A Vindication of Anarchism
A Vindication of Anarchism.
It a among- our self-deceiving hypocrisies to call sensual vices beastly and brutal, as if we were better than other animals as regards superiority to lust; but the obvious truth is that no animal exhibits sexual passion in anything like the same degree as man, and none approaches in lasciviousness a man who chooses to give himself to unchecked indulgence of his. desires. We think it a proof of our superiority that only we associate the source of life and its happiness with most irrational, illexplained, and inconsistent feelings of shame; forgetting that alone of all God's creatures, we have systematically used it in a way which gives us good reason to be ashamed.<ref>The weakest thing Lecky ever wrote is his explanation why a sense of shame is associated with the sexual function. It amounts to this, that such a sense is associated with carnal desires. Granting this to be true, it does not appear why the sexual instinct, which is not by any means wholly sensual, should be any more associated with shame than the appetite for food, which is. A host of much more plausible theories—Bishop Blotigram's being one of them, might easily be found.</ref> Asceticism, a thing as foreign to the instincts of undebauched nature as sense-worship, is but the other side of sensuality. Because the savage is a polygamist and ravisher, he is also a self-torturing devotee. Because the Oriental nations from India westward to Egypt, are the most voluptuous among those which have attained any civilization, they also produced the cults ;f the fakir, the dervish, the eunuch, the hermit, and the monk. In the same soil with worship of Ashtor, Mylitta, and Pasht, flourished also those of Moloch, Cybele, and Typhon. Sometimes the connection is so well preserved as to be quite visible. Siva, the Destroyer, is the hermaphrodite idol of India, whose right side (male), is associated with the masculine worship of beauty, the left (female) with that of grossness and immodesty, both with the combination of malevolent and libidiuous orgies. Because Mahomet promised his followers a Paradise of fleshly delights portrayed with vividness known to no other religion, the Mussulman Tartarus is no less graphically conceived as a place of bodily torture; and fanatics seek to escape it by a novitiate beginning with such operations as biting red-hot iron or drawing their teeth. Because Roman civilization in the third century was the most vicious and corrupt the world had ever seen, it produced the great outburst of eremitism and cenobitism, whose extravagences rival those of Brahmanism and whose devouring magnitude was certainly greater.<ref>See Lecky's "History of Morals" for most vivid pictures of how the hermits grew into "a mighty nation;" what depths of dehumanization they reached; how their one real virtue, chastity, being represented as the surest way to heaven, drew the bulk of European wealth and land titles alike into the. devouring maw of the monasteries; how, after this had come to pass, the general run of the monks were neither saints nor fanatics, but merely peasants, who found the life easy and attractive; how sure they were to break their one irksome vow, of continence, if they could safely; and how easy this became, viz., owing to their unrestricted intercourse with women in the sacred roles of almoners and confessors.</ref> No observation in the lives of self-afflicting saints is more familiar than that they had been grossly sensual and immoral. In late revivals of the same spirit, as among the Flagellants, debauchery went hand in hand with self-torture. Similar affinities appear in the orgies of Henri III and his mignons. These observations of coincidence are so familiar, so extensive, and so uniform, that their significance has often been suspected. But all doubt about it is set at rest by the researches of modern criminologists into degeneracy. These establish beyond question that self-torture, particularly self-whipping, operates upon jaded sensuality like indulgence of lust at an earlier stage; that the common proposal (actually carried out sometimes, even now) to punish sexual crimes by flogging, must increase the evil; that the torments inflicted by religious fanatics upon themselves are not consequence of their superstition which represents sex as the fountain of damnation, but that the superstition springs from the same source as the rite, viz., from nothing else than the reaction of abused appetite, which long before produced just the same effects among savages to whom such superstitions were unknown. Thus experience of the mental and physical misery caused by excesses of masculine desire does no good—it only substitutes one absurd and vicious excess of the diseased imagination for another. Emancipation of women, by whatever causes brought about, is the one social change which has operated to promote continence. We need only name prostitution to be reminded how far from perfect the emancipation is, and what horrors wait to be removed on its completion. For the information of one who would know more, the history has been written by Dr. Sanger. Unhappily, the subjection of women in marriage, which indeed requires the other kind, (14) produces social evils no less cruel even if we consider only the happiness of individuals. Connecticut is among those States which have been reproached with the facility of divorce. Yet Connecticut produced the notorious and atrocious case of Shaw vs. Shaw; the citations from which, in Bishop's "Marriage and Divorce," show that there is no remedy provided for that abuse with which the Honyhumhu taunted Gulliver. And for a crowning touch, the laws which consecrate these hellish sorceries have managed to make an exception to the general rule of free speech, for persecution of those who would have them altered. They call giving them their right names "obscene." Interesting truly is the reasoning of the governmental superstition! To commit atrocities whose very titles are too bad to be spoken, is within the rights conferred on a husband by the sacrament of holy matrimony. But to speak the names for the purpose of correcting the abuse, is by no means a case in which the end justifies the methods! Men, wc hear it daily said, are too bad to be without laws. Therefore, men are good enough to make laws. (15) To these pearls of logic
(14) As proved by St. Louis and Maria Theresa, who found that putting down prostitution was "breaking up the family."
(15) Any such objection as that there is a middle—good men may make laws for bad—will be worthy consideration when it is settled whether good men are known by the accident of birth (aristocracy) or the result of election by bad men (democracy). A similar cavil against another great argument of like import may be similarly met. A law either is sustained by public opinion or it is not. If it is, public opinion is enough without it. If not, it cannot, at least when new, be
continent than men; therefore, hear oh heavens and give ear oh earth! for the mouth of the Fool speaketh it every day—therefore, to emancipate women from the government of men, would give rise to all manner of incontinence and vice!
The crowning sin involved in the subjection of women remains, as elsewhere intimated, for we may now add another. Women are more exposition. Any tribe of inferior animals, to avoid extinction, must multiply up to the limit of capacity. This end nature, thru her peculiar process of selection, has secured, by making the males so amorous that the females are sure to become mothers as often as they are willing. That they should do so oftener, could only weaken and degenerate the species, securing too rapid multiplication for a time at expense of subsequent decay. Accordingly, they never do become mothers otherwise than by their own desire. But under the artificial arrangements which men have instituted, women are compelled to become mothers. The reasons why they shouuld not be, are far stronger than even those against a similar condition among other animals. For extreme poverty is not the normal state of man, as it is of other animals. The more strictly a wolf lives from paw to mouth, the more wolves there are, and the more wolves there are the longer their extirpation will be delayed. But the more men live from hand to mouth, the more they will be subject to famines like those of India, plagues like the Black Death, wars like those of Genghis Khan, which threaten their premature extinction. The continuation of our species does not depend, like that of the wolves, upon mere numbers, but much more upon wealth which banishes famine, knowledge which conquers disease, strong social interests which enable civilized nations to defy the assaults of barbarians. It is, then, against the interest of the species, even if continuation a!one, and not happiness, be considered, that the population should increase faster than increase of wealth, knowledge, and social organization can keep up. When the contrary happens, as in Ireland before the potato famine, the result is a calamity which sweeps the people away still faster than that degeneration necessarily attendant on enforced maternity. (16) Now women, having other things to care for than mere pain in bearing children—being concerned also about comfort, elegance, leisure, calling, social standing—are, relatively to men, even less inclined for sexual pleasures and its probable consequences than other females relatively to males. It follows that the subjection of women to masculine lust isthe cause of increase in population beyond the increase in wealth, knowledge, and social evo
enforced. It may be asked: Is the dilemma absolute? May not people be willing to enforce a liquor law which they often break? I reply: Show me an example. What experience seems to prove fe that they will readily vote such a law, but not effectuate it. See below in text.
(16) Behold the answer to Henry George's absurd question, If population is liable to increase unduly, why does the wild beast lick her cubs in what were once the busy haunts of men? These were the haunts of Babylonians, Egyptians, and other races, enervated by that very lust which makes the undue increase, or else of Irishmen, who had not, indeed, as yet degenerated physically, but had learned to be content with potatoes; on which they were marrying and giving in marriage, till "the flood came and took them all
lution. One effect of this increase has been mentioned. But there are plenty more, as bad. Increase of population in Ireland was a topheavy tower, which at last came crashing down altogether; but under favorable circumstances it may result in permanent decrepitude or pernicious extension instead of in collapse. The northern nations of Europe and Asia, kept hardy by sharp selection, barbarous and extremely poor, used, until a recent period, to overflow their habitat periodically, and poui down upon the wide plains of India, Persia, or Egypt, peopled by races whom lust had enervated. That any permanent good came of these terrific Scythian invasions is by no means clear. In important countries, as Bactria and Asia Minor, they have certainly substituted a ruder, less improveable race for one more refined. And in themselves, the names of Attela and Timor must remind us, they were among the greatest calamities mankind has ever sustained. In India, the facility with which mere eixstence could, previously to the famine era, be supported is no doubt answerable for the number, the poverty, and the servile character of the people. The caste system truly lowers wages, entails expenses and keeps the Sudras poor. But how do they come by the caste system? Buddhists, Mussulmans, and Christians have offered to free them from it. They have the caste system because they like it; and they like it because it is bound up with race traditions, at whose root are their sexual customs. In all these cases, emancipation of women would have averted overpopulation and its evils. It is true no such thing as emancipation of women is conceivable among such people. But the observation is not useless, for similar evils exist where emancipation of women is not impracticable. The Jews of Europe and America are not such a backward people but what it would be quite conceivable among them. How would it operate on the poverty of "Jewtown?" Much more important, however, than all the rest is the bearing of knowledge like this upon impending social changes. A system of State Socialism which, by applying suitable methods of agriculture to nationalized land facilitated a great increase of rural popplation, would indeed be a "coming slavery," with a proletariat reduced to contented frugality, until famine came at last to rouse them; and a bureaucracy of directors who would surely find ways to line their own pockets. I must accordingly think that an Anarchist who does anything to direct hope towards that quarter makes a very grave mistake. So long as man enslaves woman, he will be a slave himself,—and serve him right 1 I confess very little sympathy with hostility to the Malthusian theory on the ground of its "avowedly making vice and suffering the necessary results of a natural instinct with which are linked the purest and sweetst affections."
As we learn from anthropology that the disposition to go by authority is the measure of affinity with "our grandsire Ape," and from comparative sociology that it perpetuates in every country the institutions of the barbar ous past; so the biological theory of Malthus, upon which, it is well known rest Darwinism and in short all knowledge of the laws governing racial or social progress as such knowledge has been developed since Malthus' time, brings us up against the conclusion that man's tyranny over women is the
fundamental one which has enslaved himself. Resulting immediately, in increase of population beyond former means of subsistence, it drives the barbarian to seek new sources of nourishment in war. The first and lowest stage is simply killing off. It may be seen among the Negritto race from Melanesia to the dwarfs' settlements in central Africa, and among the Indians of some islands where fruits like the banana delay necessity to the point of actual crowding; but these people are not cannibals. Cannibalism, thus, in its day, a progressive innovation, of course, implies war. It was general once among the Negroes, Polynesians, American Indians. Traditions, customs, and superstitions, indicate that it also prevailed, tho at a forgotten period, among the Semites and the Aryans. (17) Making slaves of prisoners next proved more profitable than eating them—an improvement which has been introduced in important parts of Africa during our own time. Beyond this it would be unnecessary to retrace the successive stages of exploitation down to wagelabor. The important points already established, in Section I, are that comparative sociology shows exploitation to be the purpose of war and war the foundation of government; that the religious systems of the world, however, refined since, arise in superstitions, to which the name of religion cannot without degrading it be applied; and that of these superstitions at least that transcendently important class associated with government, such as totemism, its rules of baptism, confirmation, marriage, burial^ the practises of utu and taboo, and the resulting criminal law, are all bound up with the military system of barbarians.
That the restraints imposed by these traditions and the institutions which they hallow are shown by various branches of the modern sciences to be mischievous, we have found in connection with trade, penal discipline, foreign relations, and sexual relations. See section IV, and the earlier ones referred to here.
In the same section we also learned why it is that most people do not yet see this. The opinion that government does good is a superstition. Government, because it is the gift of our Totem, the perfection of human wisdom, and all that, gets credit for doing away with great friction, what those instincts of advancing society which prompt its action would do if it were obsolete with less. What is said in the same section and those there more
(17) Thus the Vedas state, that a man being sacrificed to the gods, his spirit, which was what they wanted, like the Hawaiian deities, went into a horse, and thence, after being again offered, into other animals. The last was a sheep, which, therefore, is the most suitable sacrifice. The meaning of this is that all these creatures, beginning with the man, had successively come to be regarded as unfit for food, except the sheep, which, according^ ly, was the only one the priests would accept. Again, the most amazing of ceremonies whicn would be considered wholly incredible, if we had not an everyday example, is that sacrifice, in which the god is himself the victim, eaton to his honor! Yet it is very common. It appears to be associated with the cannibal's belief that he imbibes the moral qualities of those he eats, for which reason bad chiefs are refused this post mortem compliment. Unquestionably it is connected with the paschal sacrifice, the worship of Moloch, Kronos and a cannibal god, and redemption of the first born. Thus it points to early Semitic cannibalism. God-eating, in one form or another, prevails among almost all nations, and myths in which one god eats another are innumerable.
or less directly referred to about the "rights of property" also shows it to be the teaching of science that the purpose of all these restraints is essentially predaceous and unjust.
The evil, we have also concluded, is not to be met by making restraint in some uncertain proportion less. (See Individualism in the same section.)
(To be continued.)
Moreover it was not the ritual, nor certainly the theoretical, but the moral element of Judaism which did this. When the Jew devoted himself to speculation, his Cabbala and Sephirotic tree equal any vagaries of paganism. Jewish morality alone secured the Burning Bush indestructibility of Jewish nationality; and it was not the better but the worse for the rites of the Temple or the casuistry of the Rabbinical schools. These things were what provoked a secession which preserved, indeed, the quintessence of Hebrew revelation but gave Hebrew political aspirations the greatest blow they ever sustained.
One thing had been lacking to the prophetic ideal at its best. It never quite explained how the self confessed sinner might feel sure of forgiveness. But while precursors of Barchocheba were fanning that desperate zeal which destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Chosen People again among all nations, a new prophet had arisen in their midst to whom the love of God was so deep an intuition that when representatives of the old compromise between good works and idle ceremonies crucified him, his disciples could do no otherwise than regard him as God offering himself for them. Extravagant as many conceptions of Atonement are, the central thought of all, that this great sacrificial act proves hatred of sin and love of sinners to be essentially the same sentiment, is the one point on which all Christians agree; and is also that in which Christianity can boast superiority over Judaism by raising of Duty under penalty into spontaneous gratitude. It would be worse than a twice-told tale how fearfully Christianity corrupted and degenerated during the thirteen centuries between its victory over paganism and the Reformation, or how the character this debasement assumed was in all respects similar to that which came over Judaism after the restoration under Ezra. The prophetic and priestly elements — the receptive and the conservative—had arrived at a compromise fatal to the former. Pontifices, augurs, flamens, Druids, accepted the dogmas and practises of Christian missionaries without finding them one whit less convenient for the purpose of gulling the multitude than those handed down by earlier tradition, while the "practical" view of " the Church" as an unit, whose "authority" must be maintained at all hazards, extinguished "heresy," and with it the immediate possibility of progress.
What concerns me to emphasize is that in Christianity there proved to be something which there was not in Brahmanism, Confucianism, Islam, or the pagan philosophies of Egypt and ancient Europe. In them the receptive attitude of man to nature was extinguished. Observe, I do not say by them. Other causes contributed to stop the progress of knowledge. But religion could not save it. Now in Christendom we have al-" ready seen that the priests did their utmost under quite favorable auspices to extinguish the spirit of inquiry. But they were not successful. The advance of physical knowledge during the Middle Ages in western Europe was, we saw, very considerable; and even
at Constantinople there was a revival of curiosity no less than of resistance to tyranny if heterodox, which in the eyes of one party or another the tyrant always was. At length the time came when that one-sided compromise by which priestcraft, seeming to cede all to what it had persecuted, in fact reaped the whole advantage, could endure no longer. With Luther and his compeers,* the prophetic temper successfully rebelled against the priestly, appealed to subjective faith, and entered on a course of steady progress. For tho the old spirit of compromise soon reappeared in Protestantism, it failed to effect another popery. That union of authority, without which it cannot work its quota of mischief, had been forever shattered. The human mind was permanently emancipated at least to the extent of being free to follow its own religious bias with little interference; because, while Protestant intolerance fully equaled Catholic in venom, it never wielded power enough to bring upon innovation that degree of pressure which is at all likely to succeed. There really is thus, not only a change from superstition to knowledge, but within the steadily progressive nations from more to less cramping superstitions. For a general view of this change Amberley's "Analysis of Religious Belief" and Lewes' "Biographical History of Philosophy" maybe considered. That conversion from Romanism to Protestantism was a part of the change, will probably be admitted by sceptics, and can hardly be denied by Catholics! But tho the idea is an old one, those may well wonder at my including conversion from paganism to Christianity, who are accustomed to see in medieval Christianity the most systematically persecuting and brazenly obscurantis: of all religions. My appeal is, however, to results.
Pagan- philosophy, liberal as it was in theory, did not prevent the despotism of the Caesars from arresting the progress of knowledge. Christianity would never bow to solicit mercy or favors from an heretical Caesar; and even when allied with the later European sovereigns against knowledge, the Church could not prevent knowledge from increasing. Why not? I believe for the same reason that Christianity defied the Caesars. Its subjective, or prophetic element, was always too strong to be stifled by the external or priestly, which is true of
- D'Aubignes "History of the Reformation," tho an one-sided book, is well worth reading for vivid presentation of that one side to Protestantism which made Luther, and in him the success of the Reformation. The Eng'ish reformers, as Froude points out, cared much less about the emotional and more about the rationalistic side, and so did Zwingle, Socinus, in short all the contemporaries of Luther. Calvin alone, who was later, equalled him in "evangelical" experience, while far surpassing him in genius for organiza:ion and reasoning. Luther was not of a sceptical temper. He was of a very superstitious temper. His experience < f regeneration by "faith alone" was all :hat made him discard anything, no matter what th< authority for it, which would adulterate "faith" in his peculiar sense. And he was the most influential of the reformers. Therefore, the Reformation was rit er a religious than a rationalistic movement. Ot the power of "faith" (the conviction that hatred of sin is identical with love of sinners, and the chief goal) over immense classes whom rational scepticism decs not at present reach, see Matthew Arnold, "God and the Bible"; for its power over a most enlightened and sceptical intellect even in our time, consult Tolstoy," My Confession."
no other religion except perhaps Buddhism. After the Reformation, however, there could be no comparison. The very words of the Protest were a proclamation of Anarchy.* The doctrine of salvation by subjective faith alone, was in germ the repudiation of all objective regulation. That part of religion which priestcraft particularly controls is the sacramental. The purely emotional, tho brought out by sermons, remains always mere raw material. The theoretical, indeed, requires orthodoxy; but orthodoxy of opinion must be settled by argument and therefore reason, which cannot be subject to authority, while heretical ceremonies condemn themselves. The ritual of a Church is, therefore, itspracticalgovernment. Nowthe first act of the Reformation was to impugn the sacrament of penance. But its spirit, as Henry VIII was first to see, ran in equal opposition to all Seven. If faith alone makes the difference between good works and those having the nature of sin, then the rites of baptism, confirmation, matrimony, "orders, the Lord's Supper, and extreme unction, might be edifying practises, but they could be nothing more; and if they set up for ordinances necessary to salvation or holiness of conduct at particular stages in life, they immediately became "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." It was inevitable they should be at last repudiated for useless and superstitious. This result was actually reached by the Quakers, who, tho a small denomination, have been one of the most influential. Nothing has shaken the foundation of ritualism and dogma like the proofs these people have exhibited that blameless lives and piety victorious over death are perfectly capable of coexisting with absence of auy standard but the Inner Light. Before they had fought and won their very hard right for spiritual freedom.it is scarcely possible to imagine such a movement as the Transcendental arising and succeeding in a world so full of theological assumptions and positive precepts as that of European Christianity. The philosophy of Hegel is adumbrated in the Journal of Foxe. Quakerism, however, emancipated only from spiritual tyranny—a fruit of "the volition to Persuade." The absolutism of logic and metaphysics, sprung from "the volition to Know," remained intact, and might have restored the rest, since there is no cause into which syllogism of the metaphysical kind might not be pressed.
But German transcendentalism, so far as its influence extends, is the euthanasia—the spontaneous voluntary dissolution of metaphysics. In the " Critique of Pure Reason," Kant, taking up the sceptical argument of Hume, to whom he fully acknowledged his indebtedness, expands it, with German refinement of method, into exhaustive demonstration of the impossibility of the volition to know, which in all direction leads into that region where the law of Excluded Middle does not hold; while, in the "Critique of Practical Reason," he shows, what Hegel
- "Because it concerns the glory of God and the salvation of our souls" (everything does) "and that in such matters wc ought, above all, to regard the commandments of God . . . each of us rendering account of himself to Him, without caring the least in the world about majority or minority." This is the more remarkable because the Christian councils first realized majority rule by representation.
Finally, I observed that, tho it is rather difficult to convict either a quack or a receiver, both commit so many crimes that they generally pull up in the penitentiary at last. In the case of the receiver, I am not aware that anyone has thought it worth while yet to represent the punishment as a martyrdom. But the quack who gets pinched is in the habit of posing as a martyr. He is enabled to do so with some effect thru that profound and general ignorance of sci ences bearing on medical practise which involves ignorance of his crime's real character. This ignorance extends to a great many radicals, all of whom appear to have got thoroly indoctrinated with such errors as that the law prohibits not only medical practise without medical knowledge, but heresy—dissent from the methods of some supposed dogmatical orthodoxy in medicine; tha t the utility of vivisection and vaccination are parts of this orthodoxy; that (rather lame logic) neither vivisection nor vaccination are useful practises; in conclusion, that it is a duty, or a service to the cause of human liberty, to join in the quack's crusade against the methods of scientific physicians. I am very sorry that such things are so. They are disgraceful facts which I would conceal as a matter of policy, if those radicals of whom I speak would let me. But since the facts cannot be concealed, I will state the conclusion to which I have been led by these observations. There are, in connection with medical practise, two great evils which it concerns me, as an Anarchist, to denounce. The first—the cause of the other—is the existence of laws to punish quackery, bad tho quackery is. The other —an effect of this cause,—is that monstrous phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance represented by the words anti-vaccination and anti-vivisection.
I class these absurdities together because I have usually found them going together. And indeed there is this much logical connection that a man who will under no circumstances approve of vivisection can hardly approve of vaccination. It is possible for one who does not believe in vaccination to be sensible of the other advantages conferred upon the world by vivisection. Dr. Foote was. But nothing so warms this phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance into zeal, as the slanderous outcry made by its promoters against the alleged cruelty of vivisection; and accordingly, with very few exceptions, anti-vaccinators are anti-vivsectors too. The connection, then, is clearly not logical but politic. As sensationalists, whose trade is working up feelings against medical science, they know on which side their bread is buttered. Their publications are worth reading. Miss Frances Power Cobbe's " Modern Rack" is typical. But it is easier, and from some points of view more profitable to read a magazine like the Animal's Defender. The condition of profiting by such study is that the student (whom I assume totally ignorant of the subject) should have a tolerably cool head. Otherwise he may only get infected with the writer's zeal. But supposing him to possess that faculty of criticising statements and arguments without which no reading is very use
ful, there are certain things which can scarcely fail to strike him. We live in a world of cruelty to animals. Ladies trim their hats with humming birds. Egret feathers are obtained from nesting parents, whose young ones starve. Cod is scored alive to preserve the quality of the flesh. Calves are tortured and bled to death that veal may be white. Whalebone is obtained from an absolutely harmless mammal, which is slaughtered in a manner refinedly agonizing. Cats are kept to kill mice; which it is their nature to do very cruelly. Rats are destroyed by the million, with poisons whose effect is most excruciating. . Furs are obtained principally by catching the animals that bear them, in a trap constructed to torture a limb but not to cause immediate death. Of domestic male animals the great majority are subjected to a very painful operation, which, until vivisection gave us anti toxin, was frequently followed by lockjaw. Calves, to which their mothers show great affection, sucking pigs, kittens, puppies, equally objects of love and pity, are slain on an enormous scale, some for table luxuries, soma only to get rid of them. Old horses, in this country, are commonly turned out to perish. It will naturally occur to our student that a reformer whose zeal for humanity to animals was quite sincere, would select from among these cruelties for his principal point of attack (1) the most common, as poisoning, cat-keeping, trapping, eating yoUng animals, drowning them indiscriminately, castration, or (2) the least necessary, as bird-killipg, crimping cod, torturing calves, or (3) the most unpopular and easily discountenanced, such as starving old horses, which besides its barbarity, the subject centuries ago of a fable, is a very serious nuisance, or (4) those combining the three recommendations. What, in fact, will he find? The self-constituted defenders of animals put in an occasional plea for vegetarianism (which would not dispense with the necessity of killing animals to keep down their increase); and an occasional protest against the cruelty of some fashionable absurdities. I never saw a line in their publications against the whale or cod fishery, the torture of calves, the keeping of cats, the starving of horses, the use of poison, or castration; or a plea for the life of one kitten or puppy to a litter. On the other hand I speak within bounds to say that the bulk of every issue is devoted to attacks on vaccination and vivisection. That is, th;y select as special objects of their crusade, those cruelties (allowing them to be such) which are (1) the most limited in extent (2) the most important in object (3) the most firmly based upon the world's constantly increasing intelligence (4) and, therefore, in all respects the most unsuitable, if diminishing the sufferings of animals be the purpose. Ah, that, if! Things were not always thus. The first agitators against cruelty to animals selected for their point of attack pastimes already abandoned to the vulgar; brutalities to working animals, so ill-judged that only an ignorant man would treat his cattle thus; and thoughtless barbarities prevalent chiefly among children; all which answer the condition of reasonable choice. Why is it different now? Because zoophilism has become a sufficiently profitable trade, in which suc
cess depends not on lessening the woes of animals but on amusing that idle class whose restless consciences demand something to do which shall be apparently less frivolous than their daily round of follies. Observe, I by no means intend to say that all zoophilists are frauds. If their writings bear out my statements, I have proved that the active ones are. And would you have a fraud without a fool? That would be as useless as half a pair of pinchers. That money may be made at zoophilism, there must be a class who think it a benevolent work which costs them nothing much. That class cannot be touched on such a side as their kitchens or their hats. They can be influenced against vivisection, not because it is cruel ,bu t because it is unfamiliar. To keep them from finding out the true character of the crusade on which they spend their children's moral pennies, they must needs, however, be well stuffed with lies. I will not attempt to marshall or refute the fictions of the anti-vivisection press; but I select one, as typical, because it fairly sums it up. An anti-vivisectionist editor had been taxed with the inconsistency of destroying superfluous dogs, cats, etc., as the zoophilists do at the "homes" they provide for these poor creatures, while objecting to experiments on a millionth part of them. "What," was his indignant reply, "is the comparison between killing an animal with little or no pain, and VIVISECTING it?" This use of such words as vivisection, a thousand times repeated in every number of a zoophilist journal, turns on and repeats as often as it occurs, an entirety false statement—that vivisection and vaccination as involving it necessarily means great pain; while the truth is that all the pain inflicted by vivisectors since their spell brought down from heaven the angel of anesthesia, is less than stock-breeders cause every year by the one operation of gelding: and vaccination causes none beyond the sacrifice of about one calf in every ten thousand slain. As to anti-vaccination lies, I may recommend for a repertoire, the journal Vaccination, published at Terre Haute. But I will inflict upon the reader only one. A recent number mentioned the death of a child, which it attributed to lockjaw, and that to vaccination. The notice concluded, " This case was reported as kidney complaint." It is clearly then no duty, nor is it judicious for an Anarchist, to assist the quacks against any practise of regular physicians, except their demand for laws against quackery; and in opposing that, the Anarchist needs be very careful that his motives are not confounded with the quack's. Very different sentiments from Anarchism may prompt hostility to a particular kind of penal legislation.
"No rogue e'er felt the halter draw, With good opinion of the law."
The more convinced I am that the law increases the number and aggravates the type of rogues, the more it concerns me to make clear that that, and not sympathy with rogues, is my own ground for having a bad opinion of the law. All the reasons above given why radicals should shun a refuter of Malthus, and why they should leave fighting the common school system for papists, are equally good reasons why they should have nothing to do with the quack's complaints. To be suspected of sympathy with the quack is to discredit radicalism, waste time, expend labor to no purpose, divide theforces of reform, deprive ourselves of an argument, and in conclusion strengthen the hands of government. Among promoters of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance for any purpose outside hostility to law in general, not one is hostile to it. The Movement in Favor of Ignorance always wants "more laws." What kind of new legislation it wants, may be inferred from Note 18, Section VII. «The laws are all of the moral reform type, whose invariable conclusion is blackmail. It must be a queer kind of Anarchist who can read with complacency what he may read any day, that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has, under plea of unfit less to labor, "confiscated" some poor man's beast, and shot it! But even this glaring example of petty tyranny, thinly masked by humanitarian hypocrisy, must seem white to one who really understands the anti-vivisection movement, always the meanest phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance; and, in view of recent surgical progress, the most absurd. I need scarcely say, but it is pertinent, that in this phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance, unquestionable preeminence belongs to the clergy. Cardinal^Manningwas one of the most active among'English leaders. It is also quite comical to observe how regularly the theological way of looking at things revives in Freethinkers who have taken up the same cause. Eliot Preston's marvelous verses in the Truth Seeker at the time this matter was discussed there, will serve for reference.
The remedy for the conditions which ren der possible a Movement in Favor of Ignorance, is indispensable to the success of Anarchism. In all countries, England, Germany, Russia, the United States, alike, the complaint of Anarchist agitators is that they find the people too ignorant to follow the Anarchislic demonstration; while, in all, the bourgeois quickly find out that Anarchists are too intelligent for theestablished system of education, which, accordingly, they aim in ways already hinted at to make more stupefying than it is at present. The remedy demanded by all this, is more general diffusion, not of scientific results or information, which without means to prove them are useless enough,* but of knowledge concerning scientific methods. It is by those methods, as we have seen, that the several propositions of Anarchism have been arrived at, not by any prepossession in favor of Anarchism, which few among their discoverers had. Then it is by the use of such methods
- Henry George somewhere tells about a girl of eight, "pretty well up in her school geography and astronomy," who was very much surprised to learn that the ground in her mother's back yard was the surface of the earth. This is a specimen of learning scientific names but not scientific methods. A scientific teacher would have taken order that the girl knew what the surface of the earth meant, before imparting*such information as that it consisted of land and water. General truths, like these, can be applied only on condition they are received for summaries of many particular truths, such as that in some parts of the back yard the ground was bare, while others, lying lower, were covered by a duck pond: and original app'ication tending to discovery depends on the habit of advancing from particular observations to general formula-, which, moreover, must be held amenable to the test of new observations.
that Anarchism must be defended and propagated if at all. But only a small minority of the people, for which reason also only a small minority of Anarchists I am afraid, know enough about the methods to make any use of them, or, consequently, to do much in the way of defending or propagating Anarchism. No one who knew anything about them would make, in print, such an absolutely false assertion as that" statistics, the world over, show more deaths from vaccination than where there is none "; asareader of Luciferdid about a year ago. On my citing a few figures which abundantly proved the contrary, I was informed by a gentleman of some learning (classical), whom I know to be an Anarchist, that my figures were not reliable, because they represented institutions (such as the English registrar general's office) controlled by the bourgeois, of whom all regular physicians were assumed to be representatives. 1 ventured again to ask what figures should be better? And so far I have been favored with none. But amidst a good deal of denunciation from that particular phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance which I had thus disclosed, I did have reference to a few alleged individual cases, plentifully interlarded with the phrase "it is said." No one, whatever his opinions on a point under discussion, would appeal in this way from the registrar general, whose statements are undercertain rather obvious checks, to Mrs. Harris apud Gamp, if he knew anything about the methods by which scientific truth is ascertained.* I am, therefore, applying those methods when I reason that more general knowledge of them is what we want to prevent any liberally disposed person's being caught off his feet by any phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance. A brief view of them may be found in Sections VII and VIII. And because the demonstrations which these methods furnish is, to all who understand them, irresistible, while understanding them requires no particular gift, no general learning, but only training in the right use of that common sense on which they are founded, the conclusions to which they lead are certain of adoption. And because among these are the conclusions of Anarchism, the victory of Anarchism is certain. But how long it may be delayed depends inversely on how rapidly knowledge of inductive methods in sociology can be propagated.
Note To Section XI. A new phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance may be said, not indeed to have originated, but to have taken definite shape since I began to write this treatise. It did not originate so recently, for it is found (inchoate) in Eddyism, occultism, and various other practical schemes of imposture, which are old enough. But the axis about which it has, so to speak, crystallized lately is in
- Similarly, Henry George's refutation of Malthus, setting out with the observation that Malthus' "Essay on Population" was a reply to Godwin's "Political Justice," at once betrays the mind familiar with polemical but not scientific reasoning. Malthus' motives in writing have absolutely nothing to do with the question whether his law of population be a correct generalization from facts; and if it is a correct generalization then the question for a scientific person, however much inclined to Socialism, is not at all what can be said against it, but only what it proves
the alleged result of investigations by the Society lor Psychical Research; and the finished product can doubtless be found better stated than anywhere else in the works of Thomas Jay Hudson, L. L. D. The alleged results of investigations by the Society for Psychical Research, on which this new phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance rests, may be summarized as follows. The brain, or rather its organized part, is not, as has been supposed, the entire sensory apparatus of man. When it is in a state of suspended activity, as during the hypnotic trance, he sees without eyes, hears without ears, tastes what does not touch his tongue, smells what is not there, and reasons very rapidly and acutely, from premises furnished by memory or otherwise; tho, for want of normal contact with objects, he cannot (it is alleged) perform the process of induction. This is said to be notably true of a hypnotized person. But representatives of that phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance under consideration, extend it to all operations of the sensory apparatus except those performed thru the previously distinguished cerebral and sub-cerebral nervechannels (as the Society for Psychical Research, by their mouthpiece, Frank Podmore, in his "Visions and Thought Transference," do not).This new portion of the sensory,they, and perhaps some investigators who should not be classed with them,designate by various names, as the Subjective Mind (the brain being the objective), the Subliminal Self,etc. That the subjective mind or subliminal self sometimes perceives real objects they cannot consistently deny; for that is a most important part of the data furnished them by the Society for Psychical Research's alleged discoveries. But they attribute all such perceptions to that power of "suggestion" whereby a hypnotized person is made think himself enveloped in flames, to smoke a candle for a cigar, or otherwise give evidence of perceiving objects which are not real. They identify the subliminal self with the Soul of traditional psychology, assert its immortality (from all which Mr. Podmore refrains), and maintain that "suggestions" are made to spirits only by spirits. Evidently the alleged discoveries of the Society for Psychical Reseaich are quite different from the interpretation put upon them by this phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance. I am very far from meaning to express contempt for the former (or an opinion as to how far they are satisfactorily established or as to how much they prove). But I recognize in them genuine results of the inductive method. So far as proved, they are facts; anyway they are observations and experiments of unquestionable scientific interest. An hypothesis aiming to generalize them is not at all necessarily established by them; a "Theory of Things" founded on them (as on anything else) is— suspicious: and an attempt to press them into the service of obsolete methods is a phase of the Movement in Favor of Ignorance. To this attempt we come then by regular steps, any one of which may serve as a halting place for a moderately cautious theorist. At such a place we should perhaps locate Mr. Myer's ponderous work.
C. L. James.
(To be continued.)