among whom is Arthur M. Lewis, the master of a school in Chicago which he styles the People's University— the author of many Socialistic books and one of the leading propaganda speakers.

“Darwin has put forward a theory of heredity which he called ‘Pangenesis,’ which made out a good case for the admission of the Lamarckian factor. According to this theory all the somatic or body cells give forth still smaller cells which he calls ‘gemmules.’ These ‘gemmules’ are collected, by some process not explained, in the reproductive organs.”— Evolution, Social and Organic, pages 68-69.

“While it is undoubtedly true that much in Weismann's position lacks experimental demonstration, it is equally true that when the heat of the discussion somewhat subsided, his theories were well to the fore, and they have since secured a wide acceptance among competent authorities. It is hardly to be expected that his two greatest critics, Spencer and Haeckel, would look with much favor on a theory the acceptance of which would make necessary the rewriting of those many volumes, which constitute their life-work.”— Evolution, Social and Organic, pages 76-77.

“Although evolution is an established fact, our knowledge of its processes are incomplete and must always remain so until we have solved that most vexed of all biological problems, the ‘causes of variation.’

“As to the nature of these causes, natural selection is dumb. For its purpose, variation is simply assumed to be a fact, and Darwin's acknowledged ignorance as to how variation is brought about is expressed in the term ‘spontaneous variation.’ Until variation has played its part by producing new and various forms, selection has no function or office to perform.”— Evolution, Social and Organic, pages 82-83.

“It is being acknowledged every day that modern accepted scientific explanations of the ‘nature of things’ are becoming more and more inadequate to the satisfaction of true knowledge.”— Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome, page 65.

The last quotation above is from William Morris and Ernest Belfort Bax, leading Socialists of Great Britain, and of high standing, and while in every work and pamphlet which they and Arthur M. Lewis put forth to influence men to join the Socialistic movement they assert evolutionary 03740Socialism is an established science, while at the same time in their writings they acknowledge that it is inadequate and unsatisfactory and cannot be claimed to “contain true knowledge.”

According to the definition given above by Encyclopedias neither one of these men is a scientific student because neither one of them is prepared to sacrifice all preconceived ideas he might have discovered to be erroneous.

“Then Cesare Lombroso entered the arena leading a camel. According to the Italian criminologist, the camel's hump had been first acquired by bearing loads and then transmitted by heredity. From the fact that the camel and the Ilama, which is smooth backed, have something in common, he concludes that camels are really Ilamas that have recently acquired a hump in the performance of their labors. Lombroso also supported his hump theory by some statements about Hottentot women having developed callouses on their hips by carrying their children on their backs.”— Evolution, Social and Organic, pages 72-73.

The above quotation before being published in book form was delivered in a lecture by Prof. Lewis before an audience at the People's University and shows the kind of science which Socialist leaders are benevolently bestowing upon the public at 50 cents a head.

It is difficult to ascertain how the Socialistic audience connects this luminous science with industrial political economy, and to justify their rejecture of God as the creator of all things, and attempt to repeal the civil and criminal codes of Moses. They cannot make the hump of the camel, nor the cailous of the Hottentot convincing against the Faith of the Fathers.

“From some time past, tailless kittens have frequently appeared in the families of many different mother cats at Waldkirch, and this fact is explained in the following manner. A clergyman, who lived for some time at Waldkirch had married an English lady who possessed a tailless male Manx cat. The probability that all the tailless cats in Waldkirch 03841are more or less distant descendants of that male cat amounts almost to certainty. Since a male Manx cat has reached the Black Forest, it might equally well arrive at some other place.’— Evolution, Social and Organic, page 75.

The above was also contained in the same lecture. The wonder is that Mr. Lewis took the evidence of a clergyman in regard to the sad fate of these kittens, as Mr. Lewis abhors clergymen, or any person who teaches morals or religion. However that may be this magnificent science was perhaps propounded by Mr. Lewis for the purpose of showing that there is no God, and that the cats came into being by process of evolution.

The last remark that the cat might equally arrive at some other place in the Black Forest is certainly very brilliant. But following their evolutionary theory where do the Socialists expect to “arrive at”? “It might equally well arrive at some other place.” The following quotations amply establish that Socialists themselves recognize the fact that evolution as a science has not been established; therefore it cannot be claimed as a sound basis on which to build the most serious theories affecting life and civilization.

“Weismann maintained that variation arose solely through the combining of two portions of differing germplasm contributed by two different individuals, and producing a new individual unlike either— a ‘variation’ from both. While whatever there was of victory fell to Weismann, neither side has experimentally proven its case, and we are still in the dark as to the ‘causes of variation.’ Our ignorance is still cloaked in the convenient word ‘spontaneous’; to Darwin's ‘spontaneous variation’ we now add DeVries’ ‘spontaneous mutation.”— Evolution, Social and Organic, page 84.

“Romanes, one of Weismann's ablest critics, compares Weismann's theory with Darwin's, and while he refuses to defend Pangenesis against Weismann's charge that it is a wholly unsupported speculation, he replies by contending that the germ-plasm theory lives in precisely the same kind of a glass house.”— Evolution, Social and Organic, pages 69-70.

“As DeVries clearly recognizes, Darwin is in no way 03942responsible. “Darwin,” says DeVries, ‘recognized both lines of evolution.’”—Evolution Social and Organic, page 85.

If there are tow “lines” there cannot be any definite or scientific system of evolution.

“But although this controversy has split the evolutionists into two camps, it in no way compromises the evolution theory itself.”—Evolution, Social and Organic, page 61.

Although there is a controversy, and “two camps” of Socialists they still absurdly claim the establishment of a Science. A definite Science is indisputable.

“Thompson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.—Life and Letters of Chas, Darwin, vol. 3, page 114.

“Grant Allen in his biography of Darwin says, “Let not the love of the biographer deceive us. Not to mince matters, it was his one conspicuous failure,’”—Evolution, Social and Organic, page 69.

“About 1896, however, the public grew tired of the never-ending flood of biological lore on what looked to the lay mind like an insoluble problem. The editors, with their fingers on the public pulse, cried, ‘A plague on both your houses.’—“Evolution, Social and Organic, page 63.

Prof. Haeckel who is the prime authority of Socialists in support of their theories that man has descended from the lower orders of animals, the monkey just ante-dating the development of man. According to this theory, he himself acknowledges that he is not certain of his premises, or in fact of much of his theory.

“We grant at once that the innermost character of nature is just as little understood by us as it was by Anaximander and Empedocles, twenty-four hundred years ago, by Spinoza and Newton, two hundred years ago, and by Kant and Goethe, one hundred years ago. We must even grant that this essence of substance becomes more mysterious and enigmatic the deeper we penetrate into the knowledge of its attributes, matter and energy, and the more, thoroughly we study its countless phenomenal forms and their evolution. We do not know the ‘thing in itself,’ that lies behind these knowable phenomena. But why trouble about this enigmatic thing in 04043itself’ when we have no means of investigating it, when we do not even clearly know whether it exists or not?”—The Riddle of the Universe, New York, 1900, Prof. Haeckel.

Haeckel after many years of service as a Scientist, was thoroughly discredited on account of falsifying the alleged proof he had brought forth in support of man being a descendant of animals.

The following quotation shows the sad fate of Professor Haeckel, the leading authority on Socialistic Science, and proves “Socialistic Science” spurious, based on lies of all kinds. Written, printed, spoken, and visual lies exhibited by anatomical plates. On this failure to deceive the ignorant by high sounding terms, the entire foundation of Socialism breaks down.

“Shortly before his seventy-fifth year was reached (Feb. 16, 1909) Ernst Haeckel, Professor of Zoology at the University of Jena, had been compelled to admit, over his own signature, the existence of deliberate forgeries in his scientific writings.

“Haeckel had published in 1907, a pamphlet, entitled ‘Das Menschen—Problem,’ in which representations of embryos of man—and apes were given. Dr. Arnold Brass in ‘Das Affen—Problem’ asserted that many of the diagrams were inaccurate and worthless, and that others had been purposely and deliberately falsified; that in particular, Haeckel's Gibbon-embryo (plate 3) was a reproduction of Selenka's drawing of a Macacus-monkey-embryo, 15 or 16 vertebrae having been omitted, and the name changed; ... In proof Brass published the original diagrams and Haeckel's distorted and forged copies side by side.

“This deadly parallel made all thought of escape impossible. Haeckel's reply appeared in the Munchner Allgemeine Zeitung (No. 2, Jan. 9, 1909), and contained the following admission:

“To put an end to this unsavory dispute I begin at once with the contrite confession, that a small number (6 to 8 per cent) of my embryo diagrams are really forgeries in Dr. Brass's sense ... I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by this admission, were it not that ... the great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological and embryological diagrams ... are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed.”

“The last sentence caused a sensation. Professional ethics require that the word schematic be always added to every diagram which the author has retouched or invented; whereas Haeckel deliberately left his readers under the impression that he was using diagrams from nature! The Zoologists of Germany were, therefore, completed, much against their will, to throw Haeckel overboard in order to save their own honor.

“A statement signed by 46 professors representing 25 German and Austrian universities and scientific schools discredited Haeckel's work (No. 8, Munchner Allgemeine Zeitung) and 36 other scientists representing nineteen universities, botanical laboratories, etc., of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, including the University of Jena agreed in demanding ‘that henceforth as in the past, German scientific research shall rest on a uncompromising love of truth.” ‘Yet the past holds an ugly record.” In 1868, Haeckel printed off one and the same diagram three times in succession to show the marvelous similarity of the embryos of man, ape and dog. Rutimeyer called attention to this curious device, whereupon Haeckel conceded that he had been guilty of a ‘thoughtless piece of folly.’ The end of his career is therefore worthy of the beginning (Augsburger Post-Zeitung, March 23, 1909) ‘Repudiation of Haeckel is now unanimous and complete; he is discredited by the signed verdict of eighty-two of the foremost German authorities.’”

It is a false impression created by Socialists that Scientists are almost a unit against the doctrine that the universe was created by a Supreme Being as a First Cause.

Three of the greatest Scientists the world has ever known, together with hundreds of others bear testimony to their belief in such creative power. They are quoted below.

“Eternal, infinite God, I perceive Thy omnipotence in the works of Thy creation, and am like one stricken daft with admiration and wonder. Every part of Thy handiwork, the most infinitesimal as well as the most sublime, is alive with power and wisdom with unspeakable perfection. The benefits that accrue to us poor mortals from Thy works prove. Thy infinite goodness, their beauty and harmony bespeak Thy wisdom, their perpetuousity and fruitfulness, Thy eternal power.”—Linnaeus.

“Because biologists could not escape from the conclusion that there was original creative power when they studied the physics and dynamics of living and dead matter science was not antagonistic to religion, but a help to it. ‘A million of 04245millions of years would not give them a beautiful world like ours.’”—Lord Kelvin.

“Two important deductions may be drawn from reading the opponents of Lord Kelvin: the first is, that while they deny Creative Power, they offer no alternative; and, secondly, their reason for not accepting Creative Power is that they cannot conceive of it. The first shows clearly the limitations of biology as such and its ignorance of the origin of its own subject matter. Ignorance of a thing can never become an argument for its non-existence. Inadequacy of the means offered by a particular science must be supplemented by other legitimate means furnished by some other legitimate branch of science in order to reach the conclusion which the first science unaided could never attain. In the case under consideration the facts furnished by biology must be aided by a process of logical reasoning upon those facts, and the logical conclusion must be admitted by every reasonable mind.

“This brings us to the consideration of the second deduction of the opponents of a Creative Power—namely, that they cannot admit such a power because they cannot conceive of it. This is a most startling statement in the light of scientific methods in every department of science. If there is one thing that any scientist demands as a matter of belief and to which he appeals in all his investigations it is the principle of causation. Remove this principle and what a sorry picture is presented by the investigator in the laboratory.

“Now, those scientists who rigorously demand the application of this principle in every step of scientific investigation should logically demand it to explain the existence of the universe. Hence, to say that they cannot conceive of a Creative Power is to abandon at a crucial point the principle of causation, the chief incentive to scientific investigation.

“Probably scientific atheism is based largely on the misunderstanding of the too great generalization of modern science. These great laws are the conservation of energy and the conservation of matter. But in reality what do they mean? Simply this: in our hands we can neither destroy or create matter or energy, and that we believe on the principle of causation that the same effect always follows everywhere the same cause, and hence we generalize. But whence matter and energy? Are we to deny the principle of causation here?

“It is refreshing to find such princes of science as Kelvin, Newton, Muller, Locke, Schwann, Pasteur, Leibig and others deeply drinking at the fount of science and impregnated with the true philosophy of science, defending from scientific grounds the existence of God opposition to the 04346agnosticism of Huxley, the materialism of Tyndall, the atheism of Clifford, the skepticism of Fitzjames Stephen, the positivism of Frederic Harrison and pantheism of Haeckel to understand that science must perforce soon cease her dogmatism, confine herself to her own legitimate sphere and become as she must by right the handmaid of religion.:—Rev. D. T. O'Sullivan.

An established science is thus defined by Prof. Dolbear:

“In an established science there are no contingencies and no possibilities of hedging. If any one of the fundamental postulates of science could be overthrown, the whole body of science would go with it.”

As an estimation of Fake Science, the words of the Rev. L. A. Lambert, as used against an atheistic lecturer will apply to the Socialistic propagandists:

True science is the knowledge of the truth, and is an ability to demonstrate the truth to the understanding of the others.

Science is the knowledge of the reality of things; vain speculation on unproved theories is not science because science must be demonstratable and provable truth.

Knowing the demonstrative teaching of astronomy, we can assert as a truth that the sun causes the variations of the seasons.

Knowing the hypothesis of organic evolutionary processes, we are not warranted by truth to apply them to man, to his creation, to his descent and development, nor to his economic condition present nor future.

Such a theory put forth as “scientific” knowledge would be a violative of the truth as to call the incantations and charms of soothsayers and alchemists the “science of chemistry.”

These Socialist writers and lecturers publish their books in the four quarters of the world and sell their lectures to gaping multitudes. These Socialists assume a dictum and an air of philosophic profoundness, when at the time they are not dealing with realities and cannot be profound—for profundity must have knowledge of the truth as its support.

His attractions for the ignorant are the use of big words. He wants to be rated an enclyclopaedist when he is not an A. B. C. D.-ist in truth.

His affinity for the vicious is their common hatred of all that is known to be morally good and true.

Instead of teaching coherent truths, he proposes irrational vagaries.

Instead of possessing profound intelligence, he has shallow incapacity.

But he is satisfied to sell counterfeit science in exchange for bona fide coin in the government that he is trying to destroy.

To hear a lot of Scientific Socialists propound their theories causes one to think of a tribe of Simians.

A lot of idealogists chattering in the tree of knowledge in the language of their simian ancestors about some barren ideality. And ordinary mortals listening, are more or less impressed, and even some of the less intelligent of men say, “We are convinced that monkeys do have a language, although we cannot understand them, and we doubt if they understand themselves.”

The doctrine of the Mosaic and Christian religions assert that man is a special creature, created by the Almighty with attributes in his nature which make him a little lower than the angels and an heir of immortal life, these attributes being, reason, memory, and free will, and the Mosaic law of the Ten Commandments being moral rules for his guidance as between himself, his creator and his fellow man.

The Socialist teaches that men, by evolution, had no special creation and are derived from the lowest forms of animal life, finally culminating in the ape and monkey, and not being specially created, there are no rules of life which govern the actions of men.

From this standpoint, Socialism absolutely denies religion.

Leading Socialists avow this very clearly.

They are ultra-materialists, and adopt the Darwinian theory of evolution, claiming that all humanity, themselves included, descended from Apes, the Socialist being superior to others, in that he was provided with a better tail—a tale of woe.

Christians do not claim such ancestry, and of the Socialist we will remark, adopting Shakespeare, “It is a wise son that knoweth his own father.”

Socialism is essentially atheistic. Occasionally a Socialist professes to be theistical, but he has a misconception of Socialism, for if he believes in “the material conception of history,” which is the only basis for Scientific Socialism, it is utterly impossible 04650at the same time for him to be a Socialist, and finally if he perseveres in studying such a doctrine, he will find that his fire of Christian faith will be extinguished by the foul sewer water of Socialistic doctrine, which is as antagonistic to christianity as water is to fire.

To fairly demonstrate the Socialist position on Atheism, extracts have been made from the writings of prominent Socialists the world over, which quotations here follow:

“Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin's theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma.”—Marxism and Darwinism, page 23.

“It is for this reason that science and religion are in inverse ratio to each other; the one diminishes and grows weaker in the same proportion that the other increases and grows stronger in its struggle against the unknown.

“Joseph Diezgen has thus stated what may be called the law of the atrophy of religion: ‘The more the idea of God recedes into the past the more palpable it is; in olden times man knew everything about his God; the more modern the form of religion has become, the more confused and hazy are our religious ideas.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, page 95.

“In practice it is very convenient to have one principle for the human world and another one for the animal world. In having this, however, we forget that man is also an animal. Man has developed from an animal, and the laws that apply to the animal world cannot suddenly lose their applicability to man. It is true that man is a very peculiar animal, but if that is the case it is necessary to find from these very peculiarities why those principles applicable to all animals do not apply to men, and why they assume a different form.”—Marxism and Darwinism, page 36.

It is impossible for men, when constituting a society where selfish and corrupt human nature is predominant, to formulate any code of morals which will be workable or logically perfect.

The morals of all Christian nations are based upon the revealed will of God through the Ten Commandments and admonitory revelations by the Almighty, and the established rules, traditions and commandments of the church.

The main base of morals, which governs all civilized communities is from the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic law. The ethics of these commandments have become almost unversal; not only within the church, but have spread and have become the warp and woof of all the civil and criminal laws of all nations.

An essential to the enforcement of moral law is the necessary implication that the person coming under such law is a free moral agent, and has free will to do right, or on the other hand to choose evil acts.

Thus idiots and the insane, without will, are not held accountable for their acts, and amenable to the penalties of the law.

To be a free agent with power to do good or evil at choice implies that men are a special creation of the Almighty, that they have free will which animals do not have.

The Socialists deny these essentials in the above definition.

In the first place, they deny there is a God, and that He ever imparted His will by revelation to man.

Secondly, they affirm that man was created by a process of material evolution, and while they admit he is a superior animal, they deny he was ever given an especial gift of free will, which alone makes man accountable for the consequence of his acts.

With these assumptions held as essential by Socialists, it is absolutely impossible for that cult to assume any fixed moral principles. In consequence of the Socialistic denials as above, they also, perforce, must deny that men have natural and inalienable rights.

They claim that all moral codes, or rather any ethical code, can be formed by society, which by its “consensus of opinion” may validate such a code, prescribing certain duties to men and assigning punishment for the violation thereof.

The Socialists claim that morals are not fixed or immutable, that with the changes of time and conditions, what might have been moral yesterday, may be immoral today. They assert that at one time in the history of mankind cannibalism might have been justified, and also that slavery was right.

Socialists do not generally use the word “immoral,” but instead use the word “unmoral.”

In exemplification of this doctrine of Socialism on the question of morals, quotations are given fully and fairly from their leading text books and platforms, as follows:

“So that my contention that morality only came into being with the division of society into classes and will pass away when class divisions are abolished, becomes a question of definition.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, pages 75-76.

“Moral codes, religious creeds, judicial institutions both civil and criminal, political organization: all are constantly 06469undergoing transformation and all are relative to their respective historical and material environments.

“To slay one's parents is one of the greatest of crimes in Europe and America: it is, on the contrary, a duty enjoined by religion in the island of Sumatra; in the same way cannibalism is a permitted usage in Central Africa, and such it also was in Europe and America in prehistoric times.”—Enrico Ferri, Socialism and Modern Science, page 96.

“First of all, let it be understood that Socialism does not present any problems in ethics. Socialism is a theory of social evolution; and, being there can be no more argument as to whether it is good or bad.”—Evolution and Revolution, page 5.

The writer of the above presents a strange doctrine, when he declares that the Socialistic theory cannot be questioned “as to whether it is good or bad.” There is no social ethical problem which affects multitudes of men but which is subject to a judgment in regard to whether it will be for the good or for the ill of humanity. Where Socialist derive their immunity from examination it is difficult to ascertain. He means that as Socialism is, in his opinion, evolutionary, it is wound up, and on its way, and will run over you and you cannot question its right to do so.

“But there is an ever-growing portion of the working class whom the ever-increasing severity of the discipline of the machine process is teaching more and more to think solely in terms of material cause and effect. To them, just as much as to the scholar who has learned by study the relativity of ethics, current morality has ceased to appeal. It is idle to talk of the will of God, or of abstract, absolute ideas of right and wrong to the sociological scholar and the proletarian of the factory alike.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, page 61.

The above is an admission that morality does not appeal to Socialists as a class, and that morals are indifferent matters which they are privileged to ignore.

The following from “Landmarks of Scientific Socialism,” page 128:

“From the very moment when private property in movables developed there had to be ethical sanctions of general 06570effect in all communities in which private property prevailed, thus: Thou shalt not steal. Is this commandment, the, an eternal commandment? By no means. In a society in which the motive for theft did not exist, stealing would only be the practice of the weak-minded, and the preacher of morals who proclaimed, ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ as an eternal Commandment would only be laughed at for his pains.”

So theft will be abolished by Socialism.

The following blasphemy also tells the truth, that where there is no belief in God or religion that there cannot be morality.

“Ethics and religion appeared now as inseparably bound together. Certainly the moral law was the logical creator of the new God; but in Christianity God appeared as the author of the moral law. Without a belief in God, without religion, no morality.”—Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, page 24.

The following seems to be a future vision which pleased the author. This was gleaned from some fables of prehistoric days, and denotes a state of moral and sex anarchy which is so very pleasing to many Socialistic minds.

“As there was no master and no slave class, their rules were essentially democratic. This code of morality contained very few planks. There were no laws in regard to marriage. Promiscuity in the horde prevailed. As the horde shared in common all property which they possessed, there were no laws forbidding stealing, as no one could steal that which was already his. There were no laws prohibiting lying in those days, as lying is the slave's method of avoiding punishment. You never lie, unless you fear something. There was no occasion to bear false witness against your neighbor, because there was no private property. You could not covet your neighbor's property, nor his ass, nor his wife, nor his maid-servant, for all these things, with the exception of the servant, were the property of the entire horde. There were no servants at this stage of society's development.”—Our Mental Enslavement, page 13.

There was no fear, for there was no God, no Master, no punishment.

The quotations below show that according to Socialists morals 06671are changeable, and for this reason Socialist approve slavery. Question —Does the intellectual class among Socialist want a slave class for their use?

“Slavery produced a leisure class which could give itself up to intellectual pursuits, and in this way only was civilization made possible. For this reason slavery was right and necessary in its time.”—Evolution and Revolution, page 13.

“All the same, however, the connection between the tenets of morals and the social needs has been already proved by so many practical examples, that we can accept it as a general rule. It, however, this connection exists then an alteration of society must necessitate an alteration in many moral precepts.”—Ethics an the Materialist Conception of History, pages 179-180.

“Materialist moralists, to whom the moral codes are simple conventional fashions, deny the possibility of an immorality of that kind as a social phenomenon. As all morality is relative, that which is called immorality is simply a deviating kind of morality.

“On the other hand idealist moralists conclude from the fact that there are entire immoral classes and societies that there must be a moral code eternal and independent of time and space; a standard independent of the changing social conditions on which we can measure the morals of every society and class.”—Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, page 192.

“Immorality can never be more than a deviation from our own moral code, never from a strange one. The same phenomenon, say of free sexual intercourse or of indifference to property can in one case be the product of moral depravity, in a society where a strict monogamy and the sanctity of property are recognized as necessary; in another case it can be the highly moral product of a healthy social organism which requires for its social needs neither property in a particular woman nor that in particular means of consumption and production.”—Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, pages 193-194.

“At the same time Marxism has done away with the old utopian views that Socialism would be brought about by the intelligence and good will of some judicious men; as if Socialism were a demand for justice and morality; as if the object were to establish an infallible and perfect society. Justice and morality change with the productive system, and every class has different conceptions of them.”—Marxism and Darwinism, page 21.

“It was the materialist conception of history which has 06772first completely deposed the moral ideal as the directing factor of the social evolution, and has taught us to deduce our social aims solely from the knowledge of the material foundations,”—Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, page 201.

The quotations below show that the Socialist Proletarian is taught by the Socialist lecturer that all moral laws have been devised by the ruling class for his exploitation and enlavement.

No mention is ever made to the proletarian that moral laws are for his protection and his reward, and that if he does not violate law, he cannot possibly be punished. This tactic is a Satannic device to breed class hatred and bring on the “Revolution.”

“In all these different periods we find that the dominant class, in each period, not only framed the statute laws, but also molded the customs and laid down the code of morality for the people to follow. We also find these laws were always designed to govern the whole people for the selfish interests of the ruling class, regardless of whether these rules were for the betterment or for the harm of the rest of society.

“All down through the ages, history shows us a series of class conflicts based upon the struggle for the wealth created by those who work. Codes of morality are always built to protect the ruling class in their possession of property, which they have wrung from the sweat and blood of the working class.”—Our Mental Enslavement, pages 7-8.

“Certainly the moral law is product of the social nature of man: certaintly the moral code of the time is the product of particular social needs; certainly have neither the one nor the other anything to do with religion. But that kind of morals, which must be maintained for the people in the interests of the ruling class, that requires religion badly and the entire ecclesiastical organism for its support. Without this it would soon go to pieces.”—Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, page 190.

“Conduct that has tended to perpetuate the power of the economically dominant class—since the increase of wealth has divided society into classes—has ever been accounted moral conduct; conduct that has tended to weaken or subvert the power of the ruling class has always been branded as immoral. There you have the key to all the 06873varying codes of ethics the world has seen. For it must never be forgotten that ideas of right and wrong are not absolute, but relative; not fixed, but fluid, changing with the changes in our modes of producing food, clothes and shelter. Morality varies not only with time, but with social altitude.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, pages 59-60.

“From now on the maintenance of particular moral principles becomes a matter of interest, often of a very powerful interest. And now appears also weapons of force, of physical compulsion, to keep down the exploited classes, and this means of compulsion is placed also at the service of morality, to secure obedience to moral principles which are in the interest of the ruling classes.”—Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, pages 187-188.

The author of “Marxism and Darwinism,” pp. 40-41, boldly avows his principles and states that the morals of man and animals are practically the same, and their development changes without having any fixed ethics.

“Everything that applies to the social animals applies also to man. Our ape-like ancestors and the primitive men developing from them were all defenseless, weak animals, who, as almost all apes do, lived in tribes. Here the same social motives and instincts had to arise which later developed to moral feelings. That our customs and morals are nothing other than social feelings, that we find among animals, is known to all; even Darwin spoke about ‘the habits of animals which would be called moral among men.’ The difference is only in the measure of consciousness; as soon as these feelings become clear to men, they assume the character of moral feelings. Here we see that the moral conception—which bourgeois authors considered as the main distinction between men and animals—is not common to men, but is a direct product of conditions existing in the animal world.

“Among men, however, the groups, these social units, are ever changing in accordance with economic development, and this also changes the social instincts.”

As a summary of Socialist views on morals it is thought that the Ten Commandments adapted to the views of the Socialist, below, perfectly apply in accordance to and harmonize with the quotations herein given, and contain a fair estimation of the Socialistic opinion of the Mosaic law.

The family drawn together by ties of affection, blood and pleasures of association is a unit, and from this unit of the family, many families make a community, and an aggregate of communities form a State or Nation.

In fact, everyone has an instinct born in him of personal and local attachments. The horse knows his stall, and the dog loves his master. We love our birthplace, and the fatherland of infancy because there we have received nurture, education and protection.

In return for these benefits we owe a debt of gratitude, and if needs be, we should pay a reciprocal service. This is “patriotism.”

We should build up our States by the payment of taxes for the common good. We should educate by at least giving a good and honest example, and we should protect and defend our country by force of arms, if need be.

We have received all the above physical and educational benefits from our government and our duty is to repay in kind.

It ill becomes parents, whose son is being educated at the States's expense, to decry Patriotism, but this is the slogan of Socialist, who claim they have a broad international love, which love does not first extend to their own State. It is an acrobatic jumper. Like their monkey ancestors, it can go from tree to tree.

No one believes that Socialists entertain anything but selfish motives. When a man does not love a family, a town, a State, his heart is too small and ungrateful to take in the whole world, and those who have the benefits of education for their children in free schools, are so blind as not to see their obligations as patriots and lovers of their country. It is about time they should have their mental cataracts of ingratitude removed until such gratitude returns to their hearts.

To be consistent, the Socialist should cease to agitate any matter of State politics and should stop voting as citizens of the State of his residence, as he is plotting its overthrow.

From the family love originates the communal affection and from that comes national loyalty and Patriotism, and all come from the divinely imparted tie that the first unit, the husband and wife shall be in one flesh.

The Socialist hates the family, and the nation—because he hates God, for the Socialist fears both the justice and judgment of God.

Destructionists always attract the unthinking, who do not know even the first principles of construction, and could not devise a better form of government to put in place of that we now have.

As destructionists, Socialists stand for abolition of our present educational system, our family life, our religious and social beliefs and our economic forms and customs, and for the replacement of the title school house by teaching therein International Socialism, and make “Patriotism” a by-word. The pictures of Washington, Lincoln, and Wilson shall be torn down from the walls, and those of Karl Marx, Bebel and Debs shall replace them.

The “Stars and Strips” shall be hauled down and trampled under foot. The Red Flag of International Socialism furled on the flag pole.

As confirming the revolutionary and unpatriotic views of Socialists, the following quotation from the Communist Manifesto is positive proof, in which they declare for the overthrow of all present social conditions and declare support of every revolutionary movement. W. Matt reiterates this position by declaring the principles of Socialists to make war on the State, the Country, and Patriotism.

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”—Communist Manifesto, page 58.

“We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed. The true root of liberty, of equality, of culture is Atheism.”—W. Matt, Secret Societies in Switzerland.

“‘Law and order’ means the laws and the orders of the capitalist class which the worker from childhood up is taught to obey, under penalty of imprisonment backed up by a threat of hell fire, coming from the ministerial profession.”—Our Mental Enslavement, pages 43-44.

“Marxism has taught us that there is no such things as a natural and a permanent social system, and that there can be none, or, to put it another way, every social system is natural, for every social system is necessary and natural under given conditions. There is not a single definite social system that can be accepted as natural; the various social systems take the place of one another as a result of developments in the means of production. Each system is therefore the natural one for its particular time.”—Marxism and Darwinism, page 34.

The scoffing of the Socialist leaders against government is absolutely disloyal and partakes of the element of high reason. The Socialists maintain schools for the young, in which their books of catechism specifically teach disloyal sentiments against the government. They scoff at the motives 092100of the patriots of the Revolutionary war, and claim that their only desires were to exploit their fellow colonists.

They decry our patriotic songs and sneer at the American flag, and for the self sacrificing patriotism as shown by the citizens of foreign countries, they claim that it has been to the injury of the people and against the welfare of the working class.

“The leading citizens of the American colonies—the Washingtons and Hancocks—could not exploit the colonies because they did not control the government; so they seized the government from the British ruling class. They were then able to exploit the colonies to their hearts’ content.”—Evolution and Revolution, page 44.

“It is good for the running class to have the working class patriotic and sing ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee.’ It means to them continued class rule, their class the rulers.

“We are taught from the cradle up that it is a noble quality to be patriotic. When as little children, we go to school, the American flag is hoisted upon a tall pole in the school yard. We are taught to sing patriotic songs.”—Our Mental Enslavement, pages 46-47.

“Poland, Hungary, Italy, Servia, Ireland and France, as represented by her Chauvinists, have all once and again contributed their quotas to this nuisance of ‘Patriotism,’ which has so often in these latter days dragged the red herring over the path of the Revolution.”—Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome, page 146.

“Does the new morality condemn what the old branded as ‘crimes against property?’ It must be confessed that the revolutionary worker has absolutely no respect for natural rights—including the right of property—as such. Hence, as the act of an individual in appropriating the goods of another is not likely either to help or to injure his class, he neither approves or condemns it on moral grounds; but knowing, as he does, that his class enemies, the capitalists, own not only ‘the goods,’ but also the courts and the police, he condemns theft by a workingman as suicidal folly.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, pages 64-65.

“Both the statute laws and the code of morality are made to protect the robber class from the robbed class. Both the capitalist and the priest call the Socialists bad because they desire to inaugurate a system of publicity, owned industry so that the workers may be paid their full product, and the robbery of the poor by the rich be stopped.”—Our Mental Enslavement, page 36.

“It has gained enormously in extension, and only awaits increased education and the force of inevitable economic events for it to become general as an opinion; the result of which will be a corporate action, destined to carry the evolution of modern life into the next great stage—the realization of a new society with new politics, ethics, and economics, in short, the transformation of Civilization into Socialism.”—Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome, page 144.

“The theory of Socialism as a coherent doctrine began with the three great utopist systems of Robert Owen, Fourier and St. Simon. Not one of these systems took what I may term the abstract-economic view of the subject. They all regarded human life as an integral system, and never dreamt of separating its several aspects. They were all anti-Christian, all opposed to the modern form of marriage, and if not explicitly international they were at least implicitly so. The latter schools of French Socialism have always had something to say in the same sense on the subjects of religion, marriage, and racial boundaries, that is, always in a sense hostile to the existing forms of these institutions. Finally, modern ‘scientific’ Socialism, while accentuating the economical revolution implied in the word, has none the less insisted on the fact that the other aspects of human life must undergo a corresponding change.”—E. Belfort Bax.

“Communism can never be realized till the present system of Society has been destroyed by the workers taking hold of the political power. When that happens, it will mean that Communism is on the point of absorbing and transmuting Civilization all the world over.”—Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome, page 166.

The quotations above from prominent Socialist authors of both Europe and America, assert the unpatriotic principles, revolutionary and destructive methods of international Socialism. They assert a supreme contempt for the courts and the officers of the law. While they have full power as voters to remedy the defects of legislation and to elect the judges of the courts they decline to exercise the franchise in this direction, or if exercising it refuse to abide by results, and announce a revolution. It is noticed also that their antagonism and hatred extends also to morals and to the Church.

The antagonism to the Church is shown by the prohibition 094102of the confessional in Mexico and expulsion of the priests and sisters. An attempt to dynamite the cathedral in New York. The abolition of church charitable and educational institutions in France and Portugal, they abuse generally of both Protestant and Catholic churches in France.

The danger of Socialism is so apparent in Germany, that both the Protestant and Catholic citizens unite in opposition to Socialism in the Chamber.

The next quotation, by Mark Fisher, attempts to give an outline of the modus operandi of the New Socialist Revolution. This sort of doctrine is commonly advocated by speakers before Socialistic groups all over the United States and Europe.

“The capitalist class rules the working class politically because it is economically the most powerful class. Logically, if the working class is to seize the machinery of government peaceably, that class must first become more powerful than the capitalist class upon the economic field. The economic strength of the masters lies in their being able to purchase the labor power of the workers. If the workers should withhold their labor power and refuse to sell it to the capitalists, that class would have no economic power. When the workers are organized as a class so that practically all can suspend work at the same time, the working class will become, economically, the most powerful class.

“The strength of an army lies in organized, concentrated action. A large body of troops, disciplined, organized and acting as a unit against a mob of workers can quickly shoot them into submission. In the event of a general strike the situation will be reversed. The workers will be organized and acting as a unit. The very nature of the struggle will disorganize the army. The workers will not mass themselves behind barricades in the streets to serve as targets for soldiers. The revolt will extend to every part of the country. The purpose of the general strike will be to confiscate the industries now owned by the capitalist class. In order to protect their property they would be compelled to station soldiers at every factory, mine, mill, public building, every bridge and every mile of railroad in the United States. The army would be completely disorganized. One soldier would be guarding this factory, two more that mill, and so on from New York to California, providing there were enough soldiers for the purpose. Most of these soldiers, being working 095103men themselves, upon finding that they were alone, or nearly so, and surrounded by revolutionists, would immediately desert. Any who would not desert could be easily overpowered and disarmed.

“With the army gone, the workers will not sit down and starve while the warehouses are full of the food that they have produced and the factories in which they can produce more stand unguarded. They will go back into the factories and once more work—this time for themselves. The workers who were elected to office will take the offices which were refused them and proceed to serve the new industrial government. They will be needed as long as the reconstruction period, following the revolution, lasts. Society will adapt itself to a system in which production is for the use of the workers instead of for the profit of the Industrial Lords.”—Evolution and Revolution, pages 46-47.

Bebel before his death—the leader of the Socialists in the German Reichstag—prophesies the annihilation of the State, Religion, the law and the morals inculcated by both.

“And religion will share the fate of the state. It will not be ‘abolished,’ God will not be dethroned, religion will not be ‘torn out of the people's hearts,’ nor will any other of the phrases be put into effect, of which the atheistic Social-Democrats are accused. Social-Democracy leaves all such foolish attempts to the bourgeois ideologists who tried to realise them in the French Revolution, and naturally came to grief. Religion will disappear by itself, without any violent attack.”—Woman in the Past, Present and Future, page 213.

“On the whole, experience has shown me that the parents are the unfittest persons to educate a child, and I entirely deny their right to do so, because that would interfere with the right of the child as a member of the community from its birth to enjoy all the advantages the community could give it. Of course, so far as grown people are concerned, I quite agree with your view of complete freedom to teach anything that anyone will listen to. But as for my children I feel they have as much need for the revolution as the proletarians have. As to the woman matter, I do not think Bax puts it unreasonably in his article, though I have heard him exaggerate that in talk, and have often fallen foul of him.

“Mind you I do not think this change in the family (or religion) can be done by force. It is a matter of opinion and must come of the opinion of people free economically. 096104I rely on the stomach for bringing it about.”—Wm. Morris, in a letter to a friend.

The above would indicate that the cult headed by Bebel hope that revolution may be accomplished in a peaceful evolutionary way without resort to violence.

The secret propaganda of Socialism intends to accomplish such revolution by means of literature and the press, and by getting control of the schools in which already they demand that no morals or religion shall be taught, so that the children may have no morals, no love of God, and no patriotism for country. After this atheistic education is accomplished, the child's mind will be a fallow field for Socialist training. This is being accomplished all over the country by Socialists and Feminist teachers who have taken positions in the public schools. In some New York schools the national anthems are never sung, but in substitution therefor they are singing, “I Didn't Raise My Boy to be a Soldier.” The principal of that school, Mr. Alexander Fichandler, has publicly announced that the sentiments against military service expressed in that song have been discussed with the children during the last few years, and that, following the suggestion of a pupil, he has taught, and is teaching that song. Furthermore, on the bulletin board in the main hall is a grossly unjust pictorial reflection upon soldiers, and elsewhere in the school building are posted pictures still further misrepresenting the service which a soldier gives to his nation.

With the Socialist cult propagated in the public schools, the great danger of America lies.

Socialists neither love parents, as they assert parents should have no control of children, and that the child belongs to society. They have hatred for country instead of patriotism, and they despise the church and morals. They disclaim allegiance 097105to any national flag, and pledge their support to the Red Flag of International Socialism.

They teach hatred of all present governments, both civil and religious, and as venerated relics they scoff at both the burial place of Washington and the Holy Sepulchre of Christ.

The public at large has a very inadequate conception of what Feminism is, and what it intends to accomplish.

It is a movement in relation to the status of women, and involves their political, social, economic and moral condition, both in regard to themselves and in relation to men and children, and to government.

In the solution of the Feminist question, the State, the Home and the Church are involved.

Women are not alone in the advocacy of Feminism, but a few men also assist in its propaganda. It has its periodicals and lecturers.

The succeeding chapters define and analyze Feminism, not from the opinion of the author, but from the evidence of the Feminist authors and lectures as delivered to the public. The author only reserves to himself a review and comment.

In a foreword or summary of the essence of Feminism it can be fairly defined as follows:

Feminism is exhibited by a spirit of unrest among a comparatively small number of dissatisfied women. They preach the gospel of unholy discontent. They are born agitators, and “dearly love a fight.” They prefer war to peace; turmoil to tranquility; contention to concord; pride to humility; sophistry to truth; agnosticism to belief, and prefer to assert their own wills, “live their own lives” as against the precepts of all conventional morality, being moral anarchists.

From this Babel of confused ideas they have adopted the nomenclature of the Socialists.

That love without marriage is holy, and that marriage without love is illegitimate.

That only a narrow soul would object to an intimacy between its mate and an outsider when the giving of love to the hungry was a real charity.

That marriage shall not require the sanction of priests, magistrates or other functionaries.

Advocates a free contract in marriage, and that separation may occur at the will of either “mate.”

That divorce shall be made easy.

That there may be a “novitiate of marriage,” in other words, a “trial marriage,” and that after a period, if either party is not pleased, the final “mating” need not be consummated.

If children should result from such “trial,” the duty of the state is to care for them, and the parties may enter into other “novitiates.”

If a Feminist wife works at household duties, she demands wages from her husband for domestic service, but household duties would be better done by expert “household engineers”—the wife going to work outside, and the children being sent to a state nursery, kindergarten to school.

The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the teaching of St. Paul and of the church.

Like Herodias, they lay snares for John the Baptist and have their daughters perform “interpretative dances” and then demand the head of the Baptist on a charger.

They proclaim the “New Religion” and the “New Freedom of Women,” for by these they are “emancipated” from all moral and religious restraint.

As a tactic to advance their propaganda, they advocate 133143Woman Suffrage, to gain the help of a sentimental class of women, who in reality desire to uplift and purify politics. Among other things they claim to Suffragets that by means of votes for women prohibition will be secured, child welfare will advance, when in fact the Feminists do not care a picayune for either. And it is certain that the plane of politics cannot be elevated when the heart and soul of the cause of suffrage is composed of Feminists—Socialist—for no fountain can rise higher than its source, and if the fountain head is filthy the outlet will be impure.

Feminism advocates “votes for women,” and all Feminists are Suffragettes. Feminism declares for the economical freedom of woman, so that she may have a gainful occupation, independent of her husband and home, thus liberating herself from “sex slavery” to the end that she shall not be dependent on any man nor be “kept by any man.” This to the end that she may be free to leave her “mate” at any time she will, regardless of the “conventionalities.”

She declares that “motherhood” is a mere animal function, and that even a cat may have kittens; that motherhood has been made too much of in the past. Advocates with the Socialists that the State has a superior right to the parents over the nurture, conduct and education of the children.

Frowns on “compulsory” motherhood and advocates the “control of births” by artificial measures.

Suggests that any woman may reject motherhood, and any woman with “mother love” may accept motherhood whether she is married or single.

They abolish the laws of Moses and in their places announce, “A new law give I unto you.” “Love yourselves and your sexes. Worship Eros and Venus as your goddesses.”

They make Cleopatra and Delilah their models, and if 134144mere men do not bow down to their wills, they treat them as Delilah did Samson.

The Feminist is a man hater, except as she may be able to use him for her purposes.

She claims that man has subjected her to “sex slavery” and “economical servitude,” from which she demands “liberation,” so she may be made a “free woman.”

In advocacy to this “New Freedom” she has many journals, among others being the “Bondwoman” and Harper's Weekly. She tells all sorts of lies about the “inhumanity” of man to woman, men with their inborn chivalry have been maligned without protest, mistaking these female hyena iconoclasts for women.

But his vision may be unclouded and he may be able to distinguish viragos from ladies.

The tenets of Feminism and Socialism are identical and the Feminists and Socialists are all suffragists, and they are extending their propaganda to all suffragettes who will accept it.

They also have entree to many Women's Clubs, and to Colleges and lecture courses, and masquerade under the assumption that they are “progressive,” when in fact they are on the toboggan of moral retrogression.

The following pages will reveal the truth from their own witnesses.

The quotations are from many of the persons named below. This list contains typical representatives of Feminists of this and former ages.

The chapters following will establish this claim, and by this proof it is hoped that unsuspecting Suffragists will forsake their alliance with the two worst influences the world has ever known.

The Feminine principle is direct opposition to the belief in God. They rebel at, and resent the idea that there is a Divine Power which is superior in authority to the Feminist will.

Hating God and authority, therefore they must despise the church of God which exercises spiritual authority, and reproves for sin.

The quotations following fully substantiate the position of Feminist against the church and its authority.

“Marriage, which the Church therefore made a sacrament and indissoluble, had already become the legal expression of the husband's right of private ownership over his wife and children. The course of development has consisted in an unceasing transformation of this religio-economical view, and development cannot stop until the last remnant of this conception has been destroyed.

“In the very conditions of the renewal of life Christianity saw the root and origin of sin in the world. This way of viewing things must be entirely overcome: and fortunately the Church has of necessity lost—and will continue to lose in every conflict with love.

“But they forget that monogamy, which was a custom long before the introduction of Christianity, became injurious as well as beneficial to true sexual morality, from the moment the Church prescribed it as the only form of this morality.

“The new morality is in the state of enquiry on many questions—such as labour, crime, and education—but above all on the sexual life. Even on this question it no longer accepts commandments from the mountains of Sinai or Galilee; here as everywhere else evolutionism can only regard continuous experience as revelation.”—Ellen Key, Love and Marriage, pages 10, 52, 144, 297.

“Old beliefs and prejudices die hard. In a world whose intellectual and religious leaders had debated solemnly, not 150160so many centuries, before, whether women really had souls, it is perhaps not to be wondered at that the masculine mind in general still clung tenaciously to the persuasion that where woman was concerned, man had been admitted to the counsels of the Almighty while woman herself had been carefully excluded.”—Gertrude S. Martin.

“In the oldest Aryan traditions the earliest of the deities are goddesses. The first god is the son-husband of the goddess. These ideas belong to a period when woman was the most prominent figure in affairs, and when man derived his importance from her.”—Lida Parce, Lesson Outlines, page 30.

“Early Christianity in its revolt against pagan sensuality developed an ascetic attitude towards life which recognized woman as the dangerous ally of evil. The fact that Jesus never married, that he had no children, and that he chose men alone as his active co-workers, backed by the Jewish attitude of Paul, gave woman a subordinate place in the early Christian Church. The patristic writing exalted celibacy and placed the whole sexual life under a cloud of suspicion. Even the rise of Maryolatry, with its subsequent developments in chivalry, could not restore woman to her pagan freedom, but created for her instead a mingled ideal of man, lady and woman.”—Earl Barnes.

Lida Parce much prefers the heathen gods and goddesses and that a woman should have a son-husband because at that time woman was the most important and man gained his importance from her.

Earl Barnes, who styles himself an Educator, and writes lectures for Suffragism, admits that Christianity was a revolt from pagan sensuality, but in his finite judgment, Christianity went too far. His sacrilege goes so far as to criticise our Lord for not having married, and rails out at St. Paul for having written his epistles in regard to the place of woman in the Church. He also sneers at Mary, the Virgin Mother, whose Holy Family is the model today of the ideal home. His ruthless hand would lay hold of sacred things and not leave a vestige of the pure idealism of the Christian life.

“In Europe before the Reformation the conditions were not favorable to the rational and healthy growth of the family constitution. Everywhere among all peoples and in all stages 151161of culture, marriage, divorce and other family institutions appear as intensely human products.

“They are social structures, requiring for their safe development the freest appeal to reason and experience. Yet how often have they become the favorite domain of mysticism, superstition and sacerdotalism.

“So it was throughout Christendom under the sway of the canon law.

“It was most unfortunate for civilization that the Christian conception of the nature of marriage should have sprung from asceticism and that the verbal subtlety of celibate schoolmen should have produced the cardinal definitions upon which the validity of marriage contracts and therefore the practical administration of marital law were made to depend.

“In a word, the canonist placed the most vital family relations under rigid tabu against any rational social or human control. This tabu was lifted by Martin Luther. Under his leadership a fatal blow was struck at the ecclesiastical control of the matrimonial relations.

“Slowly, almost reluctantly, Luther made up his mind to repudiate the sacramental dogma of wedlock. Marriage he declared is a ‘temporal worldly thing’ which does not concern the church.’ This revolt, it is clear, evolved a new doctrine of social control, of the function of the state, which is of great interest to sociologists and the political scientist alike. In principle by accepting Luther's dictum, marriage, divorce, and family-types are recognized as purely social institutions, to be dealt with freely by men according to human needs. Assuredly no more harmful blunder was ever committed by theological subtlety than the setting apart of marriage as par excellence the divine institution.

“A stumbling block was thus put in the way of social progress. Yet today even after a fruitful half-century's scientific study of society, how many good people still cling to the old teaching.

“Immediately, from the very nature of the process, it has inured most to the advantage of the woman. In the family it is releasing the wife from the husband's hand, and making her an even member in the connubial partnership; in the larger society it is accomplishing her political, economic, and intellectual independence. The liberation of the personalities of the mother and child is immensely widening and hastening the process of socializing human kind.”—George Elliott Howard.

George Elliott Howard, professor in a state co-educational collage, is a good specimen of a Socialist-Feminist-Suffragist, who has intruded into our system of public education.

This is his opinion of Christianity, and as he claims, its hurtful influence on the family and the child.

He desires that matrimony should not be a sacrament, and he scoffs at its being a divine institution, and he believes that the purity of asceticism should never have required the indissolubility of marriage.

However, he prescribes a remedy below whereby the state shall weaken the bonds of matrimony, and more and more invade and abolish the ideals of the people who have an inclination to believe in God and in Divine Law. It is the Socialist revolution brought about by legislation invading the conscientious rights of the individual, and placing all control in the hands of the state.

“Throughout the Western world secular legislation is being extended practically to the whole province of the domestic relations. It is a many sided movement for spiritual liberation by which the mother and child are being recognized as equal personalities in the family trinity and in society. More and more the wife and child are being set free from the sway of the housefather and placed directly under the larger social control. The new solidarity of the State is thus being won at the expense of the old solidarity of the family.”—George Elliott Howard.

Below Ellen Key differ in small degree with Prof. Howard, but agrees with him that both Reformed and Catholic Churches have by their laws been an injury to the New Freedom of women and immorality in sexual relation.

There is a unanimity however among all leading Feminists, that Churches of all denominations are enemies to Feminism and her twin sister Socialism. The majority of the leaders of the Suffrage movement are Feminists and Socialists, and are insidiously dominating the whole woman's party.

They are making an attack by means of a Trojan Horse, one side of which is labelled, “Prohibition” and the other, “Personal Purity” and “Child Welfare.”

“The substance of Luther's controversy on marriage was not a higher conception of matrimony than that of the Catholic Church, it was merely the restoration of marriage to churchmen and monastic communities. We have to thank Luther for the Lutheran personage and with it for a great contribution to the poetry of country life, to popular culture, to the production of many great minds, and—indirectly—to the moulding of many passionate freethinkers. The Lutheran doctrine of marriage, on the other hand, deserves no thanks, since—like Protestantism as a whole—it stopped short in an insoluble contradiction. Instead of upholding, in the spirit of the Catholic Church and of Christ, the indissolubility of marriage and demanding the suppression of sensuality when the peace of the soul required it, Luther, by his insistence on the strength of natural inclinations, was forced into concession, which—quite in accordance with the teachings of the Bible—went so far as to approve of bigamy. To the gross apprehension of the Reformation period the choice of a personal love meant nothing. With marriage possible from a natural point of view alone, it might be contracted with any one; indeed, to the genuinely pious it seemed a higher thing to enter into matrimony without any earthly love, which interfered with the love of God. The Lutheran doctrine of marriage made God ‘indulgent’ towards all the impurity that the sexual life shut up within the white sepulchre of lawful wedlock. He has shut eyes to all the wife-murders that the command of fecundity involved; to all the worthless children produced by ill-matched and impure marriages. He has blessed’ all unions entered into, even though from the lowest motives, under the most unnatural circumstances; between a sick person and a healthy one, an old and a young, a willing and an unwilling or two unwilling ones, coupled together by their families. Today, countless women are still being sacrificed to this doctrine of marriage, or to its unconscious effects; their exhausted wombs are a poor soil for the new generation; their crushed souls a broken support for the growth of new wills. For one woman who defends herself with the resolution lent by horror, there are thousands who have conceived and still conceive children in loathing. For one wife who is met with the modest prayer of love, there are thousands who with a feeling of humiliation concede to their proprietors the right inculcated by the Lutheran doctrine of matrimony.

“Nothing is farther from the truth than that the Reformation increased respect for love and woman. It raised the esteem for the married state as compared with the unmarried, but it enhanced neither the position of woman in matrimony nor the importance of love in regard to marriage. Even in the Middle Ages, the Latin nations rendered a homage 154164to woman which today is still almost incomprehensible to the man of a Germanic race. And if, on the one hand, this homage took the form of the cult of Venus, which is born in the Latin blood, on the other, it expressed through the cult of Mary its reverence for what is deepest in woman, motherhood. Even today, the Frenchwoman is esteemed not according to her age but according to her qualities. It is not only the mothers who worship their sons but also the latter their mothers; and not only the mother, but besides her every admirable elderly woman receives attention in social life as in the family from men of all ages.”—Ellen Key, Love and Marriage, pages 13-14, 57.

Ellen Key, together with all Socialists and Feminists, is bitterly opposed to all churches. In Sweden and Germany, where she spent the most of her life, the dominant church is Lutheran, hence her attacks on Protestantism, and her reviling of all of its history and doctrine.

She attempts to transform its sacraments into sacrileges, calls its motives sordid, and its teachings as immoral.

Had she lived in a Catholic country, where her phillipics would have injured the Roman Church, her sarcasms would have been turned toward the Pope.

Protestantism, so far having escaped the pointed darts of Socialism, seems to rest secure that the fight on Catholicism would redound to its benefit, but such is not the case. The tactics of Socialism is “to divide and destroy singly,” and ally with themselves such religious elements as are near-sighted enough to assist in fighting Christianity in its other forms.

This seems to be the tactics of Ellen Key, who claims that Protestantism has been the “moulding of many passionate free thinkers.”

It is presumed that Ellen numbers herself as one of these free thinkers, she having come from a grandfather, who was a Scotch Presbyterian, and joined Gustavus Adolphus in the 155165“30 Years War,” and changed his religion to Lutheranism, in which Ellen Key was brought up: having been born of a Swedish mother, and finally she smites the Church which nurtured and educated her, and rejects the morals which she learned in her infancy from that church.

In civilized Society, since the days of Moses, the family has been considered the unit, marriage a divine institution and the duties of husband and wife and child were correlative and not individual.

Feminism proposes destruction of the family group and the ignoring of sacramental marriage which it terms Mediaeval.

They announce that the gratification of sexual needs gave rise to attacks on the institution of marriage, which was only sufficient for their grandparents, who tried to live religious and virtuous lives.

And that the mothers of illegitimate children shall be honored equally with the mother who is lawfully married.

This chapter fully demonstrates that Feminists are obsessed by Erotomania, that they have a contempt for legitimate marriage and that they approve adultery, and in the immoral conspiracy to establish these conditions they have a vision of the future and give forecasts of the state of society, when each one shall be an individual and destroy the unity of the family, and the sanctity of marriage and the dependence of the child.

“The liberation of woman in every one of its aspects profoundly involves the destiny of the family. It signifies, in all the larger activities of life, the relative individualism of one-half of human kind. This means, of course, the weakening of the solidarity of the family group, so far as its cohesion 157168depends on the remnants of mediaeval marital authority.”—George Elliott Howard.

“It is thus the dissatisfaction of the most cultured lass with the existing contradictions between its sexual needs and the form of their legitimate gratification which is now giving rise to attacks on that institution of marriage which was still sufficient for their own grandparents, just as it is even now for a countless number of their contemporaries.”—Ellen Key, Love and Marriage, page 3.

“So eventually it will come to pass that no finely sensitive woman will become a mother except through mutual love; that this motherhood sanctioned legally or not so sanctioned shall be considered the only true motherhood, and every other motherhood untrue.”—Ellen Key.

“But woman because of the conventional conception of womanly purity has been intimidated from conceding to man a deep insight into her erotic life experiences.

“It belongs to the attainment of the new erotic ethics which will uplift man and women in that sphere where now the spirit of slavery and of obtuseness under a holy name degrade them; where social convention sanctions prostitution alongside monogamy and vouchsafes to the seducer but not to the seduce, social esteem, calling the unmarried woman ruined who in love has become a mother, but the married woman respectable who without love gives children to the man who has bought her.

“For men in general the erotic relation between man and woman becomes the deepest life determining factor.”—Ellen Key.

It is beyond conception that Feminists should advocate the abandonment of womanly modesty and set up therefor “erotic ethics” which means practically that the sixth and ninth commandments mean a “spirit of slavery, under a holy name.”

The lie that prostitution alongside of monogamy is sanctioned by Christian morality is put forth with apparent assurance that there are people ignorant enough to believe the same.

The suggestion by Ellen Key—the great Feminist—to young women that the erotic relation is the deepest life factor with man and that the young lady should be permitted to exhibit her passionate qualities to him is worse than the 158169practices in the heathen temples, devoted to the Goddess Eros.

Rebelling at the divine plan of creation, at the establishment of sacramental marriage, wherein the man and the woman shall be two in one flesh and a unity, the Feminists demand that this unity of the family shall be disestablished, both husband and wife shall be individuals, with the greater individuality and power given the woman. They have declared that woman's mentality is equal to man's. It may be equal, but it is different. A woman's mind, compared to a man's mind, is strong in certain qualities and very weak and incompetent in other faculties. The claim that women can do any work which a man may do is such an utter vagary that no comment need be made. They call marriage proprietary, that the fact that the family acting as a unit has a common fund generally produced by the wages of the father, for the support of all members of the family makes the woman an economic slave, and because she may do housework in the care and nurture of her husband and children, that she is an “economic” slave, and from the reason that she is bound to one husband by the marriage tie that she is a “sex slave.”

The Feminists have a remedy for all these ills, and are willing to give any woman a receipt for the same. The first prescription to take is “Woman's Suffrage,” in which they promise all manner of good things. One is that it will “educate” women; another is, that it will abolish the liquor business and all the ills which attend it.

Humane people should ponder long about the abolition of the sale of liquor, because when Feminism is established there will be thousands of men who will need something to deaden their sensibility and ease their mental distress.

The next is the abolition of the family, co-operative house-keeping, the industrial freedom of women, whereby everyone shall have a job outside of her home and be paid wages, and not be financially dependent on her husband.

Suffraget and Feminist affirmation of their principles and purposes follow.

“They have declared that the individual man or woman is the unit of which society is composed, and that society can only be strong when each of these units is strong. They have declared that women's minds are equal to men's minds, and they can do any of the intellectual tasks which men have mastered. They have said that women can adapt themselves to the performance of any of the industries which men formerly held as their own fields. They have insisted that women owe it to themselves and to society to become economically independent; and that woman should be legally and politically emancipated from man's direction. Some of the bolder spirits have even held that a woman who wants a child, and can support it, has a right to choose its father where she will.”—Earl Barnes.

“Again reciprocity of conjugal rights and duties is desirable for parenthood. If marriage have a proprietary character, neither the owner nor the owned is entirely fit to develop free personalities in his or her children. Moreover, the idea of marital ownership more or less involves that of parental ownership, and the latter, as we have seen, is incompatible with a high type of parenthood. The custom of proprietary marriage inevitably leads, for example, to restrictions upon female education. Now just in so far as a woman's education is limited is she handicapped as an educator of her children.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, page 101.

“What thoughtful women are beginning to object to is the time honored belief that it is decent for woman to bestow her sex legally or illegally, in exchange for a guaranty of food, shelter, and clothing.”—Inez Milholland, McClure's, March, 1913, page 214.

“He begins dimly to understand that women has been what she has through the ages—toiling slave and bearer of children, instrument of his individual pleasure and comfort— 169181not because it pleased the gods to make him a superior creature to whom such services were due, but because this was nature's plan for preserving and humanizing and civilizing the race.”—Gertrude S. Martin.

“Educated women are not shunning marriage or maternity; but they are declining to view marriage as a profession, as their sole vocation, or to become merely child-bearing animals. Let us not worry about the destiny of college women. It is simply wrong wedlock which they are avoiding. They are declining longer to accept marriage as a kind of purchase contract in which the woman barters her sex-capital to the man in exchange for life-support.”—George Elliott Howard.

“What will really follow when our women are free and independent, choosing with discerning eyes the men fit for fatherhood and sternly refusing to become mothers by the unfit, is a new conception of what is womanliness. This clinging creature, this penniless, helpless, dependent person without a trade or profession, regarding the world’ as a terrible wildman place, and gland of any sort of man to ‘protect’ her from it, was by no means the best kind of mother. Womanliness, whatever else it means, requires a noble and efficient motherhood, and we are beginning to see that a race of women who are so largely in the position of domestic servants without wages, do not and cannot fulfill the duties of motherhood as we now understand them.”—Charlotte P. Gilman, Physical Culture, Oct., 1913, page 384.

“Housekeeping is the lowest work on the list, and Upton Sinclair has well described the girls engaging in it as those not clever enough for the factory, nor attractive enough to become prostitutes.

“Once woman was economically dependent on man; she had to marry and remain married in order to live. Our grandmothers were forced by economic conditions to do domestic drudgery, bear and bury children. But the woman of today is not economically dependent on man, she is not driven by fear of destitution into the life she once was, she is not compelled to become married, or to submit to hardship and stay married— and I, for one, thank God she is not.”—Economic Basis of the Divorce Problem, Rev. Roland G. Sawyer, New York Call, July 10, 1910.

Upton Sinclair, a Scientific Socialist, and Rev. Roland G. Sawyer, a Christian Socialist, both declare that the care, nurture and sustenance of children in a family is the lowest grade of human labor.

Confuting this assertion, all females, pre-eminently the 170182human, are endowed by nature with this nurturing, motherly instinct; the satisfaction of it, sometimes by the hardest labor and self-sacrifice, is the greatest happiness attainable on earth.

If self-sacrifice for others is low, if the production of wholesome food is degrading, if the keeping of a human habitation for the benefit of others in a healthful condition is base, if a knowledge of domestic chemistry is ignorance, then Steffens and Sawyer are night.

Happy is the woman who may indulge in domestic science, and who may bear legitimate children, loved by herself and protected by an honest husband. This happiness of woman is illustrated by all. If a woman is denied a child, her maternal instinct asserts itself by mothering an animal. If she cannot have room for an animal and is forced to live in one room, and is fortunate enough to have sunshine, she will mother and nurture a plant.

These men would crush out and pervert the greatest God-given instincts of love, loyalty and self-denial bestowed on mankind. They would drive women out into the industrial field and crush out of their hearts that mother-lover which is almost celestial in its attributes.

The driving into industry of all women is advocated by all Socialists and Feminists. Evidently the modern Feminist has borrowed all this “science” from the Socialistic school, as they repeat all their teaching on this subject in a parrot-like manner.

Another Feminist who advocated the financial independence of all women is Mrs. Havelock Ellis, who lectured under the auspices of various Suffrage Clubs throughout the United States. Among other remedies, she advised wives to insist and force their husbands to set aside an endowment for their benefit from the earnings of the husband, so that she might be financially free, and by means of this financial freedom 171183she could bestow or refuse love. If she bestowed it, her husband would know that she really had an affection for him. Making the roots of love sprout in a money bag.

Mrs. Ellis also advocated a freer divorce. It costs some people the capital of a national bank to secure a regular biennial divorce when they have long life.

“At this early stage we can already see that the emancipation of women and their equality with men are impossible and remain so, as long as women are excluded from social production and restricted to domestic labor. The emancipation of women becomes feasible only then, when women are enabled to take parts extensively in social production, and when domestic duties require their attention in a minor degree. This state of things was brought about by the modern great industries, which not only admit of women's liberal participation in production, but actually call for it and, besides, endeavor to transform domestic work also into a public industry.”—The Origin of the Family, page 196.

“It is clear enough, from what has been said, that what woman most needs today, and is mostly seeking for, is a basis of independence for her life. Nor is her position likely to be improved until she is able to face man on an equality; to find, self-balanced, her natural relation to him, and to dispose of herself and of her sex perfectly freely, and not as a thrall must do.

“Doubtless if man were an ideal creature, his mate might be secure of equal and considerable treatment from him without having to insist upon an absolute economic independence; but as that is only too obviously not the case there is nothing left for her today buy to unfold the war-flag of her ‘rights,’ and dull and tiresome as it may be) to go through a whole weary round of battles till peace is concluded again upon a better understanding.”—Love's Coming-of-Age, page 55.

“The general conviction on this subject is a singular compound of two logically incompatible views. One that a mother is incapable of performing any labor except that involved in the bearing and rearing of children, and the other, that a mother is capable of performing any amount of labor so long as it is done at home and not paid for.”—Charlotte P. Gilman, Physical Culture, Oct., 1913, page 382.

“She might then stipulate beforehand that she was more than willing to be his wife, but not willing to change eight hours a day as stenographer at $15 for as many or more hours as cook, sweeper, duster, scrubber, laundress, seamstress, 172184nurse and waitress for nothing.”—Charlotte P. Gillman, Physical Culture, Jan., 1914, page 7.

“Sex selection is the female duty. The male is by nature incompetent for it. all these centuries he has done the picking and the choosing, and all literature is loud with his complaints of the kind of woman he has bred.

“When she sees her duty, her two-fold duty as a sex and as a race, she will first become a free agent, and full human being, and then breed a better people.

“First, be honest. Talk it out, not when angry and excited, but in quiet moments. If you are a man who has a working wife, pay her what you would have to pay any other servant for the same work. What else you give her is as husband to wife, and has nothing to do with washing dishes. An honest income of her own will do more to elevate woman than much ‘love’ and no money.

“If you ar a pauper wife, a woman ‘kept’ by a man as a mistress is kept, see that you deliver the goods, as she must. If you do not relish your position after you have faced it, talk it out fair and have a new deal.”—Charlotte P. Gillman, Physical Culture, Nov., 1913, page 505.

Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman gives the advice to wives that they should be paid wages by their husbands; otherwise, they are a “pauper wife” or “kept woman,” the same as a mistress is kept. She advocates, also, that women should take outside work and to have their housekeeping done by skilled engineers in that business, and place their children, if any in a state nursery. If the wife of a laborer incompetent for other work should go out to do washing, and on coming home should find her own washing being done by another laborer's wife, it would be, from Mrs.Gillman's viewpoint, an improvement, because each woman would have received wages from some tyrant man and she would have asserted her feminist power. Besides, it all tends to break down the family unity.

“What will really follow when our women are free and independent, choosing with discerning eyes the men fit for fatherhood, and sternly refusing to become mothers by the unfit.

“A race of women who are so largely in the position of domestic servants, without wages, cannot fulfil the duties of 173185motherhood.”—Charlotte Perkins Gillman, Physical Culture, Oct., 1913.

“To the natural reverence of the male for the female, the natural affection of the husband for the wife, we shall add an intelligence, mutual friendship and respect, which is practically impossible if the husband is the wife's coachman or the wife is the husband's cook.”—Charlotte P. Gillman, Physical Culture, January, 1914, page 9.

To promote their selfishness, Feminists do not desire the pain and care incident to the birth and rearing of children.

They scoff at the sacredness of motherhood.

They advocate means for “control of the birth rate” through their organs like Harper's Weekly, which has published a series on this subject and advertises it as a special inducement to subscribe.

Failing to control conception, they assert that abortion is justifiable; and advocate the establishment by the State of hospitals where abortions may be performed, and murder committed on defenseless infants.

“To these now moral, now immoral, motives for having few children or none at all, must be added woman's desire to devote her purely human qualities to other tasks. This, however, does not refer to those wives who are obliged to establish their married life upon their own bread-winning labour as well as their husband's; a necessity which for the present hinders them from motherhood although they are continually dreaming of the future child. It is here a question only a woman's personal self-assertion.”—Love and Marriage, page 202.

The above is from Ellen Key, the great apostle Feminist, who says that births are merely a question for the woman's control.

In her reviling of all religious and of God, she forgets that God is mindful of helpless infants, for He says:

“See that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say to you that their Angels in Heaven always see the Face of My Father who is in Heaven.”

Lucifer, in his rebellion against a powerful God, was not half as black a devil as those who counsel the killing of one of those defenseless little ones.

As baby killers will not be spared, but as said in 2 Peter 2:4, “But delivered them drawn down by infernal ropes to the lowest hell, unto torments to be reserved unto judgment.”

“.... or for creature-comforts and a good name to sell herself, soul and body, into life-long bondage. While she, more and more, has accepted as inevitable the situation; and moved, sad-eyed, to her patient and uncomplaining work, to the narrow sphere and petty details of household labor and life, of patience and self-effacement, of tenderness and love, little noticed and less understood; or twisted herself into a ridiculous mime of fashion and frivolity, if so she might find a use for her empty head, and some favor with her lord; her own real impulses and character, her own talents and genius, all the while smothered away and blighted, her brain dwarfed, and her outlook on the world marred by falsity and ignorance.”— Edward Carpenter, Love's Coming-of-Age, pages 39-40.

The above by Edward Carpenter, a leading English Socialist, describes his idea of the forlorn condition of women which coincides with the Feminists’ idea of themselves. In this matter the views of Socialists and Feminists are identical, and the remedies proposed by them are practically the same.

The Socialists also agree with the Feminists that the possession of private in the hands of man has stimulated him to be a tyrant and impelled him to enslave his “mate”— woman. Both the Socialist and Feminist are working for the liberation of the female.

Both agree that the code of morality has restricted woman's freedom, or more properly, license, and so both are opposed to Christianity.

Lida Parce, a prominent Socialist writer, argues that the 188202conditions among primitive tribes were better for woman than they are in civilized society.

But according to socialist and Feminist logic, she has no proof of this, but puts in a compelling sentence that it “must be supposed.” When either Feminist or Socialist have no absolute proof to fill out a line of argument, they want to force a false premise as being true.

“There is much to show that the greed of private property was the old Serpent which brought about the fall of our first parents; for as this sentiment—the chief incentive to modern Civilization—rose and spread with a kind of contagion over the advancing races of mankind, the human Male, bitten by it, not only claimed possession of everything he could lay hands upon, but ended by enslaving and appropriating his own mate, his second self—reducing her also to a mere chattel, a slave and a plaything.”—Carpenter, Love's Coming-of-Age, page 38-39.

“The introduction of agriculture changed woman's status to the rest of society, and submerged her into a slave-like position, in which she had no rights that man was bound to respect.”

“The new code of morality wiped out all of woman's freedom and made her a slave to man, both as a laborer and a sexual being.”—Our Mental Enslavement, page 18.

“Where tribes have ceased to advance at any stage, it must be supposed that it was largely because women were too much oppressed to be able to make improvements and inventions.”—Lida Parce, Lesson Outlines, Etc., page 22.

“She does not merely disapprove of the contemporary ‘home’ as wasteful and inefficient—she hates it because it vulgarizes life. In this ‘home,’ this private foot-preparing and baby-rearing establishment, she sees a machine which breaks down all that is good and noble in women, which degrades and petrifies them.”—Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women as World Builders, page 25.

Both Socialists and Feminists agree on discrediting the home, call it vulgar, inefficient, and that the work degrades all that is good in them, and both therefore declare for the abolition of the and for the establishment of the Socialistic co-operation.

They all agree that our whole commercial system should 189203be done away with, that the family be brought into communism. These sentiments are shared also by Elsie Clews Parsons and Jane Addams, prominent Suffragets and Feminists.

“Not till our whole commercial system, with its barter and sale of human labor and human love for gain, is done away, and not till a whole new code of ideals and customs of life has come in, will women really be free. They must remember that their cause is also the cause of the oppressed laborer over the whole earth, and the laborer has to remember that his cause is theirs.”—Love's Coming-of-Age, page 56.

“The third and future stage is of course easy to see—that is, the expansion again of the conception of the family consciously into the fraternity and communism of all society. It is obvious that as this takes place the family will once more lose its definition of outline and merge more and more again, with the larger social groups in which it is embedded—

“Thus the Family institution in its present form, and as far as that form may be said to be artificial, will doubtless pass away.”—Carpenter, Love's Coming-of-Age.

“It is worthy of note that this suggestion of a serious modification of marriage under existing economic conditions comes characteristically, not from a Socialist, but from the wife of a Republican member of Congress and the daughter of a distinguished financier.”—Socialism, Positive and Negative, Note, page 104.

“The movement is obviously a part of that evolutionary conception of self-government which has been slowly developing through the centuries. For the reason that self-government must ever be built up anew in relation to changing experience, its history is largely a record of new human interests which have become the object of governmental action, and of the incorporation into the body politic of the classes representing these interests.”—Jane Addams.

James Addams believes in an “evolutionary conception slowly developing through the centuries,” etc., which is equivalent to the “Socialist Science,” although she masks her opinion in carefully selected language.—A masked battery of expression.

“As to the particulars of life under the Socialistic order, we may, to begin with, say concerning marriage and the family that it would be affected by the great change, firstly in 190204economics, and secondly in ethics. The present marriage system is based on the general supposition of economic dependence of the woman on the man, and the consequent necessity for his making provision for her, which she can legally enforce. This basis would disappear with the advent of social economic freedom, and no binding contract would be necessary between the parties as regards livelihood; while property in children would cease to exist, and every infant that came into the world would be born into full citizenship, and would enjoy all its advantages, whatever the conduct of its parents might be. Thus a new development of the family would take place, on the basis, not of a predetermined lifelong business arrangement to be formally and nominally held to, irrespective of circumstances, but on mutual inclination and affection, an association terminable at the will of either party. It is easy to see how great the gain would be to morality and sentiment in this change. At present, in this country at least, a legal and quasi moral offense has to be committed before the obviously unworkable contract can be set aside. On the Continent, it is true, even at the present day the marriage can be dissolved by mutual consent; but either party can, if so inclined, force the other into subjection, and prevent the exercise of his or her freedom. It is perhaps necessary to state that this change would not be made merely formally and mechanically. There would be no vestige of reprobation weighing on the dissolution of one tie and the forming of another. For the abhorrence of the oppression of the man by the woman or the woman by the man (both of which continually happen today under the aegis of our would be moral institutions) will certainly be an essential outcome of the ethics of the New Society.”—Morris and Bax, Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome, pages 225-226.

This summary by Morris and Bax, Scientific Socialists, fully describes the Feminist idea which the Socialists are helping the Feminists to try to realize, but to do so, the two doctrines must go together in their propaganda before the people, and by the aid of Woman Suffrage they hope to accomplish the Revolution of Society.

But to succeed, they have been trying to conceal the joint partnership until a great many prudent women shall be inveigled into the movement, trusting that after these women 191205accept the few mild “advanced ideas” they will be easily educated to the more revolutionary ideas of the “Comrades.”

These tactics have been pursued in all the large cities of the United States and England, where the Socialists have helped furnish the marchers in parades and together with the Feminists have furnished speakers and literature for the “votes for women” campaigns.

Feminists as a class are man haters. The first prominent Feminist was Delilah, who was so jealous of Samson that she used every possible way to ascertain what his great strength consisted of, and not being able to ascertain his strength, after taking advantage of him when he was unconscious through sleep, had him bound with strong cords and delivered him to the Philistines on several occasions intending his destruction. Finally she persuaded Samson by her blandishments to reveal the secret of his strength, which consisted in his long hair, after which, when he slept she cut off his hair and delivered him to the Philistines. This is about the spirit of the Feminist mind, who frame all sorts of laws and restrictions against the rights and liberties of men, but do not have judicial minds to compel themselves to go under the same restrictions. For example, they introduce laws compelling every man to submit to a medical test before marriage. Another favored law of theirs is to make the age of consent as high as possible, so that designing females of nature age can inveigle young men into situations where they compel them to give up money or some other valuable consideration as victims. This class of women want to be made in law and in fact equal or superior to men. In fact, to obtain advantages over men by legal enactments.

The equality of man, except that all men are equal in the law view in all having the same duties, rights and protection 193208under the law, is an obvious untruth. It is a fallacy which should be denied on all occasions. The law can not make men equal any more than a statute can declare that all persons shall have blue eyes or wear No. 6 shoes. The Feminists who claim that women in all respects, physical and mental, are equal to men, utter a falsehood which is patent. The facts are that the Feminist is painfully aware of her physical and mental inequality with man, and this is the cause of her envy of the opposite sex. If her inferiority was not the cause of her envy, her outcry would not be made. If she was equal or could attain equality, her hysteria would cease.

This is not to be taken to the discredit of women because a woman with a faculty to create, nurture and nurse a human being, gives up in such maternity so much of her physical and mental strength, which vigor goes into her offspring, and that therefore she cannot retain for herself as much strength as a man who does not perform these maternal functions. The weakness due to motherhood is the crowning glory of woman, and it is this weakness which true gentlemen venerate by means of chivalric attentions.

Even if the Feminists should obtain the franchise and elect the legislature and judges, no law that they could pass or decree that they could render would make men and women equal, or make two plus two equal five. The Feminists would do well to repress their envy and cease attempting the impossible. There are a few Feminists who are equal to men. They are those who have no maternal impulses and no mother-love, or have a masculine form of mind or body, or have passed the child-bearing period; but these persons cannot be termed women and compared to man, as they are a third sex and are incapable of classification. Such a third sex creature is not honored as the plain womanly woman who acknowledges her weakness compared to man because she has generously divided 194209her strength with others and exhibited her motherliness, and in reward for this sacrifice, “her children shall rise up and call her blessed,” and when the hates and envies of the Feminists have inflicted their temporary hurts, the real woman's love will spring up perennially in hearts and outlive the things of earth with an eternal fruitage.

G. Bernard Shaw, a leading Socialist, says: “Unless women repudiates her womanliness, her duty to her husband, to her children, to society, and to everyone but herself, she cannot emancipate herself. Therefore woman has to repudiate duty altogether.”

Do not forget the word “duty”—and “duty” is a term for “oligation”—and to perform “duties” and discharge “obligations” is to do right; to fail in doing so is to do wrong.

This is the sentiment of the Feminists. It is in perfect accord with the Socialistic denial of the natural moral laws. It is the egotist who proclaims individual selfishness and evades her duties towards others.

Thus the teachings of the “Terrible Triplets” are for evil, and against good.

Thus, when the moral law is abolished, the action to be enforced must be prescribed by human legislation.

This theory explains the increasing demand for more and more State legislation.

If people were governed by truly moral principles we should need but two statutes—the first and the second Commandments:

“Thou shalt love thy God,” and

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

The general term, “Feminist,” includes women who want to be anything but women.

They are sorry that they are females. They would prefer to be men, or hybrids, or anything else but women. Their intense discontent usually takes vent in great activity in some way, denying the duties belonging to women as such, and crying out for their “rights,” which are not rights at all, but generally personal desires which are often the expression of evil.

They are always possessed by supreme vanity, lust for notoriety, and desire to be seen and heard of men.

There are many types of Feminism, and many contradictions. Anna Lee on one side, who founded the Shakers, and said it was wrong thereafter for any woman to bear children, to the woman who says that it is proper for anyone to become a mother if she has the desire, whether she is or is not married; also that any woman has the right to choose the father of her child or children; but they would object to being sued for bastardy.

There was Carrie Nation, who sought notoriety by smashing saloons, and later published a paper teaching sex-hygiene in a filthy way.

Mrs. Havelock Ellis, who drew gaping crowds that showered dollars at her feet when she taught that young people should first enter a “novitiate of marriage,” talk over the sex problem, etc., before regular, full marriage, etc. Assenting to the new and daring thought, Jane Addams kept Mrs. Ellis as her guest, and her lectures were delivered under the auspices of the woman's suffrage club.

These fanatics are usually Suffragets and moral nihilists. They defy what they call the “conventional;” in other terms, the morals of Christianity and civilization. They teach others to do so. Rev. (God save the mark) Anna Howard Shaw said she would not perform the marriage ceremony for a woman who would promise to “obey” or observe her duties 200215as a wife. Note the fact that Miss Shaw is at the head as president of the suffrage women in the United States, and is demanding that the government be turned over to her class.

You will see all kinds of these Feminists in a big city. Notice her; if you don't, she will be offended.

There is one, with her maid, taking car of a poodle dog. There is another with a “V” shaped dress, the “V” extending almost to infinity. It is zero weather, and the remainder of her anatomy is covered with splendid furs.

On a summer day you see her coming. She gets between you and the sun; there flashes a dissolving view; her diaphanous dress disappears. Nothing is left to the imagination.

You are dazzled by this wondrous sight. You bat your eyes. She has you arrested—says you were winking. The judge fines you $100. But the gets what she wants—notoriety.

They have changed the word marriage to “eugenic mating,” and the bearing of children to “breeding.” To protect from foul disease, she has a law passed to get you examined before you can get a marriage license. Perhaps why she doesn't examine herself is because she could not pass the test.

Socialism insists that women shall be politically and industrially free. So does Feminism. Socialism demands that a woman vote and work and reduce man, the head of the family, from the representative as the provider of the family and political head to a nonentity.

If a woman sews on buttons for her husbands or father for love and duty she degrades herself, but if she sews them on in a factory for wages she is an honored human being. Then, according to Socialism, she is not a “sex slave.”

Acknowledging no authority, but persisting in individuality, she demands the vote.

The Socialists, believing that capitalism is fostered by 201216family relations, where the desire of the parents to accumulate and provide for their children is dominant, should be abolished, and from this and other reasons plot the destruction of family life. Therefore they favor “votes for women.”

The Feminists advocate that marriage should not exist longer than sex love lasts, and should be terminated at the will of either party. To this the Socialist agrees.

The commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” has no force with either the Feminist or the Socialist.

The Feminist is abnormal about sex thoughts. She is dwelling on her real or fancied sex wrong, regretting that there were not enough men to go around and give her a husband and a home.

That regret ranges from the sweet and patient resignation of the maiden lady, who has such a motherheart that she occasionally peeps into the drawers where the dolls of her childhood are lovingly stored, and in whose heart there are the graves of little ones who were longed for, but never came. Her life has been to her a tragedy. The great mother love in her heart sees the little arms stretched out toward her, and rosy lips appealing to her. Affections pure and unselfish never satisfied and never to be satisfied. But she is not a Feminist. And she bears with patience, and turns her fountains of love with great sweetness to the old, the ill and the decrepit. Her presence is a benediction.

The other woman is not resigned. She is rebellious against fate; her maidenly graces are turned to the furies of a virago. She hates everything, especially man, and rails out at Providence.

She is a Feminist—a Militant Suffraget.

She demands the control of the government,—when she cannot control herself.

From this class come those impatient females who, rebelling 202217against fate, consider their desires the equivalent to rights and dollars, and they will have their way, or boycott men until they secure it.

The Socialist and Feminist dwell on sex relations.

In the last five years there have been more books printed and lectures delivered by the impure minds of these persons on the sex problem than have been published during a generation before.

If the Feminists would fail to mention sex diseases for at least ten years, they would do more to reduce them and the social evil than to keep prating about them as a problem.

They state the 80 per cent of the men have communicable venereal diseases. The Feminist demand the men alone should be examined prior to marriage is absurd. Men would hardly become infected unless with the assistance of some Feminist.

Among other things, good advice would be to stop the sex plays, prohibit the newspapers from illustrating with nude pictures of college girls and society women, no matter what the excuse, whether for charity and interpretative dancing.

As now constituted, the law would fine a man for exhibiting such pictures to a thousand people on billboards, but the newspapers can flaunt them before a half million people with impunity.

The lady who secures such nude illustrations should also consider that advertising space is valuable, and leave the columns for the benefits of her sister of the demimonde, who would willingly pay a large price to exhibit her physical charms.

In posing for these pictures, which leave little to the imagination, the Feminist should retain the original picture to show in after years to her children and grandchildren. Imagine 203218her grandchild asking her daughter, “How old was granny when she reformed?”

Being an Egoist, the Feminists and Suffragists join in the Socialist sentiment, “No God; no Master.”

The Socialists and Materialists are dominating the schools. They are not only in the public schools, but they have invaded some private schools and colleges, and have Socialistic Inter-Collegiate League.

To educate, we must touch the mysterious springs of love, fear and wonder; of enthusiasm, poetry and religion.

These are the inward and vital powers of man.

But so long as the Socialistic influence lasts, religion and idealism will be excluded from public education.

In large cities people do not know their nearest neighbors, and it is sometimes dangerous, both from the moral and financial point of view, to make indiscriminate acquaintances without some investigation of the proposed acquaintance.

This is quite true of the Suffrage Movement, which, without introduction, is attempting to intrude itself upon thousands of women who have no knowledge of the character of this movement, which has for associates both Feminism and Socialism.

As the character of people may be known by the morality of their associates, so can Suffragism be estimated by the principles of Feminism and Socialism.

It is a dangerous proceeding to accept the acquaintance of strangers and introduce them to our families without a full knowledge of their character as exhibited by their principles and actions.

In the next flat may reside gamblers, firebugs and cadets, queens of the underworld, child stealers, shoplifters and procuresses and priestesses of fetish worship.

Any of these immoral neighbors may intrude by way of your back door, or introduce themselves into your parlor. They may exhibit fluency of speech and a superficial education; they may seat themselves at your piano and sing and 214230play beautifully; they may wear fine clothes and sport beautiful jewelry. With all this outward appearance of culture, refinement and worth, and an assumption of piety, their intentions may be to make stool pigeons of your sons and induce your husband and your son to besot themselves or gamble at a losing game.

The queen may have intentions on your husband or son, or the leading of your daughter astray, or she may abduct the baby, or the priestess of the cult may try to undermine the true faith of the whole family, and substitute fetish worship therefor.

The object of the following chapters on Suffragism is to make you acquainted with the neighbors who are trying to force themselves upon you, and into your Society.

The foregoing chapters have described the characteristics of Socialism-Feminism, which are close friends and companions of Suffragism, and from your knowledge of these two theories you can judge the worth or the worthlessness of Suffragism—the three are connected by both sentiment and propaganda, telephone, telegraph and mail lines whereby they communicate their aspirations, their principles, their literary and financial assistance to each other, and their connection is as close as that of that Siamese twins.

Their object in working together is to revolutionize society, to destroy the home, break up the unity of the family, bring discord where harmony now prevails, and annihilate the church. To take out of men's minds their former respect and chivalrous actions toward woman, to make your children wards of the state, and deprive you of the ability to do your duty in regard to the physical nurture of your children, their mental training and their religious education.

If they cannot convince you that their cult is for the betterment of humanity, they do not propose to allow you to 215231vote on the question and overcome them in politics, but they propose by a small minority of Feminists to intimidate politicians and force the good women, by the rape of their free will, to vote and take part in politics, whether they want to do so or not.

It may be asserted that with the bad elements predominating in votes cast by women, that the resultant effect upon the religious and social life of the state will be bad, and that those conditions will be injured instead of bettered.

It is regrettable that to show the true character of the three ISMS, it has been necessary to quote their impious and vile language, but the justification of this is to enlighten the noble women of the country in regard to the true character of their neighbors who are forcing themselves upon them.

If Feminists believed their position was just and popular, they would insist upon a bill passed submitting the female suffrage question to a vote of all women of the country, but instead of doing so, they avoid this proposition and attempt to boycott the President of the United States and the Congressmen, and individual members of the Legislature, and absolutely force on the people of the country, and especially on the good women, something which is uncalled for, and which, in the judgment of the masses of mankind, will be injurious to all classes.

In an attempt to show the popularity of suffrage and the demand for the same, they have parades in all parts of the country, which have been shown the weakness of suffrage rather than its strength. For example, on the 2nd of May, 1914, in the city of Chicago, after spending much money and having the assistance of the newspapers, they only managed to have in their parade 3,200 people, of whom only 2,500 were voters. Of this number 700 were negroes and 500 were Socialist, exhibiting the red flag of anarchy. A majority of the remaining 2162321,300 were of the Feminist variety, whose principles are so apparent to the best class of women.

With the hope that the pages of this book will carry information to the good women and men of the country, and that they will be fully advised in regard to the undesirability of the Suffraget-Socialist-Feminist propaganda, and will be inspired to combat these False Priests until a final victory will crown the banner of the patriots who represent the family, the home, religion and true womanhood, I shall feel that my labor has not be in vain.

Female Suffragets demand “Votes for Women” on the grounds:—

1. Voting is a natural right, and should be accorded to women on the same terms it is to men.

Female Suffragets advocate the vote for women, stating it will bring about the abolition of the double standard of morals of men and women. That it will better protection for working women and dependent children. That it will stop war, and in some localities where it seems to be good policy and popular with the men voter, the Suffragets claim that women votes will bring about prohibition of the liquor traffic.

They claim that at present women are classed as inferior and unfit, and that the suffrage being once granted will immediately raise womankind in the estimation of men, and also of women themselves; and that as a result of suffrage, the wages of women will immediately increased.

Woman suffrage has been advocated in the United States for over fifty years by such women as Susan B. Anthony, 218234Victoria Woodhull and Tennie C. Claflin in the earlier days, and latterly the movement is headed by Anna Howard Shaw, supported by state organizations throughout the United States. Already a rival or rebellious organization has appeared, known as the Congressional Union, headed by Miss Alice Paul and financed by Mrs. Belmont and other wealthy women.

In hardly any state is there harmony in the woman's movement. Usually, in new movements managed by men, a semblance of harmony is maintained until the movement becomes strong; but a fatal weakness of women seems to be jealousy and envy, and their smallest activity is subject to discord and venomous accusations.

The advocates of woman suffrage have not at any time, among women, originally secured the support of more than ten per cent of their sex. They have never been willing to or have they agreed to submit the question of woman suffrage to the votes of all women in any state.

Under the theory of popular government where majorities should rule woman suffrage is not democratic and should not be considered, as it is the desire of a very small majority.

The above claims will be analyzed and the position of Suffragets will be fairly stated and considered in the arguments to follow.

Suffragets claim that voting will be an educational assistance to them, and that without their vote they cannot know everything.

Knowledge is not always educational. Knowledge gained may be to the injury of the learner. One may learn to be a counterfeiter or a burglar. While he has gained knowledge, he possesses no true education.

For the general problem of education is how best to place instinct and passion under the control of reason and conscience of higher motives, that men may learn to find their pleasures and happiness in doing what brings health, knowledge and virtue.

A leading Suffraget says:

But education may be useless and inefficient unless systematically attained and practical for use in some good way. This is well illustrated in the following:

Everyone who has read Charles Dickens’ “Bleak House” will remember the famous character of Mrs. Jellaby. She had a passion for works of amelioration over the whole world, and, as the story goes on, she engages in schemes for the regeneration of the tribes on the left bank of the Niger; and, 229246while she has dreams of raising coffee plantations and of educating the natives, her own home is going to rack and ruin.

That is a sample of those who reason themselves into false sentiment. Her sentiment ought to have been in her own home before it went traveling through the African continent.

If every American mother does her duty, it will take all her time to make a happy home, and if she trains her boys to honesty and her girls in virtue we will have a model nation. And such a nation as could not be produced in a thousand years by Woman Suffrage “education.”

It is true that the family training to some extent is inefficient, but this inefficiency cannot be bettered by thrusting on woman many duties which will take her time and distract her attention.

Quoting from a Suffraget, Geo. Elliott Howard:

“He has laid that task on the shoulders of the mother, thus doubling her burden. The boy should be trained for citizenship; for the wise conduct of the person entrusted with the ballot. As things are, so far as the young boy in the home is concerned, the needed training must come chiefly from the mother. Yet the mother's prestige is crippled. She is not a full active citizen. Not having the ballot, what can she know of its proper use? That is the psychology of the ‘suggestion’ in the case. The ballot will give her prestige equal to that of the father in her boy's mind; and so it will actually lighten her task as chief family teacher.

“Her burden will be lessened still more, if the father may be called back from the office to the home to take his proper share in the training of the boy. Two things are urgently needed in the process of socialization: That the woman should have an opportunity to do a full share of the world's work, and that the man should take a full share in the work of the home.”

He argues that to put further burdens on the Mother will give her more time to educate her son. It is probable that the professor is not a teacher of mathematics, as this solution of the problem would appear to be, present, duties, 1, plus forced duties, 1, equal 2, leaving the mother no time at all to instruct her sons. The professor claims that enfranchising women would raise them in the estimation of their children, when it would certainly have the opposite tendency; but, as he says, the great needs of socialization demand that the woman shall go out of the home to do world's work, and the man should be forced to do more of the home work. This is one of the lessons which suffraget women can read in their literature as indicating an intent to revolutionize the home and put it on a sordid, Socialistic basis.

There is no doubt but that a Suffraget, in her new relations with the world, does learn a great deal, but what she does learn is not educational. She has, perhaps, already learned to march in a parade or to ride astride of a horse in public view with purpose of attracting the attention of lustful eyes.

She has perhaps attended the Suffraget Conventions and attempted to learn parliamentary rules. But the rules of order which she has attempted to learn have usually been rules of disorder. In the election of delegates at Chicago to the National Convention she observed a president nominate all the delegates and ride rough shod over the will of those present.

If she attended the Nashville Convention, she saw more time taken up in quarrelling than for any other purpose. If she remembered the Scripture, “Oh, how pleasant it is to see brethren dwell together in unity,” she certainly despaired of seeing the sisters do the same.

Yes, she learned much, and that is, that women are not 231248generous or just enough to conduct public business, and therefore are unfit temperamentally to take any part in government.

She might have been educated in crime, arson, assault, and the desecration of venerated shrines by Mrs. Pankhurst when she was given audiences by the Suffragets of America, but this education would not place instinct and passion under the control of reason and conscience.

She might have been sent slumming by a leading Suffraget wife of a university professor, and in low dance houses in the companionship of vile men and women she danced the tango and other lascivious dances in the embrace of hardened roues. This under the assumption that as a voter she was compelled to elevate and uplift people from a low grade. She might have taken advantage to listen to Suffragets lecture on the “Novitiate of Marriage,” which, finally analyzed, meant nothing but trial marriages outside of religious morals. She has had opportunities to attend lectures of Max Eastman on “The New Freedom of Women,” in which he advises the breaking of home ties and the economical independence of wives.

She could have ascertained that Max Eastman stumped the state of New York for Suffragets and that he edits a Socialist paper called “The Masses,” which is on sale at Suffraget headquarters. That if she obtained a copy of “The Masses” she could have read therefrom the following:

“In his anxiety to defend the N. Y. School Board for its policy of discharging teachers, who became mothers, a member of the Board, William G. Wilcox, urges that a distinction should be made between voluntary and involuntary indisposition.

“This implies that motherhood is a preventable indisposition. That is true, but it is true also that many women married and exposed to it, do not know how to prevent it.

“We suggest that the Board institute a course of instruction in the matter of voluntary and involuntary motherhood, 232249and place Margaret Sanger, who is now under criminal indictment for mentioning the subject, in charge of the course.”

The modern Suffraget Eve is now being tempted by the Serpent; she wants to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Suffrage. She says she wants to do so as an Educator. The same temptation came to Mother Eve. She had a curiosity to know. It makes no difference to either of the Eves that the knowledge to be gained is none of their business, and that it will injure both of them and all mankind. With arrogance she grabs at another fruit when she is provided with all she needs.

She tries to assume an additional duty, but by which she will neglect her natural duties, and she will throw herself into intimate association with the Serpent, politics.

But she calls it Education.

She could have attended a political meeting and have seen the Suffragets drown the voices of speakers by din and noise and opprobious epithets.

She could have seen matronly women on the streets calling out the praises of their favorite candidate through megaphones. She could have heard a sermon from a fake pulpit by Dr. Lucy Waite, blaming the church as the foe of women, and called it an “organized oligarchy against us,” and that “Martin Luther was largely responsible because of his doctrine of original sin.”

As far as is observed, “Education” as this, but in much larger quantities, is being given Suffraget girls under this “New Freedom of Women.”

Suffragets cannot deny this.

Their education does not show “How best to place instinct and passion under the control of reason and conscience, that 233250they may lean to find their places and happiness in doing what brings health, knowledge and virtue.”

The education of Suffragism is of an exactly opposite character.

In the referendum election of the spring of 1911, in Chicago, the question of Woman Suffrage was submitted to men. Every ward in the city went against suffrage, 3½ votes being against suffrage to 1 for it.

It is obvious that the women must have had some influence on men to induce them to vote so solidly against Woman Suffrage. But the Governor, who professes to be responsive to the will of the people, by means of a referendum, had the inconsistency to sign a Woman's Suffrage bill in the face of the last referendum rendered by the people of Chicago.

Suffragets have recently requested Congress to force the woman's vote on the whole nation.

I am willing to aid the women of the whole nation, state by state, to vote on the question, and I am satisfied that these agitators would find a very small minority in favor of Suffrage, and that the true women of the country would vote overwhelmingly against it.

If these Suffragette women desire to exercise the right of suffrage, why do they not remove to some of the Mormon or other western states that grant the suffrage to women and allow domestic minded women to peaceably remain in their homes?

No Suffragette has yet had the fairness to suggest that the women be allowed to vote on the question, but has always 262280undertaken for force the suffrage on her sisters against their will by the action of men legislators.

The first recorded results of Suffragism in the United States occurred in New Jersey in 1807, when the women had the full right of suffrage. At a county seat election, where one township contained but about 300 women voters, 1,800 women votes were cast, many of the women repeating several times, after changing their dress, bonnets, etc.

Woman suffrage proved so dishonest and obnoxious that after trial the legislature abolished it.

It is very noticeable that women are prejudiced and intense haters along religious lines, and that they have injected these questions into politics in a virulent manner wherever they have voted.

They have proposed all sorts of foolish and impractical laws, and especially laws to curb the liberty of men. These latter laws being apparently proposed through hatred of the male sex.

Back of all the discontent, unrest and disorder in Society and Politics there must exist several causes. Some of these causes are fundamental, and others are of indifferent importance. Evils cannot be remedied on masse, but if the public will address its energy to a few of the fundamental causes, it will be easier to correct the others individually.

The condition of Primary Education seems to be the most important matter, and if this difficulty is remedied it will be the most efficacious in curing the ills of the body politic.

The North Central Academic Association, in making a report, April 10, 1915, 705 answers were received from men in charge of schools, business men, heads of employment departments of large mercantile houses, probation officers, boy scout leaders and camp directors. These answers indicate that in the last generation our boys are retrograding in a fearful degree. The points of retrogression are:

Arithmetic, Spelling, Penmanship, Gambling, Honesty, Use of Tobacco, “Swiping,” Habits of Industry, Thoroughness, Habit of Saving, Extravagance, Obedience, Respect for Parents, Respect for Law, Bearing Responsibility, Respect for Women, Amusements, Purpose, Time Spent in Meditation, Religious Feeling, Reading.

The points of progression are:

Physique, School Attendance, General Information, Use 275294of Liquors, Initiative, Obscene Stories, Personal Appearance, Interest in Politics, Personal Ambition.

Boys have lost their power of analysis and reason, in that they are deficient in arithmetic and mathematics; they are inefficient in spelling, penmanship, and consequently not competent to master the serious problems of life, nor to be valuable to either themselves or others in a business. Furthermore, they have retrograded in the habits of industry, thoroughness of action and the accumulation of capital. Their moral habits show dishonesty and no ability to contemplate or consider matters of serious importance. Their domestic habits are deteriorated, as shown by disrespect for parents, for law and for women, and disobedience to both parents and teachers, and they care very little for reading and personal improvement.

The spiritual side of the boys has degenerated in a most remarkable degree, but on the physical side they show a desire to profit by material matters in which they take more interest: in their physique and their personal appearance, and their ambition to succeed in politics. Their attitude toward woman is expressed by vulgar language, contempt and impurity in morals.

There must be some basic reason for the cause of this wreck of the boys’ character, the contempt for women and girls, shown by boys after their adolescent period.

It is, perhaps, caused by being mothered too late in life, and familiar association in the schools with the opposite sex, the lack of respect for law and authority and for parents, are undoubtedly due to the fact that in the schools no discipline is enforced by physical means, and under feminine management the element of fear is entirely eliminated, and the boys are not governed at all.

As the boy is the father of the next generation of men, 276295we are building on a very unsafe foundation. We are preparing a harvest of anarchy, immorality, dishonesty in business and unhappiness in domestic society.

All this must be avoided and a remedy devised.

The great contrast can be shown between America and Germany—in favor of Germany. The great and victorious armies of that country are victorious from the fact that they are efficient and that they obey orders as one man. This obedience was taught them during their school days, and was taught them by a discipline backed up and enforced by the element of fear as well as the element of love. In the technical schools of Germany such efficiency is produced as the world has never known, elsewhere, and as a result the greatest achievements in science and manufacture have been made. All this is due to obedience enforced on the German child.

American schools on this point are opposite to the German schools and produce disorder, inefficiency, and it is doubtful whether we could create an army from our schoolboys which would obey their officers, from the fact that they have never learned obedience in the schools, and disobedience has become to them a second nature and a habit.