Chapter VII: , par. 4:--“There is not equal suffrage when every single (4)

Very soon after the legal restoration of these two precious foods to the masses, the legislation could be extended to include other foodstuffs, and also to provide in the elementary schools for some kind of instruction concerning the value and sound preparation of the principal foods. And then, it is the present writer’s firm belief, Governments would find themselves so appreciably relieved of “social reform” problems, and of the incessant demand for measures required to redress some grievances among the labouring classes, that they might find more time to attend to questions of development and reconstruction, all of which remain adjourned and neglected from one generation to the next.

But, for this “physiology” of Social Unrest to be understood, and for its problems to be tackled, the physique of our race will require to be regarded very much more seriously than it is at present, and prejudices will have to be overcome which are as deep-rooted as they are old. There are very few of us to-day who do not cling fanatically to that romantic ideology according to which the body of man, together with its condition, seems out of all proportion less important than his mind and his soul. There are few of us to-day who are sufficiently primitive, sufficiently instinctive, to feel the same horror at the sight of sickness in a human being as we feel at the sight of sickness in an animal. Our bias, therefore, is all against tracing what appears to be only a matter of discontent, like Social Unrest, partly to a bodily cause. But it is precisely for a false belief of this kind that mankind always has paid, and always will pay, most dearly; for even in the uprooting of it, apart from the harm it does, much pain and frequently much sorrow is incurred. It [p198] behoves us, therefore, to enquire whether we do not now know too much, whether we are not now suffering too much, any longer to refuse to explore any avenue of reform along which it can be shown with some plausibility that we may find some solution of our troubles; and even if, in order to take this step, we have to question a very much cherished ideology, we may, after all, find ourselves none the poorer for having made this daring venture, if in the end we find that ideology to have been false.

At all events, the effort partially to solve the problem of Social Unrest on the lines suggested in this chapter cannot in any circumstances prove wholly fruitless; for while everybody may not agree that food conditions in England are alarmingly bad, none it may be presumed will question the expediency of improving them, even if this be attempted simply with the object of perfecting and developing the race. All those, however, who realise the deep and constant relationship between bodily conditions and mental outlook, and who are moreover aware of the immense disadvantages to which modern industrial conditions, quite apart from the inherited debility of their past, expose the masses of every Western people, must welcome any reform which promises to remove even one among the multitude of adverse circumstances conspiring to impoverish and to undermine the vitality of modern nations, and hail with some satisfaction a solution, which, while being practical, yet involves no drastic upheaval of our social organisation.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 35: The possible spiritual causes of Social Unrest will be found discussed in Chapter VII.]

[Footnote 36: See his speech at Manchester on Sept. 12th, 1918.]

[Footnote 37: In trying to account for this state of affairs, however, it should not be forgotten that the entrance of women into industry, among the proletariat, and feminism in the wealthier classes, have both accomplished a good deal in the matter of breaking valuable domestic traditions among women.]

[Footnote 38: For a demonstration of the damage done to food by unskilful cooking, see the present writer’s “Man’s Descent from the Gods” (Heinemann, 1921).]

[Footnote 39: For proofs in support of this statement, see the present writer’s work already referred to on p. 193.]

[Footnote 40: By the Free Mash Tun Act of 1880 the regulations for charging the duty were so framed as to leave the brewer practically unrestricted as to the description of malt, or corn, or sugar, or other description of saccharine substitutes which he might use in the manufacturing and colouring of beer.]

[Footnote 41: For a confirmation of this statement, see p. 61 of the Medical Research Committee’s Report on Accessory Food Factors. For a more elaborate discussion upon the whole subject of old English Ale, see the present writer’s _Defence of Aristocracy_, Chapter V.]

[p199] CHAPTER IX

THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE TO SOCIAL REFORM

“Ay, if dynamite and revolver leave you courage to be wise:
When was age so crammed with menace? Madness? Written, spoken lies?”

Tennyson--(_Locksley Hall, Sixty Years After._)

It has been man’s besetting sin, almost throughout history, to trace whatever evils might befall him, rather to his institutions, his social systems and his conditions, than to himself and his fellows. Many a precious scheme of life, many a sound system, has been broken up and abandoned, not because of its inherent badness, or of the incorrigible vices of its design, but owing to the fact that those men who attempted to carry it on in its last days, were neither as able nor as vigorously endowed as those who inaugurated it and laid its foundations.

Institutions may thus outlive the quality of men, although the reverse of this proposition, that men outlive the quality of institutions, is always taken for granted.

If we saw a man of our acquaintance forsake house after house, however perfectly designed and beautifully appointed; if we saw him wander from town to town, from country to country, and even from continent to continent, always leaving the best for something else and yet never feeling at ease; furthermore, if we noticed that he dropped friend after friend, relative after relative, all [p200] in bitter enmity and anger, we might be excused if we felt tempted to suspect that his repeated changes and upheavals were not the fault either of his houses, his various adopted towns or countries, or his friends and relatives, but were due to some obscure infirmity in the man himself, some hidden though serious hepatic affection, which rendered him radically unfit to be happy or contented anywhere.

And we should arrive at this conclusion, not necessarily out of any feeling of bitterness or hostility towards him personally, but rather because we should consider it irrational, in the face of such chronic restlessness and irascibility, to ascribe all the blame consistently and repeatedly to his conditions, and not occasionally to the man himself.

Now it is a most remarkable thing that in the contemplation of similar repeated changes in the life of a nation or a people, the average observer is not nearly so prone to be guided by the highest standards of rational thinking. On the contrary, as often as changes take place, he is prepared to ascribe the necessity for the change, not to the inferiority of the men who ushered it in, but always to the inferiority of the institutions or systems that were superseded. The unsupported prejudice involved in the idea of “Progress” compels him, as it were, to assume that, since all changes must be for the better, any change that has occurred in our social system or our institutions in the past must of necessity imply a just condemnation of the systems or institutions that formerly existed.

Never does the average observer dream of suspecting that the proposed change of a system or of an institution may be the surest [p201] possible proof of the inferiority of the men who are trying to carry it on. Inferiority to what?--Inferiority to the men who originally founded the system or institution.

Now the prevalence of this curious bias ought to make everyone profoundly suspicious of all those who clamour for radical alterations in our established systems and institutions. In any case it ought to make every thinking man demur before he acquiesces too readily in the conclusion that it is our institutions and systems that are wrong, and not man himself.

For, suppose that the men who declare things are wrong, merely confess their own inferiority by this declaration, how can their recommendation regarding a new order of society be accepted with confidence? How can anyone hope that their schemes can possibly be better than those they have shown themselves incapable of continuing?

At all moments, then, when there is much loud talking about the transformation of society and the modification or overthrow of her institutions, the wise reformer, the cautious innovator, will turn his scrutiny upon man himself, and endeavour to find out first what reforms and improvements must take place in him, before any scheme of society whatsoever, no matter how perfect, can hope to be a success.

And it is in this direction that the present writer hopes that research and inquiry will be prosecuted in the immediate future. The examination of institutions and systems is not nearly as important at the present juncture as the examination of modern man himself, and if this examination be conducted [p202] on the principle _that it is possible for institutions to outlive the quality of man_, certain valuable and extremely fruitful discoveries cannot fail to be made.

For instance, in a previous chapter it was pointed out that a mood of stubborn dejection had fallen upon civilised man, and it was suggested that this was due to the complete collapse of the ideals, beliefs, and principles, by which he had allowed himself to be inspired and led for many generations. Now if this analysis be correct, it might be profitable to inquire into the origin and nature of ideals, beliefs and principles; and if, as the present writer does not doubt, it were found that man’s ideals, beliefs, and guiding principles are always created for him by the great examples of his species, it might be asked why the human species has ceased from producing great examples. What has come over man that he should have suffered a collapse of his leading ideals, beliefs and principles, and yet have no one to give him others in their place? Has the species suffered a general decline? Has it sent forth its highest shoots, and is it now exhausted?

And, if these questions seemed to be sufficiently solemn and important to be pursued with energy and resolution, the causes of racial exhaustion might possibly become the subject of special investigation. A provisional question mark might be set against every modern ideal and value, in order to determine whether perhaps it might not be responsible for the social exhaustion of civilised man.

So far from assuming that all our institutional changes have necessarily been progressive, [p203] the value to the race of every more or less recent innovation might be tested and proved.

For instance, the nature of “democracy” might be treated critically. It might be questioned whether there is not in all democratic order a tendency to reduce and truncate the ultimate gamut of human capabilities. While population has multiplied as never before, under the democratic régime, it might be questioned, perhaps with some profit, whether any section of this increasing mass of humanity, or any individual of that section, has attained to that old magnitude, in volition, intellect and health, which human nature once regarded as easily within the compass of its powers. And if the investigation of this question seemed ultimately to point to a negative reply, it might then become necessary to weigh the alleged advantages of democratic principles against the consequences to man of this ascertained loss of greatness and lofty capabilities.

Again, the whole of our accepted notions of charity, humaneness and compassion, might be subjected to a searching inquiry. Since it is a certain unknown but suspected infirmity of man that may be the cause of his complete dissatisfaction with his institutions and systems, nothing, however sacred, should be left unscrutinised, untested. It might be asked whether we have not been wrong all the time to allow our second-rate, third-rate, fourth-rate, and x-rate fellow-creatures to multiply and to live in our midst unbranded. In view of the alarming reports on the nation’s health recently published by the Government; in view of the fact that a [p204] British Prime Minister, and no society crank or faddist, has found it necessary to warn us that an “A1 nation cannot be built up out of C3 men”; in view, moreover, of the immense burden that the nation shoulders annually for the maintenance of lunatics, incurables, cripples, and other congenital degenerates, it might be asked, almost with trepidation, whether the healthy sections of the nation are even now plentiful enough and vigorous enough to be saved and secured from further infection.

Since we have been brought to this pass by the most sacred ideals and principles of the past, these ideals and principles would require to be reverently taken up and examined.

Again with regard to the idea of non-selective human multiplication,--apart from any suspicion it may have incurred of increasing disease or degeneration,--it might reasonably be questioned whether any species of animal could for long allow itself the liberties that we have allowed ourselves, in fostering undesirable examples of our kind and in scientifically persuading even the half-reluctant to live, without ultimately having to pay for it very severely indeed. What breed of sheep, what breed of horses, what breed of common barn-fowl, could have been abandoned to the promiscuous mating alone (not to mention other errors) to which modern man has long been abandoned, without suffering ultimate degeneration?

A very fruitful method of inquiry would consist in investigating to what extent modern society may have failed as an organism through pursuing too ardently survival values alone, uncontrolled by æsthetic survival [p205] values. In plain English, has modern man pursued survival at all costs, even at the cost of caring _how_ he survived, or what manner of man he was when he did survive? The check of the æsthetic survival values might have prevented many a step, which though it insured the survival of abundant numbers, yet removed some grace, some desirable quality, from the form or mind of man.[42]

Biologists tell us that organisms frequently survive in the animal kingdom at the cost of qualities, which, from the human standpoint may seem eminently desirable. Thus the tape-worm is said to be the descendant of a race that once led a nobler and more independent existence. Survival is thus frequently purchased at too heavy a cost. Is it possible that by the observance of survival values alone, unchecked by æsthetic values, man has lost, or is rapidly losing, valuable qualities that once made a higher and more lasting kind of civilisation possible?

The daily lives, the food and the drink of the whole population, particularly its rural elements, might be advantageously criticised from the standpoint of their body-building and health-giving qualities; also from the standpoint of their ultimate influence in moulding the mind and tempering the heart of the people. After many centuries of overemphasis of the soul’s importance, attention might be bestowed with pre-Puritan fervour upon the body and its needs.

In these various ways might the scrutiny of earnest and profound reformers be profitably concentrated upon the most probable cause of the apparent decay and disease of modern institutions and systems,--that is to say, upon man himself, and upon the noble and stirring task of making him once more whole, if it is indeed his infirmity from which civilisation is suffering. In this direction alone is there any hope; in this direction alone is there any practical chance of achieving lasting success.

The immense difficulties that the problem of man himself immediately presents, need not deter even the most faint-hearted from embarking upon the enterprise; for it is surely possibly even for the most craven to be induced to choose between two alternatives. And what is the alternative to the measures here proposed?--To continue tinkering at mankind’s institutions and systems, as we have been doing for the last three hundred years? To continue tampering with society’s laws and customs instead of with her units? These methods may sound more simple and more commensurate with the powers of blundering and childish fingers, but is the simpler, the easier method, always to be the more _practical_, merely because it is simple and easy, and quite irrespective of its ultimate effectiveness? Is “practical” synonymous with elementary or infantile? Is a procedure “practical” because it appeals immediately and vividly to a room full of babies?

Precisely because the true causes of modern anarchy, disaffection and disunion, probably lie much deeper beneath the surface than established social and economic conditions, there is a danger that the latter will [p207] be seized upon and shattered, in the endeavour to achieve reform. The blindest can apprehend their existence, and to the blind, holding is seeing.

But, if the infirmity is man’s, how can it be “practical” to reform his institutions and systems? You might as well begin rebuilding your palaces because your monarchs have failed you.

Nor can it be argued with any cogency, at this time of day, either that the materials are not to hand for pursuing the inquiries outlined above, or that the prescriptions for a recovery of man’s lost quality have not been foreshadowed if not definitely specified. Of modern and ancient thinkers there have been enough to show, at least in broad outline, the methods that should be adopted for almost any contingency. Nobody would deny that the undertaking bristles with immense difficulties, but even if the science that will help us to accomplish it had to be created _pari passu_ with our attempts at overcoming these difficulties it would still be worth while, since it is quite possible that it is the only great alternative.

So much for _man_ as the suspected primary cause of the malady of modern civilisation.

If now we turn to other details (other than material and economic conditions of course) in the fabric of modern life, which would strike even the most myopic as requiring instant correction, they spring in such profusion before our eyes, that it would be impossible in the compass of this small and elementary treatise, to refer to any except the most salient.

One of the most salient is the absurd [p208] attempt that society has made during the last, or commercial and industrial era, in modern Europe, to build a harmonious and united community upon the principle of _cleavage_. Doomed to failure from the start, as it was, this vice of cleavage, that is at the root of the failure of modern society, has not yet,--no, not even at this late hour,--been recognised and condemned by all.

Let it be thoroughly understood what is here meant by the principle of cleavage. Cleavage is not to be confused with classification. You may subject your children or your parents to classification, while they are all hanging affectionately on each other’s necks; but if you group them by cleavage, the idea “asunder,” is bound to follow. The classification of a population, therefore, does not necessarily leave any clefts or chasms between the classes. If, however, you proceed by dividing up your population on the principle of cleavage, definite clefts or chasms between the groups are inevitable; and this is the principle upon which the commercial and industrial Age has worked.

As the result either of the ridiculous pomposity of those who have acquired riches by commerce or industry, or else of the questionable title to superiority that wealth alone confers, a curious phenomenon began to be noticeable in England during the course of the latter half of the 17th century,--and that was a certain artificial and asinine haughtiness among the well-to-do, which made them unable to unbend in the presence of those whose purses were less portentously swollen. It is suggested that this became noticeable in the latter half of the 17th [p209] century; but, truth to tell, all the causes of it were in existence in the middle of the previous century as the result of Henry VIII.’s vulgar and disastrous reign. Most authorities would, however, admit that the phenomenon, as a marked innovation, became noticeable only in the 17th century.

Theretofore, wealth and good breeding, wealth and good family, wealth and sound instinct, wealth and good manners, had, with but few and notorious exceptions, been the only kinds of wealth known.

Suddenly, however, with the capitalistic exploitation of the land, the nation’s mineral resources, and her people, a new kind of wealth came into existence, wealth utterly unconnected with anything except the most solemn and most self-complacent vulgarity in those who possessed it.

These people, unable to rely upon those natural distinctions that everybody recognises at once, which compel the inferior or the fool instinctively to refrain from importunacies, and restrain the too familiar hand, were forced to adopt a new method of holding their brethren, so like themselves in all but brass, satisfactorily aloof. How did they accomplish this? Since they had no natural dignity no innate distinction, which might have allowed them to befriend the poor with impunity, without any fear that is to say, of “losing caste”; since they could not be classified apart from their poorer fellows except by means of the ticket “wealth”; they invented barriers and gulfs which were designed to be as wide and insuperable as their fear of being taken for their poorer fellows was great. Being unable to rely [p210] upon classification, they proceeded by means of cleavage.

This foolish and foolhardy expedient on the part of the vulgar rich, which has survived to this day, has led to the absurd anomaly of a society,--a community if you please,--in which a whole complicated series of stratified groups, never meet, never in any circumstances communicate with one another, except with the most ludicrous grimaces, compressed lips, whispers, frowns, embarrassment, fear, contempt, and hatred.

The wonder is, not that society constituted on these lines is now falling to pieces; the miracle is that it should have lasted so long.

Think of it! Think of the advantage of friendly and free communication! Think of how much is gained, even among equals, by constant and unrestrained intercourse! Reckon the inestimable profit that a man of minor attainments can derive from free and easy association with his superior, and _vice versâ_. And then ponder the thousands of unbreakable links that such relationships would have forged between the classes in every village, town, city, country and province throughout the Empire!

When is it that a man ceases to believe in natural distinctions between men? When is it he begins to suspect that there is nothing above him?--Only when, for a very long time, he has been deprived of any intimate knowledge of superiority, or of any association with superiority in his own form.

Can we wonder at the absurd decoy cries of modern Europe,--at the cry for Equality above all? Can we marvel any longer at class hatred? How does a man best learn [p211] the fundamental law of natural inequality?--Only by moving out of his circle and finding a sufficiently friendly welcome when he does so, to be able to learn from what he sees.

The principle of cleavage instead of classification,--this is one of the vices for which we have to thank the vulgar rich of the past, and their kith and kin of the present day. But it is one of the first brutal stupidities that must be abolished if anything approaching an orderly and harmonious society is to be established.

Another salient error of modern society, at least in England, has been the consistent indifference shown by successive Governments towards the steady encroachment of the huge cities of the nation upon their rural environs. Like monster cankers these vast urban complexes of England are allowed to spread north, south, east and west, year in, year out, as if for all the world, it were an advantage, a boon, in fact the most unspeakable blessing, that every inch of green pasture land, of golden cornfield, should be converted as quickly as possible into muddy, smoky, stuffy and hideous thoroughfares.

If town life were so eminently desirable, if the kind of man and woman who live and breed amid city and suburban shoddy, were without question the proudest examples of the nation’s blood; if town occupations, town temptations, and town pastimes were the healthiest, the most ennobling, the most productive of useful virtues, we might suspect the various Governments, that have tolerated the spread of this urban miasma, to have winked their eye knowingly at what was, [p212] after all, only a sentimental grievance, a sort of poet’s plaint, an artist’s loss of picturesque compositions.

But seeing that nowadays one is reduced almost to wandering about hat in hand begging for _one_,--just one,--redeeming point in favour not only of town life, town conditions and town charms, but also of one’s own fellow townsmen themselves; it must strike people as a little odd that the accredited authorities for generations should have been so completely lacking in any definite policy concerning this all-important question.

Is England to become one long ugly street, full of ugly, toothless people, pretending that their clammy urban passions are something more exalted than the rut of rats?

You would have thought that a consideration of the food situation alone, apart from any other aspect of the matter, would have induced the rulers of the nation, long ago, to adopt some means to encourage rural, and to discourage urban life; and yet, as if with malice prepense, all the efforts of past Governments have secretly been made in the very opposite direction.

One is almost inclined to cavil less at the growth of urban centres and their unwieldy proportions, than at the absurd lack of policy towards this question which continues to be shown by the legislature.

If it be a desirable movement, then by all means promote it openly; if, on the other hand, it can only fill every patriot’s breast with alarm, then, be sure to frame a definite policy about it, and do so quickly.

The present writer can only see disaster [p213] ahead, if these large urban centres are allowed to spread any further, and he would feel inclined to inaugurate immediately, a movement for strictly circumscribing their area. Concurrently with this drastic move, he would encourage by all means in his power, the adoption of rural occupations and homes by the proletariat.

“But what about the increasing population?” cry a hundred voices,--as if an increasing population were a sort of elemental phenomenon like the rising tide, or the waxing and waning of the moon, that no man can help.

The reply to this question brings the author to the last of the matters of detail with which he proposes to deal, and therefore to his concluding remarks.

The question of population, like that of the relative desirability of urban or rural life, is one to which it is madness to maintain an attitude of indifference or unconcern. The rulers of this country can as little afford to ignore the consideration of the multiplication of its inhabitants, as they can afford to ignore the consideration of the nation’s finances. And the more the State arrogates to itself the rôle of a beneficent and divine Providence,--that is to say, the more it interferes with the natural consequences of improvidence in the matter of bringing forth children, either by helping indigent parents, or by mitigating the hardships of the unmarried mother, the more it is entitled to impose and to inflict penalties upon irresponsible and wanton procreators of children.

If this is true of the healthy and the sound, however, how much more true ought it to be [p214] of the unhealthy and the degenerate! Again, in regard to them, if the State takes upon itself to shoulder the burden of indigent degenerates of all kinds, it is entitled to impose limits upon their multiplication. He who pays may lay down his conditions.

And this would remain true, whether the present system were to be maintained, or whether it were superseded within the next quarter of a century by Bolshevism or Communism.

Since it is the iron law of population that multiplication follows any easing of the conditions of the indigent, either by making earlier marriages a possibility, or by making the consequences of early marriages tolerable, it follows that all Governments, whether Capitalistic, Bolshevist, or Communistic, if they undertake to succour the indigent, whose families exceed their resources, must in the end impose certain limits upon multiplication. And where they take over the whole burden as they do in this country, of indigent lunatics and other degenerates, they have the right to exercise all the means at their command for preventing degenerates from being born.

Communists and Bolshevists may scout this question, just as dishonest vote-catching past Governments have done; but let a Labour Government come permanently into power, let a Bolshevist minority attempt to rule this country, and it would soon discover, what all creditable thinkers know already, that the question of population is one about which even the most benign government _must_ frame some definite policy. Indeed it would soon discover the fact, which will [p215] perhaps only become apparent to all in many years to come: that a truly benign policy in this matter is one which at present would strike all sentimentalists, and other Utopians as hopelessly ruthless and inhuman.

It is in the procreation of children that a man and woman’s sense of responsibility first encounters its crucial test. For generations in this country, men and women’s sense of responsibility in this matter has been systematically undermined; and, as regards the procreation of degenerates, of the unhealthy, and of the insane, it might be said that there is literally no conscience left in modern man concerning this crime.

It will behove all serious and patriotic governments in the future, therefore, whether they are capitalistic or Bolshevist, to face this pressing problem of modern times, and the vandalistic work of centuries,--the destruction of the English working man and woman’s sense of responsibility in regard to procreation,--will by hook or by crook have to be repaired, and a new conscience regarding this matter created in the breasts of all.

Thus the tasks hinted at in this short chapter are seen to be stupendous enough, and yet which of them can possibly be accomplished simply by the wand of the Communist, Bolshevist, or economic social reformer?

Let no one imagine, however, that because they are beset with the most serious difficulties, that they are therefore to be discarded as “unpractical.” We know the extremes of stupidity to which so-called “practical politics” has led us. Nothing is practical, that in practice does not achieve [p216] the end desired. And since the mere change of our institutions and systems cannot even graze the surface of these deeper causes of unhappiness, it is simply conjuring and buffoonery to call “practical” only those measures of reform or reconstruction, which every gallery of schoolboys, every crowd of holiday-makers, can recognise at a glance as at least “something done.”

The End.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 42: For an exhaustive discussion of survival values as compared with æsthetic survival values see _Man’s Descent from the Gods_ (Heinemann) Chapter IX.]

[p217] INDEX

Abstract terms, importance of, 12;
have no uniform meaning to-day, 13, 14, 19;
to teach meaning of, leads to instruction in true ideas, 149.

Advertisement, unscrupulous, of commercial foods, 188, 189.

Æsthetic values disregarded to-day, 205.

Agitators, their unscrupulous use of words, 181, 182.

Ale, old English, the value of, 195, 196;
the brewers’ objection to, 196.

Amputation, resorted to in desperation by the weary, 30.

Aristotle, on the desirability of a liberal education, 127 _n_.

Beer, impure, 193;
harmful properties of, 195;
utterly worthless, 196.

Beliefs, _see_ Ideals.

Bishop of London, his misuse of words, 16.

Bolshevism, a conspiracy against life, 35;
insists on compulsory labour, 93;
offers only material ideals, 162.

Bolshevist, the, an invalid, 31;
a determined opponent of life, 36.

Brahmin, the, highly respected though poor, 40.

Bread, pure loaf of, unobtainable in many parts of England, 190.

Cabbage, should be eaten raw, 192.

Catachresis, the rule in journalism, 16;
much false doctrine is, 134.

Charles I., an ideal monarch, 122.

Charwomen, charitable, do not go out on missions of comfort to the
rich, 168.

Church, the, its failure to teach sound views about life and
humanity, 129;
of the Middle Ages protected the poor and ignorant, 135;
had a sense of responsibility, 135.

Cities, large, breed misanthropy, 174, 175;
mistake of allowing, to spread indefinitely, 211-213.

Citizen, the desirable, must be well conducted, 126.

Cleavage, the industrial Age has worked upon the principle of, 208;
the expedient of the vulgar rich, 210, 211;
must be abolished if harmony is to be restored, 211.

Communism, a conspiracy against Life, 35;
its unscrupulous appeal to malcontents, 112;
offers only material ideals, 162.

Condorcet, not a thinker but a mathematician, 67.

Cro-Magnons, doubtful whether modern man is better or better off than
the, 158.

Culture, a common, produces a common tongue, 11;
might be saved by a re-definition of words, 26.

David, his moral insistence on justice, 47, 48.

Decline, means retrograde development, 34.

Definition, of words desirable, 21;
and might avert revolution, 25, 26.

Degenerates, hate Life as she is, 59.

Democratic institutions, put a damper on superiority, 174, 203.

De Quincey, on poetry, 83. [p218]

Despondency, prevalent to-day, 153;
national, leads to social unrest, 156;
not due to a material cause alone, 157;
but to a lack of satisfying ideals, 158, 159, 161;
the only cure for, new values and a new faith, 161;
economic changes cannot cure, 163;
due to false values, 173;
cannot be cured by social reform, 177.

Development, the law of higher life, 33, 34.

Disease, European attitude of toleration towards, totally wrong, 173.

Disraeli, his speech on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, 95.

Education, failure of modern, 123;
the object of State, the rearing of worthy citizens, 126;
should be a training in manners rather than in the acquisition of
facts, 127, 128;
elementary, does not teach sound views about Life and Humanity,
129-131;
does not even succeed in teaching means of intercourse, 131;
importance of knowledge of native tongue in, 132;
elementary, an expensive farce, 143.

Education Act of 1870, introduced cheap literature, 15.

Emigration, the violence of, 107.

English, importance of teaching, 145;
better teachers wanted for, 146.

Equality, quite meaningless to-day, 24;
the cry of, can provoke real emotion, 61;
originally borrowed from mathematics, 62;
and has no meaning except in mathematics, 65, 76;
of opportunity, the fallacy of, 67-71;
not desired by the beautiful, able or desirable, 72;
a powerful weapon in the hands of the discontented, 73;
due to indolence and a belief in Justice, 74;
had a definite meaning at the end of the 18th century, 75;
a decoy cry when superiority is extinct, 210.

Errors, do not right themselves, 194.

Eugenists, their moral interpretation of phenomena, 47, 48.

Fatalism, the, of modern Europe, 95.

Feminism, has broken valuable domestic traditions, 192 _n_.

Food, inferior, purveyed to the masses, 123;
ill-prepared, at bottom of physiological causes of ill-health and
social unrest, 188, 189, 190, 194, 197;
unscrupulous advertisements of commercial, 188, 189;
suggested reforms in, 195;
question of, should lead to discouragement of urban development,
212.

Freedom, Rousseau’s misunderstanding of, 17;
now meaningless, 21, 23;
but provokes wild enthusiasm, 22;
Rousseau’s idea of, 22;
a wildly fantastic idea, 77;
babies have no, to choose their destiny, 78;
a will o’ the wisp in manhood, 80;
nonexistent even in childhood, 81;
strength has no, 83-85;
the cry of the weak, 84, 85;
the only circumstances when it can have any meaning, 86-89, 92, 94;
the frequency of these circumstances, 88;
real, greater under the Tudors than new, 90;
political, a deception, 90-92.

Gambetta, his “_justice immanente_,” 44, 45, 182;
a sentimentalist, 57.

Gissing, George, on the comparative happiness of the poor, 169.

Happiness, is relative, 169;
has little to do with material conditions, 170, 172.

Humanitarianism, an inverted form of cruelty, 174. [p219]

Ideals, lack of satisfying, leads to social unrest, 158, 159, 161;
loss of, makes words connected with them meaningless, 160;
tyranny of, the most powerful, 179, 180, 183.

Ill-health, Lloyd George on national, 186, 204;
a fundamental cause of social unrest, 187, 188, 194;
great in rural districts owing to bad food, 189;
an inevitable static condition of the masses, 191.

Indolence, may avert disaster in England but not on the Continent, 24;
demands equality, 74.

Industrialism, creates besotting occupations, 89.

Institutions, often outlive the quality of men, 199-202.

Japan, suicide in, 175.

Jefferson, imbibed much nonsense from France, 61 _n_;
a disciple of Condorcet, 67.

Journalism, a cause of present day muddle, 15;
makes catachresis the rule, 16.

Justice, quite meaningless to-day, 24;
necessary for belief in equality, 44, 74;
the abstraction of a moralist, 45;
Gambetta’s _justice immanente_, 44, 45, 182;
modern idea of, 46;
and its moral basis, 46-50;
meaningless when applied to the universe, 52;
unknown outside human society, 53, 54;
a myth, 57, 58;
reign of, a visionary ideal, 181.

Labour, dissatisfaction of, 155.

Language, confusion of, leads to revolution, 14, 15, 17;
and to impossibility to lead or be led, 15;
disease of, everywhere rampant, 25;
importance of understanding one’s own, 133, 134;
a knowledge of, the only means of curbing the press, 136;
the English, should be chief subject in State schools, 137, 140.

Liberty, quite meaningless to-day, 24.

Life, has a descending tendency, 33;
development the law of higher, 33;
hopelessly unjust and unmoral, 51-53;
as she is, hated by degenerates, 59;
the enjoyment of, largely æsthetic, 117;
inequality necessary to the charm of, 118;
itself attacked by the Socialist, 119.

Lloyd George, on national ill-health, 186.

Locke, John, put learning last in education, 127 _n_.

Love, cannot be produced by word of command, 175, 176.

Luther, a slave to his own strength, 83.

Man, Rousseau’s misunderstanding of, 17, 18, 23;
modern, tired in body and spirit, 27-29;
his sickness and degeneracy responsible for decline of our
institutions, 31;
made responsible by moralists for the injustices of Life, 50;
his moral interpretation of the world, 51;
modern, essentially democratic, 96;
and suffering from exhaustion, 156;
man, not his institutions wrong to-day, 201-202;
all reform should begin with, himself, 206, 207.

Manners, education in, most essential, 127;
no attention given to, in elementary education, 128, 129, 131;
lack of, falls with greater severity on poor than on rich, 129.

Margarine, vegetable, almost useless to the body, 190.

Mathematician, the, a hopeless psychologist, 62;
dangerous as soon as he deals with humanity, 67. [p220]

Mediocrities, alone “free” to choose a calling, 80.

Mediocrity, can only rule in a mediocre way, 184.

Middle Ages, had a common culture, 12;
protected the poor and ignorant, 134.

Mill, John Stuart, proved that Parliament is not representative, 91,
92 _n_.

Misanthropy, bred by overcrowding of large cities, 174-175.

Monks, the mendicant, lost power when they became rich, 41.

Napoleon, on the cause of the Revolution, 72;
and the lawyers, 82;
a slave to his own strength, 83;
what freedom meant to, 86.

Nature, misunderstood by Rousseau and the Victorian poets, 17, 18;
utterly immoral, 51-53;
innately unjust, 55, 59;
violence supreme in, 99.

Negro slaves, committed suicide on British ships, 175.

Parliament, quite unrepresentative, 91, 92.

Pessimism, takes form of economic struggle among the masses and
madness and religious fervour among the rich, 162.
_See also_ Despondency.

Pessimist, the, can alone logically assail Private Property, 36.

Physical conditions, disregarded by modernity, 186.

Poor, the, know certain truths owing to their contact with reality,
130;
social reform directed towards, alone, 165;
not more unhappy than the rich, 166-169.

Population, problem of growth of, 213;
definite policy necessary regarding, 214;
a ruthless policy regarding, probably necessary, 215.

Poverty, to-day entails besotting and heartrending work, foul
surroundings and ignorance, 39.

Power, the proper equipment of, 42.

“Practical,” the password of the stupidest beliefs, 178 _n_;
the foolishness of, reforms, 216.

Press, the, its enormous power to-day, 134;
does not protect the poor and ignorant, 135;
has no sense of responsibility, 136;
a knowledge of language the only means of curbing the, 136;
modern education leads to omnipotence of, 137.

Private property, assailed by present Muddle Age, 31;
a principle of Life, 32, 35;
the principle of, still believed in by the masses, 32, 35;
can be logically assailed only by the pessimist, 36;
among animals, 36;
abuse of, to-day, 37;
the oldest of human principles, 38;
evil results of, to-day, 38-39;
but these not inherent in the principle of, 40.

Procreation, injustice rooted in the very act of, 56, 57;
means violence, 102-113, 125;
society cannot regulate, 109;
inadvisable to meddle with, 112;
limitation of, or deliberate sacrifice can alone eliminate
suffering, 114;
“Down with,” should be the cry of the Socialist, 120;
modern lack of responsibility concerning, 215.

Profiteering, an act of violence, 122.

Progress, stupidity a form of, 14;
the last 19th century ideal to perish, 158;
belief in, natural to those who believe in a beneficent deity, 159.

Psycho-analysis, revelations of, in cases where procreative instinct
has been checked, 109 _n_. [p221]

Reading, should involve discernment, 139;
real, not taught in State schools, 139;
teaching of English necessary for, 145.

Religion, comforts people for the sufferings of others, 50.

Renaissance, a period of social unrest, 155.

Revolution, due to confusion of language, 14, 15, 17, 19.

Rich, the, their truth-proof environment, 130;
show their misery in neurasthenia, hedonism, etc., 165;
as unhappy as the poor, 166-169.

Right, quite meaningless to-day, 24.

Romanticism, destroys happiness and order, 183;
romantic not to suspect physiological causes for unrest, 188.

Rousseau, his misunderstanding of words led to French Revolution, 17;
falsifies evidence, 23;
a sentimentalist, 52;
his meaningless phrase about freedom, 77, 82.

Rulers, their duty to assuage violence, 122.

Russia, revolution in, fomented by starvation, 185.

Schools, elementary, curriculum in, 141-144;
suggested reform of curriculum, 145-151;
probable good results of this, 151, 152.

Socialism, a conspiracy against Life, 35;
must if honest insist on compulsory labour, 93;
offers only material ideals, 162.

Socialist, the, an invalid, 31;
a determined opponent of Life, 36;
compassionate for the sufferings of mankind, 97;
his desire to eliminate violence, 98;
does not reckon with the basic natural element of procreation, 110;
cannot accept the means by which alone violence can be eliminated
from society, 115;
wars against Life itself, 119;
exploits stigma attaching to modern success, 124.

Social Reform, the only question on which modernity is unanimous, 164;
but directed only towards the poor, 164;
aims only at elevation of standard of living of the poor, 165;
directed towards one class only, 172;
cannot cure despondency, 177;
falsely thought to be “practical,” 178 _n_.

Social unrest, due to despondency, 155, 156;
caused by ill-health, 187, 188, 194, 197.

Starvation, foments revolt, 185.

Strength, has no choice, 82;
or freedom, 83-85;
except in certain cases, 85.

Stupidity, increasing, 14.

Suffering, necessary so long as society is based on violence, 113,
114;
can only be eliminated by restricting procreation, 114;
in modern society not borne by the unworthiest, 124.

Success, is not to-day connected with superiority, 43 _n_;
stigma attaching to modern, 124.

Sweating, an act of violence, 122.

Tea, in every way deleterious, 191.

Temperance movement, a helpless and Puritanical solution of the
liquor question, 195.

Tyranny, of ideas, the most powerful, 179, 180, 183.

Ugliness, increasing, of modern Europe kills love, 177.

Values, transvaluation of, still possible, 42, 43;
the vulgar, of modern society, 124, 125;
survival, alone too ardently followed to-day, 204, 205. [p222]

Vanity, responsible for revolution, 73.

Victorian Poets, their misunderstanding of Nature, 171.

Violence, the, of modern wealth, 42;
the desire of Socialists to do away with, 98, 100;
supreme in Nature and essential to life, 99;
cannot be eliminated even from Socialist State, 102, 104;
inherent in procreation, 102-108, 125;
the, of emigration, 107;
necessarily entails suffering, 113;
necessary for the charm of life, 116;
man-made deeds of, 122, 123.

Voluntary actions, generally associated with weak and useless people,
82.

Vote, the, does not secure freedom, 91.

Wealth, to-day tends to get into the hands of the unworthy, 38;
and those who use it unscrupulously, 39;
was not always respected _per se_, 40, 41;
to-day a curse owing to false values, 42;
connected generally with vulgarity since the 17th century, 209.

Women, the supposed injustice of their lot, 46;
less social than men, 48;
the ignorance of English, about cooking, 191.

Words, may be used as missiles, 13;
may inspire uniform action, 20.

Working-classes, their inarticulateness, 132, 133;
their women’s ignorance of cooking, 191.