按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Just recently some of us have seen （not slowly； but with a start）
that they are obviously nothing of the kind。 They are； by the nature
of the case； the hobbies of a few rich men。 We have not any need
to rebel against antiquity； we have to rebel against novelty。
It is the new rulers； the capitalist or the editor； who really hold
up the modern world。 There is no fear that a modern king will
attempt to override the constitution； it is more likely that he
will ignore the constitution and work behind its back； he will take
no advantage of his kingly power； it is more likely that he will
take advantage of his kingly powerlessness； of the fact that he
is free from criticism and publicity。 For the king is the most
private person of our time。 It will not be necessary for any one
to fight again against the proposal of a censorship of the press。
We do not need a censorship of the press。 We have a censorship by
the press。
This startling swiftness with which popular systems turn
oppressive is the third fact for which we shall ask our perfect theory
of progress to allow。 It must always be on the look out for every
privilege being abused； for every working right becoming a wrong。
In this matter I am entirely on the side of the revolutionists。
They are really right to be always suspecting human institutions；
they are right not to put their trust in princes nor in any child
of man。 The chieftain chosen to be the friend of the people
becomes the enemy of the people； the newspaper started to tell
the truth now exists to prevent the truth being told。 Here； I say；
I felt that I was really at last on the side of the revolutionary。
And then I caught my breath again： for I remembered that I was once
again on the side of the orthodox。
Christianity spoke again and said： 〃I have always maintained
that men were naturally backsliders； that human virtue tended of its
own nature to rust or to rot； I have always said that human beings
as such go wrong； especially happy human beings； especially proud
and prosperous human beings。 This eternal revolution； this suspicion
sustained through centuries； you （being a vague modern） call the
doctrine of progress。 If you were a philosopher you would call it；
as I do； the doctrine of original sin。 You may call it the cosmic
advance as much as you like； I call it what it isthe Fall。〃
I have spoken of orthodoxy coming in like a sword； here I
confess it came in like a battle…axe。 For really （when I came to
think of it） Christianity is the only thing left that has any real
right to question the power of the well…nurtured or the well…bred。
I have listened often enough to Socialists； or even to democrats；
saying that the physical conditions of the poor must of necessity make
them mentally and morally degraded。 I have listened to scientific
men （and there are still scientific men not opposed to democracy）
saying that if we give the poor healthier conditions vice and wrong
will disappear。 I have listened to them with a horrible attention；
with a hideous fascination。 For it was like watching a man
energetically sawing from the tree the branch he is sitting on。
If these happy democrats could prove their case； they would strike
democracy dead。 If the poor are thus utterly demoralized； it may
or may not be practical to raise them。 But it is certainly quite
practical to disfranchise them。 If the man with a bad bedroom cannot
give a good vote； then the first and swiftest deduction is that he
shall give no vote。 The governing class may not unreasonably say：
〃It may take us some time to reform his bedroom。 But if he is the
brute you say； it will take him very little time to ruin our country。
Therefore we will take your hint and not give him the chance。〃
It fills me with horrible amusement to observe the way in which the
earnest Socialist industriously lays the foundation of all aristocracy；
expatiating blandly upon the evident unfitness of the poor to rule。
It is like listening to somebody at an evening party apologising
for entering without evening dress； and explaining that he had
recently been intoxicated； had a personal habit of taking off
his clothes in the street； and had； moreover； only just changed
from prison uniform。 At any moment； one feels； the host might say
that really； if it was as bad as that； he need not come in at all。
So it is when the ordinary Socialist； with a beaming face；
proves that the poor； after their smashing experiences； cannot be
really trustworthy。 At any moment the rich may say； 〃Very well；
then； we won't trust them；〃 and bang the door in his face。
On the basis of Mr。 Blatchford's view of heredity and environment；
the case for the aristocracy is quite overwhelming。 If clean homes
and clean air make clean souls； why not give the power （for the
present at any rate） to those who undoubtedly have the clean air？
If better conditions will make the poor more fit to govern themselves；
why should not better conditions already make the rich more fit
to govern them？ On the ordinary environment argument the matter is
fairly manifest。 The comfortable class must be merely our vanguard
in Utopia。
Is there any answer to the proposition that those who have
had the best opportunities will probably be our best guides？
Is there any answer to the argument that those who have breathed
clean air had better decide for those who have breathed foul？
As far as I know； there is only one answer； and that answer
is Christianity。 Only the Christian Church can offer any rational
objection to a complete confidence in the rich。 For she has maintained
from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment；
but in man。 Further； she has maintained that if we come to talk of a
dangerous environment； the most dangerous environment of all is the
commodious environment。 I know that the most modern manufacture has
been really occupied in trying to produce an abnormally large needle。
I know that the most recent biologists have been chiefly anxious
to discover a very small camel。 But if we diminish the camel
to his smallest； or open the eye of the needle to its largestif；
in short； we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least
that they could mean； His words must at the very least mean this
that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy。
Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern
society to rags。 The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly
ultimatum to the world。 For the whole modern world is a