George D. Herron, who, like William T. Brown, had once been a minister, on becoming a Socialist expressed his atheistic sentiments by writing in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, August, 1901:

"When the gods are dead to rise no more, man will begin to live. After the end of the gods, when there is nothing else to which we may turn, nothing left outside of ourselves, we shall turn to one another for fellowship, and behold! the heart of all worship is exposed and we have omnipotence in our hands....

"There will be no more priests, no rulers, no judges, when fellowship comes and the gods are gone. And when there are neither priests, nor rulers, nor judges, there will be no evil on earth, nor none called good, to stand over against others called evil."

John Spargo, a former Socialist of considerable renown in the United States, and until recently very popular with the party, speaking of education in "Socialism, A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles," touches upon the question of parochial schools in the Marxian commonwealth:

"Whether the Socialist regime could tolerate the existence of elementary schools other than its own, such as privately conducted kindergartens and schools, religious schools, and so on, is questionable. Probably not. It would probably not content itself with refusing to permit religious doctrines or ideas to be taught in its schools, but would go farther, and as the natural protector of the child, guard its independence of thought in later life as far as possible by forbidding religious teaching of any kind in schools for children up to a certain age....

"This restriction of religious education to the years of judgment and discretion implies no hostility to religion on the part of the state, but neutrality[16]." ["Socialism, A Summary and Interpretaion[17] of Socialist Principles," by John Spargo, page 238 of 1906 edition.]

"The Call" does not fail to publish among its many poems those that are violently anti-religious. In confirmation of this we shall transcribe several, all of which furnish excellent proofs of the existence of the conspiracy against religion. The first poem that will be quoted appeared in the November 19, 1911, edition, and reads as follows:

"When all the choric peal shall end; That through the fanes hath rung; When the long lauds no more ascend From man's adoring tongue; When overwhelmed are altar, priest and creed; When all the faiths have passed; Perhaps from darkening incense freed, God may emerge at last."

The following poem, entitled, "To the Religionist," appeared on the same day:

"You bid us spare your vision; Put faith in a life after death, Strive on toward some realm Elysian And heed all that one Book saith.

"You will pray to a power celestial, To direct us in all our ways, Lest we fall to a region bestial And lose ourselves in its maze.

"You speak of the Crucifixion Of one on Calvary As if his benediction Was a rank monopoly.

"Shall we pray to a power not human For guidance miraculous When the nearest man or woman Will give help, and without that fuss?

"When the glorious future people Have realized our dream, Then the cross upon the steeple No longer shall blaspheme.

"The godhood of the lowly Their sacrifice unknown; Of the temple once held holy There shall not last one stone."

Only two stanzas of a poem which appeared in "The Call," March 17, 1912, are hereby given:

"The Gods are dead; Dead lies their Heaven, their Hell. The Gods are dead, With all their terrors! Well!

"Man now unmakes them, Who made them in his youth; He boldly breakes them With shattering blows of truth."

Editorials and articles attacking religion are of very common occurrence in "The Call." Several illustrations will suffice. In the May 1, 1912, edition we read:

"In our combat with the natural forces we have been taught by science to seek the cause and effect not in anything supernatural; we have gotten rid of superstition[18] and fear of revengeful gods."

The following short article appeared on November 19, 1911, in the same paper:

"Our exploiters might as well understand now that we have no use for the distorted and mystical figure that they present as Christ, a conservative member of the Property Defence League, a thing neither man nor woman, but a third sex—not understood of us except as a rightful object of suspicion; we have no use for this rant, cant and fustian of his holiness and immaculate qualities. That presentation has always been repellent to us and always will be, no matter how much he may be proclaimed as the friend of the workingman.... Christ, the democrat, the agitator, the revolutionary, the rebel, the bearer of the red flag, yes we can understand that figure."

Under the caption, "The Old Year and The New," an editorial, part of which is here given, was published in "The Call," January 1, 1912:

"Interesting is it to see these clerical reactionists trying to kindle into flame the dying embers and ashes of the religious enthusiasm of past ages, now on the point of flickering out, and marshalling the remnants of fear and ignorance against the inexorable march of humanity and social progress.

"We have no verbal answer to expend upon them. They are not worth it. Well do we know that their show of attack is but a defensive movement. The only answer they need expect from us will be given in the steady continuance of our work. For we can put a thousand workers into the field for their one, and despite all they may do, we will take from them thousands and hundreds of thousands of those who now follow them, and in whose ignorance alone lies their defensive strength. Economic conditions fight on our side. Their capitalist Christ cannot feed the multitude. We can teach the multitude how to feed themselves."

"The Proletarian," the Socialist paper of Detroit, in its April, 1919, edition tells us that "Socialism is not a religion, it explains the causes and fallacies underlying all religions."

In the "International Socialist Review," August, 1908, a notable confession is made relative to religion:

"Religion spells death to Socialism, just as Socialism to religion. The moment Socialism turns into a religion it loses all its progressiveness, it ossifies and turns into a superstition of fanatics, who never forget and never learn anything. Socialism is essentially, although not apparently, a free-thought movement. The thinking Socialists are all free-thinkers."

In the "International Socialist Review" not only are there many articles and editorials attacking religion, but also many advertisements of atheistical and anti-religious books. For instance, in the February, 1912, edition, among the many works advertised on page 512 the following are listed under the heading, "Free-Thought Pamphlets":

"Holy Smoke in Holy Land. Myth of the Great Deluge. Revelation Under the Microscope of Evolution. Chas. Darwin, What He Accomplished. Jehovah Interviewed. Church and State—by Jefferson. Mistakes of Moses—by Ingersoll. Ingersolia: Gems from R. G. Ingersoll. Age of Reason—by Thos. Paine. Ingersoll—44 Lectures. Ingersoll's Famous Speeches."

In the April, 1912, edition of the "International Socialist Review" the subsequent additions are made to the advertisements already mentioned:

"Voltaire. Confessions of a Nun. Merry Tales of the Monks. Secrets of Black Nunnery."

Surely such books as these would not be extensively advertised in the "Review" and in the Socialist papers, nor would money be spent in this way by their publishers, unless the atheistic and anti-religious works found many purchasers among those who inserted a plank in their party platform stating that the Socialist movement was primarily an economic one and was not concerned with matters of religious belief.

The following is part of an editorial taken from the "Comrade," New York, January, 1904, on the death of Herbert Spencer:

"Dying at 84 years of age, Herbert Spencer leaves behind him an enduring monument such as few men have been able to build for themselves. He helped to rid the world of superstition and to destroy priestcraft; he put the idea of a God-direction of the world, and its counterpart, the eternal subjection and the dependence of man, into the waste paper basket of history. He cleared the way for the feet of the army of progress."

In the propagation of atheism, the German Socialist papers of the United States are worthy imitators of those that are published in English. The "New Yorker Volkszeitung," October 9, 1901, thus acknowledges the atheistic and anti-religious attitude of the revolutionary movement:

"Socialism and belief in the Divinity as taught by Christianity and its representatives do not agree, cannot agree, are diametrically opposed to one another. Socialism is logical only when it denies the existence of God, when it maintains that we do not need the so-called assistance of God, since we are able to help ourselves. Only he who has no faith begins to feel that he can accomplish something. The laborer who places confidence in God, and who, with Christian resignation, thinks that all is done by God is well done—how can that laborer develop revolutionary forces for the overthrow of authority and social order, both of which, according to his faith, are instituted by God? As long as he clings to this belief he will not be able to acquire a genuinely revolutionary spirit."

In the May 10, 1902, edition of "Vorwaerts," a weekly supplement of the "New Yorker Volkeszeitung," we read:

"New York, May 6.—Archbishop Corrigan died last night after a protracted illness. Preparations are going on for a grand funeral with the usual paraphernalia. The soul of the prelate whizzed out of his mortal remains straight up into the seventh heaven, and now the bishop is staying there with lovely little angels and other beautiful beings hovering about him. Let him who is fool enough, believe it."

We are informed by "The Call," April 5, 1911, that at Utica, New York, on April 4, 1911, churches of all denominations were placed under the ban of the Italian Socialist Federation of the United States at the closing session of its National Congress, which had been in session for the last three days in that city and that strongly worded resolutions charging all churches with being against the emancipation of the working class and for the protection and perpetuation of capitalism and moral and economic slavery were unanimously adopted amid vociferous applause; finally that by the adoption of these resolutions, all members of the federation must sever their affiliations with any and all existing churches and religious organizations and refrain from all religious practices and rites.

Some information regarding the atheistic teachings of the New York "Il Proletario," the official organ of the Italian Socialist Federation of the United States, will be of interest to the reader. In the edition of December 23, 1910, there are several attacks on Christianity. One of these entitled "Christmas Is Here" is translated as follows:

"Christmas is a fib, Christmas is a fraud, Christmas is a crime wanted and continued by the powerful to delude their servants and to make them believe that there is really happiness, justice and love on this earth.... There is no everlasting joy. How long, O poor and exhausted workingmen of the world, will the shameful comedy continue? When will you finally perceive that not from a false and unexisting God, not from a mystical and epileptic crucified man, who died without rebellion and without protest, will come your redemption? When will you open your eyes to the truth of Socialism, and realize that finally upon you alone depends your salvation?"

In the same edition of "Il Proletario" there is a detailed list of 170 books and pamphlets that are advertised as being on sale at the book-store of the Italian Socialist Federation. The first part of the list, under the heading "Anti-religious Pamphlets," includes 22 works, whose prices range from 5 cents to 30 cents. Among them are to be found:

"The Religious Pest—5 cents. The Crimes of God—5 cents. The Sins of My Lady Penitents—8 cents. The Last Religious Lie—5 cents. Neither God Nor Soul—15 cents."

Near the end of the detailed list 22 more works are advertised as anti-clerical novels.

On May 1, 1912, while its editor, Arturo M. Giovannitti, was in prison at Lawrence, Massachusetts, "Il Proletario" published an article under the caption, "The Priest":

"Now at last the nations have understood that God is a monstrous fable, and that hell, heaven, immortality, and all the other devilish things are states created by rascals to despoil and oppress the people."

We are very much indebted to the Social Reform Press for favoring us with the translation of "The Little Catechism," edited by Bartos Bittner, whose dead and corrupt body was found by neighbors in his lodging in Chicago. This blasphemous Catechism, from which quotations are to be given, was published for the use of the children of the Bohemian-American Socialists:

"Question. What is God?

Answer. God is a word used to designate an imaginary being which people of themselves have devised.

Q. Is it true that God has never been revealed?

A. As there is no God, He could not reveal himself.

Q. What is heaven?

A. Heaven is an imaginary place which churches have devised as a charm to entice their believers.

Q. How did man originate?

A. Just as did animals; by evolution from their lower kinds.

Q. Has man an immortal soul as Christianity teaches?

A. Man has no soul; it is only an imagination.

Q. Who is Jesus Christ?

A. Jesus Christ is the son of a Jewish girl called Mary.

Q. Is he the son of God?

A. There is no God, therefore there can be no God's son.

Q. Did Christ rise from the dead as Christianity teaches?

A. The report about Christ rising from the dead is a fable.

Q. Is it true that after Christ's death the Apostles received the Holy Ghost?

A. It is not; the Apostles had imbibed too freely of wine and their dizzy heads imagined all sorts of queer things.

Q. Did Christ ascend into heaven?

A. He did not; what the church teaches is a nonsensical fable, because there is no heaven, and there was no place to ascend to.

Q. Will Christ come to this earth?

A. He will not because no dead person can come back.

Q. Will Christ return on judgment day?

A. There will be no judgment day; that is all a fable so that preachers could scare people and hold them in their grasp. Man has no soul, neither had Christ a soul. All these things have been invented by the church.

Q. What is the Holy Spirit?

A. The Holy Spirit is an imagination existing only in the minds of crazy religious people.

Q. Is Christianity desirable?

A. Christianity is not advantageous to us, but is harmful, because it makes us spiritual cripples. By its teachings of bliss after death it deceives the people. Christianity is the greatest obstacle to the progress of mankind, therefore it is the duty of every citizen to help wipe out Christianity. All churches are impudent humbugs.

Q. Is there communion of saints?

A. No, because there is no God, no saints, no soul, and therefore our prayers are wholly useless, and only a waste of time, which should be spent in more useful things.

Q. What is our duty when we have learned that there is no God?

A. We should teach this knowledge to others.

Q. Should we take the name of God in vain?

A. Yes, because the name of God has no meaning."

Isador Ladoff, a Socialist of Cleveland, Ohio, and a candidate for office in 1911, speaks very frankly about religion on page 11 of his pamphlet, "Socialism, The Anti-Christ":

"The church knows that Socialism in spite of the declaration of neutrality of the latter in religious matters, undermines the very foundation of the former. The church realizes that Socialism is anti-Christ. For the church it is a question of life and death, a struggle for existence. Why, then, should the Socialists not engage in an open aggressive campaign against the church? Would not an honest war between Christ and anti-Christ be more dignified, more wise and more effective, than a false pretence of neutrality and a defensive attitude toward the attacks of the church? Let us have the courage of our convictions, not only in matters of social and economic significance, but in all things affecting the interests of the toiling masses of humanity, including religious institutions."

Rev. E. E. Carr, writing in the "Christian Socialist," Chicago, May 15, 1907, informs us that, "The Christian Socialists do not ask or desire that the party declare for religion. Strictly speaking, Socialism is a purely economic proposition.... We demand absolute freedom of religious opinion in the party, and that officials of the party cease teaching anti-religious dogma as an essential part of Socialist philosophy."

Dishonest Socialists, when arguing that their party does not advocate atheism as the "religion" of their contemplated state, frequently appeal to the religious plank of their 1908 National Platform, which declares that the Socialist Party is not concerned with matters of religious belief.

Though this deceitful appeal of the "Knights of the Red Flag" has been exposed time and again, still it seems expedient that the underhand methods of the party which boasts of being the only one sufficiently honest and upright to fight for the rights of poor and oppressed workingmen, be better known to the American people, and that the more important parts of the indoor convention speeches be presented in greater detail.

Pages 191 to 205 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," edited by John M. Work, published by the Socialist Party[19], and sold at 50 cents a copy at the National Office of the party, Chicago, Illinois, bear the following ample testimony to the hypocrisy of the Revolutionists.

When Delegate Simons had finished reading the proposal of the platform committee "that religion be treated as a private matter—a question of individual conscience," Arthur M. Lewis, a delegate from Illinois rose and moved its rejection, saying:

"I am among those who sincerely hoped the question of religion would not be raised at this convention. I am willing to concede so far that we shall let sleeping dogs lie. I know that the Socialist position in philosophy on the question of religion does not make a good campaign subject. It is not useful in the propaganda of a presidential campaign, and therefore I am willing that we should be silent about it. But if we must speak, I propose that we shall go before this country with the truth and not with a lie.... Now I do not propose to state in this platform the truth about religion from the point of view of the Socialist philosophy as it is stated in almost every book of Standard Socialist literature; but if we do not do that, let us at least have the good grace to be silent about it, and not make hypocrites of ourselves.... I say, let us either tell the truth or have the good grace and the common sense and the stamina and the manhood and the self-respect to keep our mouths shut about it. Therefore I move this be stricken from the platform."

Delegate Hillquit of New York urged the following amendment as a substitute for the one the ratification of which Lewis had tried to prevent: "The Socialist movement is primarily an economic and political movement. It is not concerned with the institutions of marriage or religion." Hillquit then went on to say:

"The fact that Comrade Lewis as a scholar, as a student of psychology, of history, of ethics and of everything else, has in the domain of religion come to the position of an agnostic, and that ninety-nine per cent of us have landed in the same spot, does not make Socialism agnostic, nor is Socialism Christian, nor is Socialism Jewish, Socialism hasn't anything to do with that side of our existence at all. I say to you, Comrades, if we are to follow Comrade Lewis's advise, and to say in our platform and declaration of principles what is true, let us not be afraid to insert in it the things we are advocating day after day and on all occasions."

Delegate Unterman of Idaho, speaking in favor of the adoption of the religious plank as originally proposed by the platform committee and read by Simons, added:

"Comrades, no one will accuse me with any sympathy with Christianity, either as a church or as a religion. I am known in the United States as a materialist of the most uncompromising order. But I want it clearly understood that my materialist philosophy does not permit me to strike this plank out of the platform. I want it understood that my materialist dialectics do not permit me to forget the exigencies of the moment for our ideals in the far future.... Would you expect to go out among the people of this country, people of different churches, of many different religious factions, and tell them that they must become atheists before they can become Socialists? That would be nonsense. We must first get these men convinced of the rationality of our economic and political program, and then after we have made Socialists of them and members of the Socialist Party, we can talk to them inside of our ranks, talk of the higher philosophy and of the logical consequences of our explanation of society and nature.... We should not go out in our propaganda among people that are as yet unconvinced and are still groping in ignorance and obscurity, and tell them that they first must become materialists before they can become members of the Socialist Party. No. This declaration that religion is a private matter does not mean that it is not a social matter or class matter at the same time. It merely means that we shall bide our good time and wait till the individual is ready, through his own individual evolution, to accept our philosophy. It means that we shall give him plenty of time to grow gradually to the things that are necessary to him, and those material things that affect his material welfare, the economic and political question of Socialism. After he has grown into them, it will be so much easier to approach him with the full consequences of the Socialist philosophy. Therefore I ask you to retain this plank in our platform."

Delegate Stirton gave the following reason for his opposition to the adoption of any religious plank in the party platform:

"If this statement is true that religion is no concern of our movement, as stated in the amendment, or in the original recommendation that it is a private matter—if that is a true statement, then we don't need it. If it is a lie, then we don't want it."

It will be remembered that Delegate Lewis at an earlier session of the convention had said: "Let us either tell the truth or have the good grace and the common sense and stamina and the manhood to keep our mouths shut about it" (i.e., religion from the viewpoint of Socialist philosophy).

To show the insincerity of Lewis, we shall now quote parts of a second speech made by him in the evening of the same day on which he had spoken so eloquently in behalf of asserting the truth and not telling a lie:

"I have gone into conference," he says, "between the afternoon session and the evening session with most of the members of the platform committee, and I have reached an agreement with them which I am sure the convention would be glad to hear, and it will dispose of this question, I think, amicably to all concerned.... I consider myself and every other delegate on this floor as being present at this convention for the sole purpose of promoting the best interests of the Socialist Party. I am willing to waive any personal views of mine, and I believe the members of the platform committee are in the same position, to promote those interests.... While it may not harmonize with my personal opinion to have this plank remain in the platform, I am willing to sink those personal opinions rather than put the Socialist movement in America in a false position and lay it open to the attacks of our enemies."

Victor Berger of Wisconsin mentioned expediency as his reason for favoring the adoption of a religious plank and argued:

"In the first place, a plank of this kind you will find in every platform or program of every other civilized nation in the world. Yet in no country do they have as much reason for it as in this country. There is not a race in the world that is as thoroughly religious as the Anglo-Saxon race. If you want a party made up of free-thinkers only, then I can tell you right now how many you are going to have. If you want to wait with our co-operative commonwealth, until you have made a majority of the people into free-thinkers, I am afraid we will have to wait a long while. I say this, although I am known, not only in Milwaukee, but wherever our papers are read, as a pronounced agnostic.... You can hardly find a paper in which we are not denounced as men who want to abolish all religion and abolish God. Something must be done in order to enable us to show that Socialism, being an economic theory—or rather the name for an epoch of civilization—has nothing to do with religion either way, neither pro nor con."

What reader, who elsewhere in this book has followed the evidence linking together the cunning craft of Morris Hillquit and Victor L. Berger in committing their party and followers to deceit and hypocrisy to obtain votes under false pretenses, will be surprised to find them thus also in the 1908 convention uniting the tongues of two old foxes to put through Hillquit's hypocrisy-plank on marriage and religion? These are the two whose deceit and violence have now reduced the Socialist Party of America to little more than a hollow echo of two lying hearts.

Delegate Vander Porten opposed the adoption of the plank as originally read by Simons and urged the adoption of Morris Hillquit's amendment:

"Nobody regrets more than I do that this question has arisen in this convention, but as long as it occupies the position that it does, I believe that there is to be an expression upon it, that expression should be the truth and not a lie.... When we talk of educating mankind and when we talk of raising mankind above the level in which he is, then we have got to throw from his arms those crutches that bind him to his slavery, and religion is one of them. Let it be understood that the moment the Socialist Party's whole aim and object is to get votes, we can get them more quickly by trying to please the religionists and those whose only ambition is to pray God and crush mankind.... Let us say nothing or say the truth. To spread forth to the world that religion is the individual's affair, and that religion has no part in the subjection of the human race, we lie when we say it."

After several other delegates had spoken, the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention" inform us that the chairman put the question on the acceptance of the substitute offered by Delegate Hillquit, and the result being in doubt, a show of hands was called for, and the vote resulted in 79 for the substitute, and 78 against it.

Those who honestly voted against the plank admitted thereby that the Socialist Party was very much concerned with matters of religious belief and that the Revolutionists were then, just as they are today, the bitter enemies of religion.

The 79 who voted for the plank did so, not because they had any love for religion, for this is evident from their speeches and from their method of procedure, but because they considered that a great deal of prejudice against Socialism would be removed by the adoption of a plank stating that the Socialist Party is primarily an economic and political movement, and that it is not concerned with matters of religious belief.

On one single plank therefore there were 79 liars in the Socialist National Convention out of a possible 157. Quite an unenviable record for the party which is so fond of accusing its opponents of lies and falsehoods!

When speeches against religion, such as the ones quoted, can be delivered at the national convention of a political party, without arousing anything like serious opposition among the delegates present, or among the rank and file of the party who afterwards read them, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the vast majority of the members of the party either advocate atheism or else are in sympathy with those who do.

For four long years the Socialists all over the country appealed to the religious plank of their 1908 platform to prove that their party was not opposed to religion; and although they were aware that the plank was a lie, they were not sufficiently honest to have it removed by referendum, as could have been done at any time. The plank was finally dropped by the National Convention of 1912 and has not since then been readopted. This, however, was not because the Socialists as a body had become more upright through their adherence to atheism, but because their lies concerning religion had become pretty well known all over the United States.

No doubt the reader will be interested in the following quotation taken from "The Communist," the Left Wing Socialist paper of Chicago. In the April, 1919, edition there is an article by John R. Ball, entitled, "Challenge of the S. P. [i.e., the Socialist Party] of Michigan":

"When the delegates to a State Socialist Convention gathered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, February 24, 1919, to nominate candidates for the coming State Elections, they were determined to do much more than to go through the mere formalities of complying with State Election Laws....

"There were many striking features about the personnel of the delegates: not only were the preachers entirely absent, but their following also. A Christian Socialist would have felt lonesome indeed, with no one to act as a listener for him....

"Fearless and unashamed, in true Bolshevik fashion, the delegation paid no heed to the prejudice of some, but adopted, with one opposing vote, an additional constitutional amendment, guided solely by historic facts and scientific data. A Socialist who understands the Materialistic Conception of History cannot have faith in superstitions of any kind. In other words, a 'religious' or 'Christian' Socialist is a contradiction of terms, and the statement that 'religion is a private matter' is a lie. The belief in a supreme being or beings is a social phenomenon which can be explained on the materialistic basis, just as all economic phenomena can be explained. With persistent adherence to honesty, the convention adopted a resolution and a constitutional amendment declaring religion to be a social phenomenon and instructing all organizers and speakers to explain religion upon its materialistic basis.

"Here again, the Socialist Party of Michigan issued a direct challenge to the National Organization. This time it is not a challenge in regard to tactics, but we challenge the honesty of the National Organization in declaring that 'religion is a private matter.'"

Now listen to the words of Eugene V. Debs, published on the editorial page of "The Call," New York, July 21, 1919, and see what a fraud and hypocrite the leader of the Socialists of the United States is:

"If you have not already done so, read the platform of the Socialist Party, and then let us know what you find in it to warrant the lying charge of the sleek and fat leeches and parasites and their degenerates, tools and hirelings that Socialism is atheism and free-love(?) and that it will tear up the family by the roots, smash up the home and turn society into a raging bedlam."

Sufficient evidence has now been given to prove that the Socialists are the declared enemies of the church. They are conspiring to destroy an institution which, apart from the supernatural blessings that it has conferred upon mankind, has done wonders to promote the happiness of nations. To the church many countries owe their civilization and their conversion from heathenism. She has preserved for us the priceless treasures of art and learning that would otherwise have fallen a prey to the ravages of the barbarians. For centuries she has trained untold millions to observe the Commandments of God, and has thus been instrumental in the prevention of innumerable crimes and sins from which the human race would have suffered. Not only has she taught the people the virtues of charity, justice, temperance, humility, liberality, purity, meekness and forgiveness of enemies, and been a source of immense consolation to the poor and oppressed, the sick and the injured, but she has comforted millions of the dying, who, when they realized that no earthly joys remained, took hope and delight at the thought of an eternal reward in heaven.

It is this glorious institution, then, founded by Almighty God Himself, that the Socialists hate with all their hearts, and would destroy forever, because it prevents the spread of their revolutionary doctrines by teaching respect for law, order and authority, and by exposing to all the world the deceptions, frauds and empty promises of the conspirators against religion.



CHAPTER XX

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE FAMILY



Most of the Marxians in America, when confronted with the charge that they advocate free-love, deny the truth of the accusation, claiming that it is a base calumny. False and calumnious, indeed, would the charge be, if it were directed against each individual among the Revolutionists, or if from its universality exceptions were not made for many, who, not having as yet accepted the full consequences of International Socialism, go no further than to cast their votes for the party candidates. For would it be fair to except no others from condemnation, for among the dues-paying members of the party are many who are extremely averse to the system of loose morals that their comrades propose to substitute for the monogamous form of marriage now in vogue.

Books advocating free-love are advertised in the Socialist press and receive favorable notice in editorial columns. They have long been on sale at the leading Socialist book-stores of the country and even at the National Office of the Socialist Party in Chicago. Finally, the Revolutionary clubs and locals all over the United States have in their libraries books on free-love that are standard works on Socialism.

The Marxians, in their endeavors to offset the charge that a free-love propaganda exists within their party, frequently argue that prostitution, now so prevalent throughout the world, will under Socialism no longer remain the dreadful menace to society that it is today. They attribute the prevalence of this vice principally to poverty, and argue that in the new state, all persons will be abundantly supplied with the goods of this world, and consequently no one will be obliged to indulge in this sin for obtaining a livelihood.

The Reds, therefore, try to dodge the question at issue by leading their opponents off on a tangent. The real question, free-love, will, however, by no means be forgotten by us until the Socialists have been shown up thoroughly. Since the conspirators against family life are so fond of harping on the matter of prostitution, with a view to drawing critics away from attacking their doctrine of free-love, the reader will be shown that even prostitution, instead of decreasing in the Socialist state, would, together with immorality of every sort, become far more prevalent under Marxian rule than it is today.

Prostitution and impurities of every sort may, of course, be due to many different causes. First, let us consider prostitution in connection with poverty and destitution. The Socialists claim that there will be far less prostitution in their state since the people, as a whole, will be supplied more abundantly with the needs of life. This talk about greater supplies for all in the Socialist state is mere assertion. The Marxians have never proven that such would actually be the case. If so, where is their proof? Can they give any convincing argument? Can they name any country, state or city, where they have ever ruled, in which the people, as a whole, were better supplied with the needs of life under the red flag than they were before the Socialist rule began?

The fact is just the contrary. Look at any part of Europe over which the Socialists have ruled and you will see far greater destitution under Socialism than there was before. As for places that have never yet tried Socialism, enough arguments were given in the chapter, "Socialism a Peril to Workingmen," to show that there would be so many upheavals, so much turmoil, discontent and strife in a Socialist state, that production would be at a minimum and entirely insufficient to supply the needs of the people.

We concede that poverty often leads to prostitution, and this is one reason out of many for sincerely wishing that our poor people were better supplied than they now are with the necessities of life. Still it must not be forgotten that poverty and want are often greater factors in preventing prostitution than in helping it. Think of the millions of poor people whose very poverty indirectly makes prostitution and vice in general less likely by keeping them from immoral theatres, movies, dances and cabarets and association with bad companions of greater means who would be attracted by better clothes and greater wealth if these poor people had them.

Do the Socialists claim that the average poor woman is less moral than the average rich one? Do not the Marxians know that poverty, rather than wealth, fosters religion and piety, the greatest of all factors in keeping persons pure? Do the Reds deny that millions and millions of the very poorest are chaste? If these souls can remain pure, notwithstanding their poverty, so, too, can others; and when these others do not remain pure, usually something other than poverty is the cause, e.g., irreligion, lawlessness or disregard of authority, all of which the Socialists are advocating, day after day, in their books, pamphlets, papers and speeches.

Again, Debs and his followers, by having a separate party for workingmen, are dividing the laboring class against itself, knowing full well that millions upon millions of decent, honest workingmen will never join them. And since Socialists are making unjust and impossible demands, and injecting into labor organizations radical leaders who cause general distrust and fear, labor cannot succeed in its battles against the abuses of capitalism nearly as well as it would if all were united. Hence, because of the existence of the Socialist Party, low wages still prevail in many cases, with extreme poverty which often leads to prostitution.

If the Socialists ever gain control of our country they will probably do so through a revolution. Or they will come into power gradually, by an increased vote at each election. In the meantime, as victory came near, there would be business failures by the thousands, owing to the impending destruction of the existing system of industry and government. In either case there would be terrible destitution and a great dearth of the necessities of life. This, according to the Socialists' own argument, would mean a great increase in prostitution.

It has been proven theoretically in the chapter entitled, "Socialism, a Peril to Workingmen," and actually by events in Europe, that a Socialist state, even should it endure, cannot be a success. Hence, were the Marxian argument about prostitution as strong as the Socialists claim, picture the immorality among the people where a Socialist government plunges the industries and sources of production and distribution into total chaos.

With this refutation of the claim that prostitution would become a very rare thing under Socialism, the national conspirators must confess that the same argument they have for years been using to further the interests of their cause, can with telling effect be turned against them.

Not alone are the Socialists defeated in their argument that prostitution would be less prevalent in the Marxian state, but they are hypocrites in using the argument they do. "The Call," for instance, which frequently uses the argument which has been refuted, in the magazine section of its issue of June 8, 1919, published a poem entitled, "The Harlot," to satisfy its lustful patrons:

"I do not understand you— I cannot see How you can lie passive in my arms When such a passion swells in me.... You lie in my arms— Your face is close to mine. I look into your eyes, Revelation! And you Look into mine Unmoved."

We now return to the question of free-love—we have not forgotten it, though no doubt the Reds wish we had. Socialists who deny that an active free-love propaganda exists within their ranks must either confess their ignorance of what is going on, or plead guilty to the base charge of deceiving the American people.

The "New Encyclopedia of Social Reform," edited by the Socialist, W. D. P. Bliss, on page 484 contains an article on the family which reads in part as follows:

"We then come to the third form of free-love, the free-love theory par excellence, which is held today by many Socialists, and an increasing number of radical men and women of various schools of thought. According to these neither the state nor organized religion should have aught to do with the control of the family or of the sexual relation. They would make free-love supreme. They would have it unfettered by any tie whatsoever. They argue that compulsory love is not love; that all marriage save from love is sin; that when love ends, marriage ends."

In another article, on page 1135, under the caption, "Socialism," Bliss informs us that it is perfectly true that Deville, a French Socialist, said that "marriage is a regulation of property.... When marriage is transformed, and only after that transformation marriage will lose its reason for existence, and boys and girls may then freely and without fear of censure listen to the wants and promptings of their nature.... The support of the children will no longer depend on the chance of birth. Like their instruction it will become a charge of society. There will be no room for prostitution or for marriage, which is in sum nothing more than prostitution before the mayor."

On page 897 of the old 1897 edition of the "Encyclopedia of Social Reform," an earlier work edited by W. D. P. Bliss, we are informed that Socialism would allow all to live in permanent monogamy, but would not force people to remain married if they were unwilling to do so. "The Communist Manifesto," the work that made Marx and Engels famous among Socialists the world over, thus answers the charge made against the Revolutionists regarding their opposition to monogamy:

"What the communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women."

Jules Guesde, a French Socialist, affirms in "Le Catechisme Socialiste" that "the family is now only an odious form of property and must be transformed or abolished."

The French Socialist leader, Jaures, in a parliamentary speech said that "They [i.e., married men and women] were free to make the marriage and should in the same way be free to unmake it. In fact, just as the will of one of the parties could have prevented the marriage, so the will of one should be able to end it. The power to annul should, of course, be all the stronger when both parties desire it." It need scarcely be added that free-love would in most cases begin with the voluntary dissolution of the marriage ties.

While the program of the French Socialist Party, adopted at Tours in 1902, does not explicitly advocate free-love, still it calls for "the most liberal legislation on divorce." Ernest Belfort Bax, a prominent English Socialist, in "Outlooks From a New Standpoint," affirms that "a man may justly reject the dominant sexual morality; he may condemn the monogamic marriage system which obtains today; he may claim the right of free union between men and women; he may contend he is perfectly at liberty to join himself, either temporarily or permanently with a woman; and that the mere legal form of marriage has no binding force with him." ["Outlooks From a New Standpoint," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 114 of the 1891 edition.]

"Prostitution for private gain is morally repellent. But the same outward act done for a cause transcending individual interest loses its character of prostitution." [Ibid., page 123.]

"There are few points on which advanced radicals and Socialists are more completely in accord than their hostility to the modern legal monogamic marriage." [Ibid., page 151.]

"There are excellent men and women, possibly the majority, born with dispositions for whom a permanent union is doubtless just the right thing; there are other excellent men and women born with lively imaginations and Bohemian temperaments for whom it is not precisely the right thing." [Ibid., page 157.]

"Herein we have an instance of the distinction between bourgeois morality and Socialist morality. To the first it is immoral to live in a marital relation without having previously subscribed to certain legal formalities.... To the second ... to live in a state of unlegalized marriage defileth not a man, nor woman." [Ibid., page 158.]

"Socialism will strike at the root at once of compulsory monogamy." [Ibid., page 159.]

Quotations from this base free-love book will end with the following: "If it be asked 'is marriage a failure?' the answer of any impartial person must be 'monogamic marriage is a failure'—the rest is silence. We know not what the new form of the family, the society of the future in which men and women will be alike economically free, may involve, and which may be generally adopted therein. Meanwhile we ought to combat by every means within our power the metaphysical dogma of the inherent sanctity of the monogamic principle." ["Outlooks From a New Standpoint," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 160 of the 1891 edition.]

"Outlooks From a New Standpoint," from which these quotations have been taken, was advertised in the price list of the Social Democratic Publishing Company of Milwaukee; and though it was sold for a dollar a copy at Victor Berger's establishment, it has never been used by the Socialists of America to prove to the world that they do not advocate free-love.

In view of the fact that "Outlooks From a New Standpoint" was sold at Berger's own publishing company, it is somewhat surprising to see him, in the August 10, 1912, edition of his paper, the Milwaukee "Social Democratic Herald," attacking, in a party squabble, "the men in control of the 'International Socialist Review,' ... who publish books in defense of what our enemies call free-love." Further on in the factional quarrel he writes: "I shall leave out the Christian Socialists entirely. Many of them are honest in this fight. But these Christian Socialists—who are only a handful—are being used by cowardly assassins and practical free-lovers as a cat's paw." Perhaps the Socialist publishers would be a little more free with their love for each other, if there was less competition for the silver dollar.

Ernest Belfort Bax in another book, "Religion of Socialism," thus denounces the present form of family life: "We defy any human being to point to a single reality, good or bad, in the composition of the bourgeois family. It has the merit of being the most perfect specimen of complete sham that history has presented to the world." ["Religion of Socialism," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 141 of the 1891 edition.]

"Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," edited by Ernest Belfort Bax and William Morris, also advocates free-love, for its authors tell us that under Socialism "property in children would cease to exist, and every infant that came into the world would be born into full citizenship, and would enjoy all its advantages, whatever the conduct of its parents might be. Thus a new development of the family would take place, on the basis, not of a predetermined life-long business arrangement, to be formally and nominally held to irrespective of circumstances, but on mutual inclination and affection, an association terminable at the will of either party.... There would be no vestige of reprobation weighing on the dissolution of one tie and the formation of another." ["Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," by Ernest Belfort Bax and William Morris, pages 299 and 300 of the 1893 edition.]

The "International Socialist Review," December, 1908, states that "Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," by William Morris and Ernest Belfort Bax, is "a standard historical work long recognized as being of the utmost value to Socialists." According to the price list sent out from the National Office of the Socialist Party this work on free-love was on sale there for fifty cents a copy. Chas H. Kerr and Company, the Socialist publishing company of Chicago, in their catalogue advertised the same book as being one of the most important works in the whole literature of Socialism, by the two strongest Socialist writers of England. From these facts the reader may judge for himself whether or not the Revolutionists of America tell the truth when they claim that they are not the enemies of the family.

In a speech delivered on November 12, 1907, Henry Quelch, editor of the Socialist paper, "London Justice," made the following statement: "I do want to abolish marriage. I do want to see the whole system of society, as at present constituted, swept away. We want no marriage bonds. We want no bonds at all. We want free-love."

Edward Carpenter in his book, "Love's Coming of Age," tells us that "marriage relations are raised to a much higher plane by a continual change of partners until a permanent mate and equal is found."

That this work on free-love might find a ready market among Socialists, Chas. H. Kerr and Company advertised it as follows in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, December, 1902:

"He [i.e., Carpenter] faces bravely the questions that prudes of both sexes shrink from, and he offers a solution that deserves the attention of the ablest leaders of popular thought, while his charmingly simple style makes the book easy reading matter for any one who is looking for new light on the present and future of men and women in their relations to each other."

In a 1912 catalogue the same publishing company volunteered the information that "'Love's Coming of Age' is one of the best Socialist books yet written on the relations of the sexes." In a 1917 booklet it was advertised by the company as being "by far the most satisfactory book on the relations of the sexes in the coming social order."

Carpenter's work was sold for a dollar a copy at the National Office of the Socialist Party in Chicago, and yet the Revolutionists persist in telling us that they do not advocate free-love.

August Bebel, the late leader of the German Socialists, was the author of a book entitled, "Woman Under Socialism." This work, however, is better known by the simple appellation, "Woman." A simple quotation will suffice to show that Bebel, like many other excellent Socialist authorities, advocates free-love:

"If incompatibility, disenchantment or repulsion set in between two persons that have come together, morality commands that the unnatural and therefore immoral bond be dissolved." ["Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 344 of the 1904 edition in English.]

Bebel's book has had an immense circulation. Over thirty editions have been issued, and translations have been made into nearly all the European languages. Before his death in August, 1913, he was the admiration of millions of the Revolutionists the world over. His book is considered everywhere as a standard work on International Socialism and is, of course, on sale with the other free-love publications at the National Office of the Socialist Party. Chas H. Kerr and Company in 1917 advertised Bebel's work as being one of the greatest Socialist books ever written.

Frederick Engel's "Origin of the Family," a work that has made its author famous among Socialists on both sides of the Atlantic, contains the following statement relative to free-love:

"These peculiarities that were stamped upon the face of monogamy by its rise through property relations will decidedly vanish, namely the supremacy of men and the indissolubility of marriage.... If marriage founded on love is alone moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long as love lasts. The duration of an attack of individual sex love varies considerably according to individual disposition, especially in men. A positive cessation of fondness or its replacement by a new passionate love makes a separation a blessing for both parties and for society. But humanity will be spared the useless wading through the mire of a divorce case." ["The Origin of the Family," by Fredrick Engels, page 99 of the 1907 translation into English by Untermann.]

"The Comrade," New York, November, 1902, thus commends Engel's book: "One of the most important issues of that excellent Standard Socialist Series published by Chas. H. Kerr and Company is 'The Origin of the Family,' by Fredrick Engels, now for the first time translated into English by Ernest Untermann. This book, first published in 1884, has been translated into almost every European language and has long been regarded as one of the classics of Socialist philosophical literature."

"The Call," New York, February 27, 1910, deems "The Origin of the Family" worthy of editorial comment: "The one book that contains in small compass what every woman ought to know is Fredrick Engel's 'The Origin of the Family.' Every Socialist woman should become a book agent to sell this book."

"The International Socialist Review," October, 1902, expressed its admiration of Engel's work by stating that "this book has long been known as one of the great Socialist classics and has been translated into almost every other language than English.... The book is really one of the two or three great Socialist classics; and now that it is in English, it must find a place in the library of everyone who hopes to master the real fundamental philosophy underlying Socialism."

"The Origin of the Family," notwithstanding[20] the fact that it contains matter too foul to comment on, for example a certain comparison that is made on page 39, was listed with the books sold at the National Office of the Socialist Party, and at Chas. H. Kerr and Company, the largest Socialist publishing company in the United States.

Ernest Untermann, the American Socialist who translated Engel's work into English, writes on page 7 of the preface of the 1907 edition: "The monogamic family, so far from being a divinely instituted union of souls, is seen to be the product of a series of material, and in the last analysis, of the most sordid motives."

Rives La Monte, in "Socialism Positive and Negative," tells his readers that "from the point of view of this Socialist materialism, the monogamous family, the present economic unit of society, ceases to be a divine institution, and becomes the historical product of certain definite economic conditions. In the judgment of such Socialists as Fredrick Engels and August Bebel, we shall probably remain monogamous, but monogamy will cease to be compulsorily permanent." ["Socialism, Positive and Negative," by Rives La Monte, page 98 of the 1907 edition.]

In the "International Socialist Review," February, 1909, there appears on page 628 a notice which reads as follows:

"The 'Review' lately returned to a contributor a clever and readable article in which he emphasized certain absurdities and miseries of the present marriage system. His letter in the reply to us raises some interesting questions, and we are glad to publish it: ... 'It is disappointing to be advised to frankly discuss subjects of such importance as religion and marriage only in hushed whispers behind closed doors. In the fear of offending conservative prejudice on these topics, some Socialists become more conservative than the bourgeois themselves.... Of course, the main stream and most important phase of Socialism is the political-economic agitation, but at the same time the Socialist movement inevitably brings into being, at least for a great part of its adherents, a new culture, a new literature, a new art, a new attitude toward sex relations and religion and individual freedom, a new conception of life as a whole. In face of this fact it is sickening to see individuals, whom one knows to be atheists, defending Socialism as the will of God and the fulfilment of Christianity; and other individuals, whom one knows to be free-lovers, going out of their way to defend the home and family against the inroads of capitalism. Nevertheless such things are seen.... There are thousands of women who are worn out with the bearing of unwelcome children on account of ignorance of proper ways of preventing conception.... If sex life, the personal heart life, of revolutionists were more free and joyous, if they breathed an atmosphere of liberty and spontaneity, free from religious and moral superstitions, if they became now as much like the free people of the future as possible, would they not be that much more ardent and joyous and unceasing workers of the Great Revolution? And if former non-Socialists, especially women who had suffered grievously from the evils of the marriage system, or been intellectually blindfolded by religious teaching, were first led into the light of more emancipated ideas by some of us Socialists, would not they serve and glorify Socialism forever?... If the Christian Socialists have a right to their God, and monogamists to their eternal marriage, then surely in a revolutionary movement like ours, the complete revolutionists have, to say the least, an equal right to their agnosticism and their free union."

Clarence M. Meily, before speaking explicitly of free-love, praises lust and sensuality in the highest terms on page 129 of his book, "Puritanism": "Freed from the privation of millenniums of unrequited toil, with the wealth and wonders of the world at its command, it is fairly certain that the emancipated working class, still wan from its centuries of service and sacrifice, will take great joy in repudiating, finally and forever, the fallacies and aberration of asceticism.... Not the denial of life, but the laudation and triumph of life, will be the keynote of the new ethics. The lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, the pride of life, will become new formulas, holy and pure in the light of the perfect development of the whole man, and of all men, to which the race will dedicate itself."

Meily then approaches the marriage question and says: "The question of the status of marriage in the new society is one of extreme importance, since it is here that reactionaries of all sorts center their opposition to social reconstruction. It is both idle and disingenuous to assert that marriage as a legal and civil institution is not likely to undergo profound modification.... The artificial perpetuation of the marriage tie, in the face of the disinclination of the parties involved to continue the relation, will cease to be a matter of public concern, or the occasion of state interference. The dissolution of the marriage relation will become as purely a personal and private affair as is the assumption of the relation now. Some sort of registration may be required for the purpose of vital statistics."

In July 2, 1901, "The Haverhill Social Democrat," apparently without fear of offending its subscribers, asked: "What is there sacred in the modern home? Can anything be sacred which is based on a lie or on impurity, or on ignorance? The marriage system today is based on impurity, on ignorance and on a big lie."

"The Call," New York, December 4, 1910, tells its readers to "give all women the vote, and they will strike off the rusty chains that hold them still in marriage as the property of the man."

That the same paper is very lax as regards the divorce evil, so closely allied to free-love, is evidenced from the following quotation taken from the edition of March 30, 1913: "Among the many encouraging signs of woman's growing strength—of her determination to be at last the captain of her soul and the master of her faith—are recent divorce statistics....

"Far from being a sign of moral decadence, the large number of divorces granted to women is one of the healthiest portents of the regeneration of the body social....

"The divorced woman is today the connecting link between the non-resisting, ignorant victim of the past and the self-reliant, enlightened, eugenically minded woman of the future. The divorce statistics of the present are perfectly logical and the divorced woman is a cheering omen, as she fulfils her historic mission."

"The Little Catechism" for the use of the children of Bohemian Socialists, a book from which we have already had occasion to quote in the previous chapter, shows us the exceedingly low standard of morality that is taught to the youthful Revolutionists; for in answer to the question, "Is adultery a sin?" we are astounded by the boldness of the reply, "It is not a sin."

We shall finally corroborate our charge that the Revolutionists advocate free-love by quoting the words of no less an authority than Morris Hillquit, who concedes in "Everybody's," February, 1914, page 233, that "Most Socialists stand for dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the contracting parties."

As many Socialist books on free-love have attained a high circulation, and as they have not been repudiated by the party, but have been praised and advertised in its newspapers, and, moreover, since these very books have been sold as standard works both at the National Office of the party and at the leading Socialist book-stores of America, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the number of party members who openly advocate free-love, or at least tacitly approve of its propaganda, must be in the majority, for otherwise the party would never tolerate such a condition of affairs within its ranks.

Once the Socialists gain control of a country, as in the case of Russia, laws legalizing free-love are very soon passed. In the No. 2 edition of the Los Angeles magazine, "More Truth About Russia," its radical editor mentions many of the Bolshevist laws on marriage, divorce, etc., in vogue in Russia. Among them is one fully legalizing free-love, making it possible for married parties to change partners whenever they wish and for no other reason than their mutual or individual desire to do so:

"1. Marriage is annulled by the petition of both parties or even one of them.

"2. The petition is submitted, according to the rules of local jurisdiction, to the local court.

"Note: A declaration of annulment of marriage by mutual consent may be filed directly with the department of registration of marriages in which a record of that marriage is kept, which department makes an entry of the annulment of the marriage in the record and issues a certificate.

"3. On the day appointed for the examination of the petition for the annulment of marriage, the local judge summons both parties or their solicitors.

"4. Having convinced himself that the petition for the annulment of the marriage really comes from both parties or from one of them, the judge personally and singly renders the decision of the annulment of the marriage and issues a certificate thereof to the parties."

This chapter shows that free-love filth, to corrupt and demoralize our people, is being propagated by the Socialist Party of America through its National Headquarters in Chicago, Berger's publication company in Milwaukee, Hillquit's "New York Call," and other publishing houses and papers affiliated with the party. Yet, because the question of the qualifications of five representatives of this system of abomination to make laws for the State of New York was so much as raised by a judicial inquiry in the New York Assembly, that body of legislators has been assailed and falsely charged with undermining the fundamental principles of representative government. The ignorance concerning the true character of the Socialist Party of America is startling.

Is it not time for the American people to awake? Should not every decent American petition all our legislative bodies, state and national, to outlaw the Socialist Party of America and curb its iniquitous propaganda?



CHAPTER XXI

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE RACE



To most persons it will certainly be a surprise to hear that race suicide has been openly advocated in the columns of leading Socialist publications. True it is that the number of individuals endeavoring to spread this practice by their writings is comparatively[21] small; still, as the articles have continued to appear for years at more or less regular intervals, without exciting anything like serious opposition, we are forced to conclude that advocacy of race suicide is looked upon by a very large number of the Revolutionists as one of their characteristic virtues.

Though many vile articles advocating race suicide were published in the 1910 and the 1911 editions of "The New York Call," we shall pass them over, and discuss those of a more recent date.

In the Sunday editions of "The Call," Anita C. Block has for years been editing a page called "Woman's Sphere." This section of the paper on the 24th of March, 1912, contained an editorial comment under the caption "Enforced Motherhood and the Law," in which the practice of base and criminal race suicide is encouraged:

"Within a space covering not much more than a month, six letters have been received by us, containing in substance about what is contained in the following letter:

"'Mrs. A. C. Block, New York City:

"'Dear Comrade Block.—I have been a reader of "The Call" since December 1, 1911. I do not know whether you can give me any information as to what I wish to know....

"'I have three children, 31/2 years, 21/4 years, and a baby 9 months. Now, you cannot blame me if I do not care for more for some time to come....

"'Could you give any information? Dr.... in "..." [We suppress the author's name and the title of his work.] and "..." by ... contain the sentence, "Every woman should know prevention of conception." I should be thankful for any advice.

"'Yours for the Co-operative Commonwealth.'"

The editorial comment then goes on to say:

"Four of these letters we answered personally, stating the impossibility of imparting this information under our present laws. But when letters continued to come, we felt that any subject that indeed meant everything in the world to the wives of the working class, was entitled to publicity in these columns.

"These women ought to know exactly what the laws are that make the giving of this terribly needed information—A Felony. And so we print below the Federal or United States law on this subject."

The law is then given in all its details, after which the New York State law on the same subject is also quoted.

We are then told that "such are some of the laws on this grave subject, and, of course, no sane person would endeavor to violate them, openly at any rate. But as Dr.... states elsewhere in this page, we cannot be prevented from agitating for their repeal. Nor can we be prevented from educating the people wherever possible to an understanding that a knowledge of the means of preventing conception is a knowledge of one of the means of regenerating the race.

"Moreover even under Socialism, where economic conditions will be such that every woman can support a dozen children in comfort if she wants to, the volitional limitation of offspring will be completely justifiable. For even parents in the most comfortable circumstances should have the right to determine how many children they want. Of all things in the world this is a matter for the individual and not for society to determine."

Dr...., to whom reference was made in the above editorial comment, is also the author of another work advertised as follows in "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call," March 24, 1912:

"The three most important measures for the improvement of the human race from a eugenic standpoint. What are they? I suppose everybody who has given the subject any thought has his remedies. I have studied the subject for years and my answer is:

"1. Teaching the people the proper means of the prevention of conception so that the people may have only as many children as they can afford to have, and to have them when they want to have them.

"2.....

"3.....

"Of the three measures the first one is the most important and still it will be the last one to come, because our prudes think it would lead to immorality. And nevertheless I will repeat what I said several times before, that there is no single measure that would so positively, so immediately contribute toward the happiness and progress of the human race as teaching the people the proper means of regulating reproduction. This has been my sincerest and deepest conviction since I have learned to think rationally. It is the conviction of thousands of others, but they are too careful of their standing to express it in public. I am happy, however, to be able to state that my teachings have converted thousands; many of our readers who were at first shocked by our plain talk on this important subject are now expressing their full agreement with our ideas. And Congress may pass draconian laws, the discussion of this subject cannot, must not, be stopped."

On April 13, 1913, another article on the subject of race suicide, by Clara G. Stillman, appeared in "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call" under the caption, "The Right to Prevent Conception." Only part of the foul composition is here given:

"Those who are convinced that the voluntary prevention of conception is a most important weapon in the modern fight with poverty, disease and racial deterioration, will find their position only strengthened by survey of their opponents' objections. These objections are mainly of three kinds—and might be classed as the pseudo-religious, the pseudo-moral and the pseudo-scientific, because all are based on conceptions which our present state of knowledge and social development have enabled us to outgrow....

"Prevention of conception is already an accepted principle among the educated classes of every civilized country. According as the opposition of the law and public opinion are more or less stringent, it is practised with more or less secrecy; but secret or open, the practice is here to stay, and it is spreading. The fear of most of its opponents is, therefore, not nearly so much that the human race will become extinct as that its best elements will gradually be replaced by the worst. At first this may seem plausible. Granting our opponents' premise temporarily, the conclusion is logically unavoidable that in order to restore a normal relation between the so-called more and less intelligent or desirable classes of society, we must put into the hands of all the methods of restricting their increase, now utilized only by the few."

On June 1, 1913, "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call" contained a four-column article on race suicide, entitled, "Musings of a Socialist Woman." The author, Antoinette F. Konikow, who was a delegate to the Socialist National Conventions of 1908 and 1912, thus expresses her views:

"I consider the question of the prevention of conception to be of greater value to women than even the knowledge of sexual diseases....

"After meeting hundreds of women and girls in heart to heart talks, I came to the sincere conviction that lectures on sex hygiene which do not give a thorough understanding of conception in its definite bearings on practical life and also of its possibilities of prevention—that such lectures miss their main aim in bringing help to distressed humanity....

"Instead of meeting every need and demand of the worker, we are so hampered by the fear of getting a bad reputation among our enemies that we express our support to a new tendency only after it has acquired a certain respectability in society....

"Do the daring words of Comrade Clara G. Stillman or Dr....'s article not hurt the feelings of some of our Comrades? No doubt some readers felt dissatisfied but not more so than others who had to read the conservative statement of Comrade Carey in 'The Leader,' that he considers Bebel's conception of the family un-Socialistic and anti-Socialistic....

"Do our morals stand on a higher plane, thanks to the careful guardianship of our laws?...

"It is high time then to serve notice upon all our benevolent censors and upholders of such laws, and declare ourselves fit to get along without their superior guidance. It is time to open a crusade against this hypocritical suppression of knowledge, which leads to endless and needless suffering. It is time to emphatically declare the right of the mother to control the functions of her own body for her own good and the welfare of her offspring."

The disastrous consequences of such a crusade to further the cause of race suicide are very forcibly brought home to us by an article which appeared in "The Call," May 10, 1914, on "The Conscious Limitation of Offspring in Holland":

"Our headquarters at The Hague and our subdivisions in all our greater towns are spreading theoretical leaflets and pamphlets; but the special pamphlet giving practical information in the prevention of conception, is only given to married people when asked. We are lecturing everywhere. But the essential missionary work is done privately and modestly, often unconsciously by showing the happy results in their own families, by the nearly 5,000 members of our league spread over the whole country, among whom are physicians, clergymen and teachers, etc. Every day information is asked by letters and still more by our printed postcards; all information is given cost-free and post-free. Almost all younger doctors and midwives are giving information, and are helping mothers in the cases when it is wanted on account of pathological indications. Moreover special nurses are instructed in helping poor women. Harmless preventive means are more and more taking the place of dangerous abortion. So, merely by our freedom of giving information, we have reached the desirable results proved most brilliantly by the statistical figures of our country."

On May 21, 1914, "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call" devoted two more of its columns to the race suicide propaganda in the form of an article by Sonia Ureles under the caption, "Hats Off, Gentlemen, The Law!" Since many parts of the production are too foul to permit our quoting them, we shall give but a few short passages:

"But the doctors only scowled, and the nurse told her gently that the law did not permit poor people to regulate the birth of their offspring....

"To the thought of a private practitioner she gave no heed; it was to her a luxury undreamed of....

"The nurse, a well-meaning honest creature, writhed uncomfortably under her gaze. 'It's—it's against the law to give out such information,' she stammered.

"'I don't care about the law,' came the stubborn reply. 'You promised. Now tell me.' Nevertheless she left the hospital without the information....

"She applied to the women of her neighborhood for information. They told her things they thought they knew, and things they thought they ought to know. And her health was the price she paid....

"They who knew, but would not tell, left her one alternative. She chose it. And so,

"'Hats off, gentlemen—the law!'"

In this same issue of "The Call," May 24, 1914, there is an editorial comment that promised the base devotees of race suicide an abundance of filthy reading matter for the future:

"If unwelcome motherhood is not in accordance with a constructive eugenic program, then the free imparting of information concerning the prevention of involuntary motherhood must be. But as has been pointed out in these columns again and again, to make this part of a constructive eugenic program is to run up against vicious and barbarous state and federal laws which make the giving of necessary information a crime, punishable by imprisonment.

"In connection with this entire subject we call the attention of our readers to the grim sketch by Sonia Ureles, appearing elsewhere on this page today.

"This is the first of a series of stories on the same subject which Miss Ureles is writing for 'Woman's Sphere.' All who know the vivid reality of this writer's work will look forward to them with keen anticipation."

Let it not be thought for a moment that "The Call" has yet given up its propaganda of race suicide. As recently as May 25, 1919, there appeared in the magazine section of that vile Socialist daily of New York City an article on the subject entitled, "Birth Control and the War," the article being no less than twelve columns long. Several quotations are hereby given:

"Everywhere the feudal-minded ones act upon substantially the same impulse. Everywhere they impel and, to a large extent, though by indirection, they compel, prolific breeding among the less intelligent persons. These latter are also the victims of the prevailing religious, political, economic and industrial systems and superstitions. The feudalistic ones proclaim fecundity as a religious duty to God and a moral duty to the state. By psychologic tricks a vanity of the unfortunate classes is encouraged so as to make even the fools believe, or, at least, feel that they, too, have a place in the sun....

"By the uniform activities and lingering dominance of the feudal mind we have remained in a state of development in which we compete, like the stock-raiser, for an international and intercredal supremacy in and through breeding....

"As yet we have had no very urgent need for territorial expansion. Our turn is coming and is coming soon, if only we will heed our own feudal-minded ones, and will breed fast enough. But, without being aggressors in this sense, we are yet unavoidably drawn into the vortex of a world war inaugurated by the feudal-minded of other nations and unconsciously promoted to a small degree by our own feudal-minded ones by education for feudal-mindedness and for prolific breeding in our people....

"The next world war may possibly be one in which the disadvantaged of all nations will fight the feudal-minded of all nations. Something quite near to such an invitation already has come from Russia. Shall we hasten such a conflict by continuing to preach the sacredness of fecundity and of war? Or shall intelligent restraint of the feudalistic compulsion help us toward a more perfect and peaceful adjustment with the processes that make for the democratization of welfare, with and by intelligent family limitation as one means?"

"The Call" is one of the official papers recognized by the Socialists of America. In 1914, while the race suicide propaganda was being carried on in its columns, lectures to be delivered for its benefit by Eugene V. Debs in many of the cities of New Jersey were advertised in its columns. It is most likely, therefore, that such a splendidly informed leader of the Revolutionists as Debs, like many thousands of members of the rank and file of the party, read some of the articles favoring race suicide. As we have never yet heard of Debs or a single Socialist complaining against the race suicide propaganda so long carried on in the columns of "The Call," we shall, unless the Marxians repudiate this form of immorality of their paper, be forced to conclude that their leader as well as a very large number of his followers intend legalizing this vice if they ever gain control of our country.

In April, 1919, a vile, crimson pamphlet was on sale in the radical book-stores of the middle west. We shall not give the title, for it is too foul and indecent. On page 4 it warns its readers "not to forget this fact, celibacy, absolute continence from want of desire congenial or acquired, monkish asceticism are pathological states, diseased states of mind or body." Further on, we read, on page 10:

"Do not be a suffering Jesus. Do not take him as an example. Do not whine or snuffle, but get ahead in the world while you can. Get lands, property and independence somehow....

"The teachings of Christianity were designed for the castration of the human soul. Christ would make you, not a free man, a hero, and a warrior, but a hireling, a submissive beast of burden, a helot, a nobody. Christianity is cowardice institutionalized and peace-on-earth is the philosophy of the tax gatherer, the usurer, and the international exploiter." On the inner side of the back cover of the foul pamphlet a book is advertised by the "International Socialist Control Association of Chicago," which seems also to publish the crimson pamphlet from which the above quotation was taken. The advertisement of the book is hereby given in part:

"MOTHERS AND FATHERS, ATTENTION.

"The welfare of the world depends upon the bringing up of children.

"Everything depends upon the right start, hence it is your highest duty to see that your children are started right.

"Foremost men say and statistics show the stupendous peril of our political, religious, and educational system. The root of education is not merely knowing how to read and write, but knowing men analytically and scientifically.

"Anything is possible to the man who knows how and why. We develop and plan out your life according to your adaptions and inclinations—no guess work but cold, hard, mathematical facts. We show you how to control, manage, and handle humanity and make it your business to shape men's minds as easily as clay.

"Misery, superstition and poverty must go."

On the back cover sheet of the pamphlet it is stated that the International Socialist Control Association of Chicago is "An organization that teaches the suppressed and downtrodden truth, long controlled by the political and religious machine. The only organization that places health, happiness and marriage upon solid, scientific principles."

In the summer of 1919, "The Call" of New York City, Morris Hillquit's vile publication, became more bold than ever in favoring race suicide. On June 29, 1919, for instance, there appeared a three-column article in the magazine section of the paper, entitled, "The ... League." Parts of the article are hereby quoted:

"Many readers of 'Woman's Sphere' have expressed themselves as eager to know the raison d'etre of The ... League, which is the latest development in the birth control movement.

"The answer is that this new league is started to speed up the birth control movement. Its first aim is to take the question straight to Congress and repeal the Federal statute which prohibits the circulation of contraceptive knowledge. All the restrictive state laws are modeled on this Federal obscenity statute. If that is repealed, the state laws can easily be made to follow suit....

"The repeal of this obnoxious out-of-date legislation is the longest single step toward that end.

"The next step is to get the subject taught in the medical schools, and to have the best possible scientific information wisely and well distributed. Every health agency in the country should have it for the benefit of all who are in need. It should be available at hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, maternity centers, charity organizations and, most of all, through the Federal Health Service and the National Children's Bureau....

"Most Socialists are already convinced of the rightness of birth regulation, but not all of them see the need for working now to free the information. Some say, 'Oh, just work to achieve Socialism and when we have that, things like birth control will come without effort.' ...

"Birth control is a necessary tool for the struggle after social justice. Therefore, Socialists should insist upon it right now, and not be content to wait for the Co-operative Commonwealth to bring it to them, also they should not hesitate to co-operate with non-Socialists to get it. Birth control is a blessing to humanity as a whole. Everybody needs it."

On July 13, 1919, "The Call" published an editorial on Dr. Abraham Jacobi who had recently died. In the course of the editorial the following statement is made:

"Many honors have been showered upon Dr. Jacobi, but probably none will be more brilliant than the fact that he was one of the first to fearlessly discuss the question of birth control."

On July 15, 1919, there appeared in "The Call" the letter of the director of the birth control league similarly praising the late Dr. Jacobi:

"...He did not wait till the baby was born, nor did he limit himself to what is ordinarily known as the prenatal care. He again and again proved his sincere belief that the only way to give babies a fair chance in this world is for the parents to know how to regulate the family birth rate."

"The Call" on July 14, 1919, advertised seven birth control meetings to be held during the week in New York City. Two days later, on July 16, it advertised an open air birth control rally.

In "Woman's Sphere" of the magazine section of "The Call," July 27, 1919, there appears another three-column article favoring race suicide, entitled, "How Shall We Change the Law?" We shall quote briefly:

"Once it is no longer on the statute books that it is unlawful to impart information on the prevention of conception, then people may freely help each other to attain the precious information so urgently needed. The 'limited' bill would give this right only to doctors and possibly to nurses and midwives....

"And while we would not be so unscientific as to deny for a moment that it would be better for every woman to get her advice and instruction concerning the use of contraceptive directly from a doctor, nevertheless it is impossible to overestimate the help men and women could give each other were the free exchange of information on methods of birth control legal instead of illegal....

"We feel quite sure that women will get infinitely more sympathetic help and advice from each other than they will ever get from any free clinic doctors."

"The Call" on July 26, 1919, announced that Anita C. Block, editress of "Woman's Sphere" of the paper, had accepted nomination as a delegate to the August 30, 1919, convention of the Socialist Party in Chicago.

The September 2, 1919, issue of "The Call" states that it received the congratulations of the National Convention of the party then assembled at Chicago. There is, however, no record of any Socialist complaint against its continued race suicide propaganda. We can, therefore, draw our conclusions as to whether the Socialists approve of propagating race suicide.

Away down in Mexico there lives a certain Linn A. E. Gale, a young Socialist who fled to that country from the United States to escape conscription. He is a "brave" fellow, for not only did he shirk his duties as a soldier and flee from his native land to escape jail, but he publishes a Socialist magazine in Mexico City in which he seeks to deprive of life those who have as much right to it as he himself has; in other words he is carrying on a campaign for race suicide. We quote from the August, 1919, issue of his Socialist publication, known as "Gale's Magazine":

"Mr. Felix F. Palavinci,

"Manager of El Universal,

"Mexico City, D. F. Mexico:

"Sir.—It is generally believed that you inspired the recent act of the health department of this city in having confiscated copies of a Spanish translation of ...'s famous book on how to practise birth control, and in sentencing me to the penitentiary when I refused to pay a $500 fine for publishing the said translation, which outrageous and malicious penalty was revoked by order of Mexico's Secretary of State, Manuel Aguirre Berlanga.

"It is hard to believe that a man of your intelligence and supposed progressive ideas would be guilty of such a contemptible act. Yet facts are facts and the facts leave little room for doubt that you were to a large extent, if not almost entirely, responsible. The persistent series of bitter and abusive articles published by your newspaper, El Universal, against birth control and against me personally, constitute convincing proof of your interest in preventing contraceptive information from being diffused among the Mexican people...."

In the same issue of Gale's Mexican Socialist magazine there appears an article entitled, "First Congress of the National Socialist Party of Mexico." Speaking of the party platform to be adopted, Gale says in part:

"Another clause should put the party squarely on record as opposing the recent tyrannical and illegal effort of the Mexico City health department to prevent the dissemination of scientific birth control information among the poorer classes."

Hysterical critics of the New York Assembly have accused the Judiciary Committee of that body of accepting as evidence against the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen every conceivable reproach against the Socialist Party of America which could be scraped together out of its entire history. An inquiry to ascertain the qualifications of Socialists to make the laws of the land assuredly would be justified in searching every possible source of information. But, as a matter of fact, the Judiciary Committee confined its investigation to evidence bearing directly upon the political and governmental aspects of the case.

Had the Judiciary Committee wished to bring out what would most surely and deeply shock the moral sense of the American people—the organized propagation of immorality with which the five suspended Assemblymen were linked—the facts given in this and the preceding chapter show that no difficulty would have been found in digging up overwhelming evidence. The preceding chapter shows the propagation of free-love doctrines through all the publicity departments of the Socialist Party of America. The present chapter shows that the "New York Call," the chief political organ of the New York State branch of the Socialist Party of America, with which the five suspended Assemblymen were most intimately linked, has for years carried on an unclean and indecent propaganda to teach all within its polluting reach to violate one of the laws of the State of New York.



CHAPTER XXII

SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION AND "BORING IN"



The avowed enemies of our constitutional government have within recent years met with stupendous success in persuading the credulous to rely on their extravagant promises and to look forward to the golden era of Socialism with the same bright hopes that little children do to the candies and toys in kidnappers' homes.

If it be asked why the conspirators against our country, religion, family and everything dear to us are so successful in their efforts to undermine the foundations of a grand and glorious nation like our own, the answer is that their astounding progress is due, first, to an exceptional zeal in the propagation of their doctrines, and, secondly, to the deceptive and specious arguments used for gaining recruits.

The extraordinary activity that has secured for the Socialists of the United States by far the greater part of a million votes in several presidential elections, and the acceptance of their revolutionary doctrines by a much larger number of radicals, who for one reason or another do not vote the Marxian ticket, is manifested under many different aspects.

The Socialist Party of the United States in the early part of 1919 contained a little more than 100,000 dues-paying members, enrolled in approximately 7,000 locals and branches. The members of these locals and branches frequently meet to devise means for spreading the doctrines of Karl Marx and for overthrowing the government of our country. It is almost needless to add that their zeal would do great credit to men engaged in a truly noble cause. The American people would be astounded at their activity, should they carefully read, from the first to the last page, a single copy of one of the foremost Socialist papers such as the "New York Call." Socialists are working by the tens of thousands every day, from January 1st to December 31st, endeavoring to undermine our government. They have been doing this for years, and only recently have the American people begun to wake up. Waking up, however, will not suffice. We must act, act quickly and vigorously, before it is too late and before the forces of destruction become too numerous to control.

Supplementing the indoor work of the locals and branches, one cannot but notice the so-called soap-box orators, found on the street corners of nearly every city of importance in the country. The specialty of these men is to preach class hatred and arouse dissatisfaction in their audiences with the present system of government and industry, and after this to assert, but never to prove, that Socialism is the sole remedy for the evils of our time.

It will be well to remember that the revolutionary Socialist Party, even as far back as 1913, published in the United States some 200 or more papers and periodicals in English, German, Bohemian, Polish, Jewish, Slovac, Slavonic, Danish, Italian, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Lettish, Norwegian, Croatian, Russian and Swedish. Attorney General Palmer made the number over 400 in 1919. Among the papers are two important dailies in English, "The Call" of New York City and the "Milwaukee Leader," two dailies[22] in German, two in Bohemian, one in Polish, and one in Yiddish, the "Forward," which in the spring of 1919 had a circulation of about 150,000. The "Appeal to Reason" was once the greatest Socialist weekly in the country having had, in the fall of 1912, a circulation of nearly a million copies. About the latter part of 1917 it became lukewarm in upholding Socialist anti-war principles. As a consequence it lost most of its circulation, and in March, 1920, was still looked upon contemptuously by most members of the Socialist Party.

By the vivid pictures which the revolutionary papers and periodicals draw of the abuses, corruptions and wrongs of our age, they succeed in blinding many American citizens to such an extent that the latter do not realize that they have been caught in the snares of a deceitful and dangerous enemy. Like the soap-box orators, these publications, besides criticising real present-day abuses, frequently lie and exaggerate, and either assert that in the Marxian state man would enjoy the choicest blessings under heaven, or else arrive at this same conclusion by arguing from false and unproven assertions as premises. The Socialist papers and periodicals, notwithstanding their beautifully painted pictures of the visionary state, should in no way incline us towards enlisting under the red flag. For to say nothing of their lies and exaggerations, neither their criticisms of actual present-day wrongs, their unproven assertions of the benefits of Socialism, nor their conclusions drawn from false and unfounded premises, show in any wise that the Marxian state would remedy existing evils and be a source of blessings to our people. Indeed, it would be just as foolish for us to trust in these revolutionary publications as it would be to confide in quacks who should ask us to purchase their so-called remedies merely because they had pointed out the harmful effects of a few drugs sold by a certain apothecary, or because they had claimed excellent healing properties for their own potions.

Not only do the Marxians exert great influence through the papers which they publish, but they help their cause to a great extent by articles published in non-Socialist papers and magazines of the United States.

Another way in which they have distinguished themselves for their activity is by the immense number of books, novels and pamphlets they have written, large numbers of which are in circulation throughout our country and are rapidly undermining the very foundations of our National Government. As these works are found in abundance and are available to all classes of persons in public libraries, our country's library system is supplying its enemies with well-stocked arsenals wherein weapons are kept for the use of those who will one day join the ranks of these national conspirators.