PEACE SINCERITY AND COMMON SENSE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2466, 12 August 1922, Page 3

PEACE SINCERITY AND COMMON SENSE.

(To' the Editor.)

' Sir, — The “No more war meeting” has been held and the orators have relieved their pent up feelings. Whether the speeches delivered will bring us any nearer the much desired haven of “No more war” is rather doubtful. On reading the reports the average person will ask is this sensationalism, self advertisement or political propaganda? Many will be disposed to class the adventure as all of these together. The Rev. R. Inglis certainly failed to do justice to himself or his profession in the gallery play he indulged in, and his foolish misrepresentation of the Prime Minister, Mr Massey. Of course, not being saddled with the great responsibility which Mr Massey has to bear it was easy for the Reverend gentleman to picture the Prime Minister as a man wanting in good intention, because he had made the common place remark that there might be another war sometime. To hold that all war is to be prevented by the mere psychology of bringing everybody to believe that war is bad and, ought not to occur, shows an ignorance of the human heart and-soul that is deplorable in the Cifk'e of men setting up as spiritual guides and teachers. Long before ever-Dr. Gibb, the Rev. Inglis and Mr. Holland, M.P., set out to convert the heathen people who are assumed to be “walking in darkness” knew as well as these speakers that “war is hell.” Men do not go to war for the love of war, when they do so it is because they hate and feai* the dark injustice, crime and enslavement with which they see, or believe, themselves threatened. It is an exhibition of pure egotism for the men who lectured oh “no more war” to talk as if others than themselves failed to realise -the horrors of.war, or are lightly complacent about the matter of entering into it. Statesmen, Governments, Politicians, and even the Capitalists of whom the Reds Talk so much insane veribage, are as sincere in their desires to avoid the hell pit of war. as the most widely sentimentalist pacificist of the Dr. Gibb type. Ihc “I am holier than thou” attitude of the assumed peace advocates is after all but a - pose of pretended virtue that bears little- value in the scale of practical remedy for the evils which'a II thinking human beings recognise and groan under. To remove war from us a common sense view is that we should first search out the causes that lead to warfare and endeavour to abate or

abolish these causes. Mr Holland -says “the last war arose out of the ' secret diplomacy and a scrambling of the international capitalists for territorial expansion.” There are many who doubt if the capitalist ■ had as much to do with it as the ™ madly ambitious German rulers, who for all evil on earth Mr Holland apparently has one cause assigned—the capitalists. With this form of social mania we are no move disposed to argue that with any other class of monomania. Let us now enquire as-to whether Mr Holland and his party are really sincere pacificists. Is not their attitude rather that of “no more defence,” with which the Reverend Dr. Gibb and Inglis may not agree. The plank of the Red party's platform headed “Defence” we find is wholly negative and means “no - defence” if it means anything at all. The general standing of this party on defence was disclosed in an Annual Conference when Messrs W. E. Parry, M.P., F. Bartram, M.P., F. R. Cooke, and others made it clear that they were ‘.‘socialists and not merely pacificists,” that they were opposed to fighting for .what they call “the capitalist state” prepared to “rally to the Red Flag” and fight, either armed or unarmed for

their class.” What this means we would invite the Rev. R. Tnglis to examine closely before he goes further. He might find it necessary to actively oppose a policy which in its outcome, whatever the intention, . would result in that most damnable form of warfare —civil war. Things are not always what they seem in this world. In England the Reds resolved on establishing “Councils of Auction” ostensibly to prevent war. 'We have strong evidence (in copies of the documents issued by these Councils) that what was aimed at was revolution per 4 medium of a complete stoppage of industries in “blood war” to quote the Rev. Inglis’ language. Now we invite Mr H. E. Holland to explain. He attended a Congress recently in Australia and, in conjunction with some of the most red hot Socialists there, formed a Council of Action, of which he was a member. Let us ask him these questions:— Does this Council intend to follow the English plan of operation? Is its' object that of peace or war in Society ? Does it aim at Revolution taking the chance./ that Civil war may result. With the object of “no more war” we are entirely agreed and that the League of Nations may prove a powerful means to that end is pur earnest desire. At the same time we are not prepared to be guided by mere sentimentalism or accept without question the sincer-

ity of all who cry “peace., peace,” with theatrical accompaniments. In closing we have to note that whilst the Reverend Dr. Gibb and Inglis made much of their Sabbatarian principles on thef occasion when nobody would question such, yet we have never known them to publicly raise their voices against the holding of party political meetings on the Sabbath though such have been taking place in our midst. A little practice would have-much more weight than such profession, as some cool thought may do more to end war (National and class) than the greatest rhetorical outbursts. We are, Yours, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE.