Considering the questionable
reputation of the Rothschild family, I was surprised to find an inspirational
piece connected with one of the family members.Dated 9 Sept 1911, it is a handwritten alphabetical list of humorous
good advice, entitled 'Baron Rothschild's Maxims, framed and hung in
the Bank, recommended to young men who wished to get on'. And an admirable list it is.
However, it was probably the work of clerks of the
London bank, rather than Nathaniel, 1st Lord Rothschild (1840-1915), who was
then senior partner, N M Rothschild & Sons.
Attend carefully to details of your business. Be prompt in all things. Consider well, then decide positively. Dare to do right; fear to do wrong. Endure trials patiently Fight life’s battles bravely, manfully. Go not into the society of the vicious. Hold integrity sacred. Injure not another’s reputation, or business. Join hands only with the virtuous. Keep your mind from evil thoughts. Lie not for any consideration. Make few acquaintances. Never try to appear what you are not. Observe good manners. Pay your debts promptly. Question not the veracity of a friend. Respect the counsel of your parents. Sacrifice money, rather than principle. Touch not, taste not, handle not intoxicating drink. Use your leisure time for improvement. Venture not upon the threshold of wrong. Watch carefully over your passions. Xtend to everyone a kindly salutation. Yield not to discouragement. Zealously labour for the right.
The physicist Freeman Dyson had the ability to think for
himself.
Hence, he ran afoul of the
so-called consensus when he joined 700 other scientists as a signatory to the
World Climate Declaration which declared that there is NO “Climate Emergency.” According to this heretical document:
Climate science
should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In
particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not
the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully
dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses,
assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc.
Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe
what the model makers have put in. This is
precisely the problem of
today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science
has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical
science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate
models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis
to empirical science.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has
varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases.
The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that
we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by
IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real
world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate
change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely
plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases
such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the
atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life
on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to
all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is
beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in
the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for
agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is
intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or
making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation
measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic
realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause
for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy
proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we
have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be
‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times.
In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and
people care about their environment.
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming
is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate
model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers
predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in
meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
But I have studied the climate models and I know what they
can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very
good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They
do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the
biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real
world that we live in.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we
do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned
building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure
what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the
climate model experts end up believing their own models.
1. The Need for Heretics
In the modern world, science and society often interact in a
perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes
political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide
answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide
answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry,
but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give
confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen
as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk
publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly
than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up
believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do
not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific
dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why
heretics who question the dogmas are needed.
As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions.
Science is organized unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange
things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do
the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is
predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking
as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are
science-fiction rather than science. The predictions of science-fiction writers
are notoriously inaccurate. Their purpose is to imagine what might happen
rather than to describe what will happen. I will be telling stories that
challenge the prevailing dogmas of today. The prevailing dogmas may be right,
but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world
always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am
heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone
to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.
We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any
danger of being burned at the stake. But unfortunately I am an old heretic. Old
heretics do not cut much ice. When you hear an old heretic talking, you can
always say, “Too bad he has lost his marbles”, and pass on. What the world
needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of the people who read
this piece may fill that role.
Two years ago, I was at Cornell University celebrating the
life of Tommy Gold, a famous astronomer who died at a ripe old age. He was famous
as a heretic, promoting unpopular ideas that usually turned out to be right.
Long ago I was a guinea-pig in Tommy’s experiments on human hearing. He had a
heretical idea that the human ear discriminates pitch by means of a set of
tuned resonators with active electromechanical feedback. He published a paper
explaining how the ear must work, [Gold, 1948].
He described how the vibrations
of the inner ear must be converted into electrical signals which feed back into
the mechanical motion, reinforcing the vibrations and increasing the sharpness
of the resonance. The experts in auditory physiology ignored his work because
he did not have a degree in physiology. Many years later, the experts
discovered the two kinds of hair-cells in the inner ear that actually do the
feedback as Tommy had predicted, one kind of hair-cell acting as electrical
sensors and the other kind acting as mechanical drivers. It took the experts
forty years to admit that he was right. Of course, I knew that he was right,
because I had helped him do the experiments.
Later in his life, Tommy Gold promoted another heretical
idea, that the oil and natural gas in the ground come up from deep in the
mantle of the earth and have nothing to do with biology. Again the experts are
sure that he is wrong, and he did not live long enough to change their minds.
Just a few weeks before he died, some chemists at the Carnegie Institution in
Washington did a beautiful experiment in a diamond anvil cell, [Scott et al.,
2004]. They mixed together tiny quantities of three things that we know exist
in the mantle of the earth, and observed them at the pressure and temperature
appropriate to the mantle about two hundred kilometers down. The three things
were calcium carbonate which is sedimentary rock, iron oxide which is a
component of igneous rock, and water.
These three things are certainly present
when a slab of subducted ocean floor descends from a deep ocean trench into the
mantle. The experiment showed that they react quickly to produce lots of
methane, which is natural gas. Knowing the result of the experiment, we can be
sure that big quantities of natural gas exist in the mantle two hundred
kilometers down. We do not know how much of this natural gas pushes its way up
through cracks and channels in the overlying rock to form the shallow
reservoirs of natural gas that we are now burning. If the gas moves up rapidly
enough, it will arrive intact in the cooler regions where the reservoirs are
found. If it moves too slowly through the hot region, the methane may be
reconverted to carbonate rock and water. The Carnegie Institute experiment
shows that there is at least a possibility that Tommy Gold was right and the
natural gas reservoirs are fed from deep below. The chemists sent an E-mail to
Tommy Gold to tell him their result, and got back a message that he had died
three days earlier. Now that he is dead, we need more heretics to take his
place.
2. Climate and Land Management
The main subject of this piece is the problem of climate
change. This is a contentious subject, involving politics and economics as well
as science. The science is inextricably mixed up with politics. Everyone agrees
that the climate is changing, but there are violently diverging opinions about
the causes of change, about the consequences of change, and about possible remedies.
I am promoting a heretical opinion, the first of three heresies that I will
discuss in this piece.
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming
is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate
model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers
predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in
meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the
climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of
fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of
the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the
clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and
forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real
world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It
is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run
computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really
happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model
experts end up believing their own models.
There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting
warmer, but the warming is not global. I am not saying that the warming does
not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to
understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated.
They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and
more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and
public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the
oceans, not to mention easy problems such as the timely construction of adequate
dikes around the city of New Orleans.
I will discuss the global warming problem in detail because
it is interesting, even though its importance is exaggerated. One of the main
causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting
from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. To
understand the movement of carbon through the atmosphere and biosphere, we need
to measure a lot of numbers. I do not want to confuse you with a lot of
numbers, so I will ask you to remember just one number. The number that I ask
you to remember is one hundredth of an inch per year. Now I will explain what
this number means. Consider the half of the land area of the earth that is not
desert or ice-cap or city or road or parking-lot. This is the half of the land
that is covered with soil and supports vegetation of one kind or another. Every
year, it absorbs and converts into biomass a certain fraction of the carbon
dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere. Biomass means living creatures,
plants and microbes and animals, and the organic materials that are left behind
when the creatures die and decay.
We don’t know how big a fraction of our
emissions is absorbed by the land, since we have not measured the increase or
decrease of the biomass. The number that I ask you to remember is the increase
in thickness, averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, of the
biomass that would result if all the carbon that we are emitting by burning
fossil fuels were absorbed. The average increase in thickness is one hundredth
of an inch per year.
The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of
exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the
carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in
the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten
percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass
growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices
such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at
least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the
biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the
atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we
can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this
calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem
of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of
atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.
Here is another heretical thought. Instead of calculating
world-wide averages of biomass growth, we may prefer to look at the problem
locally. Consider a possible future, with China continuing to develop an
industrial economy based largely on the burning of coal, and the United States
deciding to absorb the resulting carbon dioxide by increasing the biomass in
our topsoil. The quantity of biomass that can be accumulated in living plants
and trees is limited, but there is no limit to the quantity that can be stored
in topsoil. To grow topsoil on a massive scale may or may not be practical,
depending on the economics of farming and forestry. It is at least a
possibility to be seriously considered, that China could become rich by burning
coal, while the United States could become environmentally virtuous by
accumulating topsoil, with transport of carbon from mine in China to soil in
America provided free of charge by the atmosphere, and the inventory of carbon
in the atmosphere remaining constant. We should take such possibilities into
account when we listen to predictions about climate change and fossil fuels. If
biotechnology takes over the planet in the next fifty years, as computer
technology has taken it over in the last fifty years, the rules of the climate
game will be radically changed.
My
personal theology is described in the Gifford lectures that I gave at
Aberdeen in Scotland in 1985, published under the title, Infinite
In All Directions. Here is a brief summary of my thinking. The
universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The
first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study
atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience
of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole.
Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents
rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between
alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum
mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to
make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a
whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the
growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God.
God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our
comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of
world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds
that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of
speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the
unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental
apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds
may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place
in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature
of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't
say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific
evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.
I
do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing.
When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of
forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God
loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a
principle of maximum diversity.
The
principle of maximum diversity says that the laws of nature, and the
initial conditions at the beginning of time, are such as to make the
universe as interesting as possible. As a result, life is possible but not
too easy. Maximum diversity often leads to maximum stress. In the end we
survive, but only by the skin of our teeth. This is the confession of
faith of a scientific heretic. Perhaps I may claim as evidence for
progress in religion the fact that we no longer burn heretics.
All
through our history, we have been changing the world with our technology.
Our technology has been of two kinds, green and grey. Green technology is
seeds and plants, gardens and vineyards and orchards, domesticated horses
and cows and pigs, milk and cheese, leather and wool. Grey technology is
bronze and steel, spears and guns, coal and oil and electricity,
automobiles and airplanes and rockets, telephones and computers.
Civilization began with green technology, with agriculture and
animal-breeding, ten thousand years ago. Then, beginning about three
thousand years ago, grey technology became dominant, with mining and
metallurgy and machinery. For the last five hundred years, grey technology
has been racing ahead and has given birth to the modern world of cities
and factories and supermarkets. The dominance of grey technology is now coming to an end.
After
sketching his program for the scientific revolution that he foresaw, Bacon
ends his account with a prayer: "Humbly we pray that this mind may be
steadfast in us, and that through these our hands, and the hands of others
to whom thou shalt give the same spirit, thou wilt vouchsafe to endow the
human family with new mercies". That is still a good prayer for all
of us as we begin the twenty-first century.
Science
and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to
understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here.
The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same
universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out
essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
In the
little town of Princeton where I live, we have more than twenty churches
and at least one synagogue, providing different forms of worship and
belief for different kinds of people. They do more than any other
organizations in the town to hold the community together. Within this
community of people, held together by religious traditions of human
brotherhood and sharing of burdens, a smaller community of professional
scientists also flourishes.
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
-Winston Churchill, 1948
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. — Winston Churchill, 1945
1936...Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had recently accepted the Democrat nomination leading up to his second term as president, was steering away from conventional interpretations of the Constitution with his New Deal programs. In England, Winston Churchill was compelled to write an article defending America’s founding document. “What Good’s a Constitution?”was published in August 1936:
No one can think clearly or sensibly about the vast and
burning topic without in the first instance making up his mind upon the
fundamental issue: Does he value the State above the citizen, or the citizen
above the State? Does a government exist for the individual, or do individuals
exist for the government? One must recognize that the world today is deeply
divided upon this....
All nations agree that in time of war, where the life and independence of the
country are at stake, every man and woman must be ready to work and, if need
be, die in defense of these supreme objects; and that the government must be
empowered to call upon them to any extent. But what we are now considering is
the existence of this principle in times of peace and its erection into a
permanent system to which the life of great communities must be made to
conform. The argument is used that economic crises are only another form of
war, and as they are always with us, or can always be alleged to be with us, it
is claimed that we must live our lives in a perpetual state of war, only
without actual shooting, bayoneting, and cannonading. This is, of course, the
Socialist view....
Once the rulers of a country can create a war atmosphere in time of peace, can
allege that the State is in danger and appeal to all the noblest national
instincts, as well as its basest, it is only in very solidly established
countries that the rights of the citizens can be preserved....
Churchill elaborated on the damages inflicted on freedom when socialist policies were imposed on the people of Germany and Russia.
In the United States, also, economic crisis has led to an
extension of the activities of the Executive and to the pillorying, by
irresponsible agitators, of certain groups and sections of the population as
enemies of the rest. There have been efforts to exalt the power of the central
government and to limit the rights of individuals. It has been sought to
mobilize behind this reversal of the American tradition at once the selfishness
of the pensioners, or the would-be pensioners of Washington, and the patriotism
of all who wish to see their country prosperous once more.
It is when passions
and cupidities are thus unleashed and, at the same time, the sense of public
duty rides high in the hearts of all men and women of good will that the
handcuffs can be slipped upon the citizens and they can be brought into
subjugation to the executive government. Then they are led to believe that, if
they will only yield themselves, body, mind, and soul, to the State, and obey
unquestioningly its injunctions, some dazzling future of riches and power will
open to them....
I take the opposite view. I hold that governments are meant to be, and must
remain, the servants of the citizens; that states and federations only come
into existence and can only be justified by preserving the 'life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness' in the homes and families of individuals. The true right
and power rest in the individual. He gives of his right and power to the State,
expecting and requiring thereby in return to receive certain advantages and
guarantees....
One of the greatest reasons for avoiding war is that it is destructive to
liberty. But we must not be led into adopting for ourselves the evils of war in
time of peace upon any pretext whatever....
Civilization means that officials and authorities, whether uniformed or not,
whether armed or not, are made to realize that they are servants and not
masters. Socialism or overweening State life, whether in peace or war, is only
sharing miseries and not blessings. Every self-respecting citizen in every country
must be on his guard lest the rulers demand of him in time of peace sacrifices
only tolerable in a period of war for national self-preservation.
A very young Winston Churchill
Decades earlier, Churchill had confronted socialism. These excerpts are from a speech he delivered at Kinnaird Hall, Dundee in May 1908, while seeking election to Parliament:
To the revolutionary Socialist I do not appeal as the Liberal candidate for Dundee. I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. [Cheers.]
There is a great gulf fixed. It is not only a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. There are many steps we have to take which our Socialist opponents or friends, whichever they like to call themselves, will have to take with us; but there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward.
Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.]
Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.]
Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.]
These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don’t think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play – a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play – in relation to men and States. [Cheers.]
Ah, gentlemen, I don’t want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists – a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common – is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.]
They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.]
They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way – “You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite.” [Cheers.]
Although I have tried my very best to understand these propositions, I have never been able to imagine the mechanical heart in the Socialist world which is to replace the ordinary human heart that palpitates in our breasts. What motive is to induce the men, not for a day, or an hour, or a year, but for all their lives, to make a supreme sacrifice of their individuality?
What motive is to induce the Scotsmen who spread all over the world and make their way by various paths to eminence and power in every land and climate to make the great and supreme sacrifice of their individuality? I have heard of loyalty to a Sovereign. We have heard of love of country. Ah, but it is to be a great cosmopolitan, republic. We have heard of love of family and wives and children. These are the mere weaknesses of the bad era in which we live.
We have heard of faith in a world beyond this when all its transitory pleasures and perils shall have passed away, a hope that carries serene consolation to the heart of men. Ah, but they deny its existence. [Laughter.] And what then are we to make this sacrifice for? It is for the sake of society.
And what is society? I will tell you what society is. Translated into concrete terms, Socialistic “society” is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent election, and whose officials in consequence would look on humanity through innumerable grills and pigeon-holes and across innumerable counters, and say to them, “Tickets, please.” [Laughter.] Truly this grey old world has never seen so grim a joke. [Applause.]
Now, ladies and gentlemen, no man can be either a collectivist or an individualist. He must be both; everybody must be both a collectivist and an individualist. For certain of our affairs we must have our arrangements in common. Others we must have sacredly individual and to ourselves. [Cheers.]
We have many good things in common. You have the police, the army, the navy, and officials – why, a President of the Board of Trade you have in common. [Applause.] But we don’t eat in common; we eat individually. [Laughter.] And we don’t ask the ladies to marry us in common. [Laughter.]
And you will find the truth lies in these matters, as it always lies in difficult matters, midway between extreme formulae. It is in the nice adjustment of the respective ideas of collectivism and individualism that the problem of the world and the solution of that problem lie in the years to come. [Applause.]
But I have no hesitation in saying that I am on the side of those who think that a greater collective element should be introduced into the State and municipalities. I should like to see the State undertaking new functions, particularly stepping forward into those spheres of activity which are governed by an element of monopoly. [Applause.]
Your tramways and so on; your great public works, which are of a monopolistic and privileged character there I see a wide field for State enterprise to embark upon. But when we are told to exalt and admire a philosophy which destroys individualism and seeks to replace it by collectivism, I say that is a monstrous and imbecile conception which can find no real foothold in the brains and hearts – and the hearts are as trustworthy as the brains – in the hearts of sensible people. [Loud cheers.]
A century ago, the world was struggling with a devastating
pandemic.
Visit any old cemetery in Western
North Carolina, examine the death dates on the gravestones, and you will
recognize the impact of “Spanish Flu” which claimed more American lives than
the World War just winding down.
October 1918 had some parallels to March 2020, as the influenza
dominated the pages of newspapers.A
Baptist minister in North Carolina shared his perspective on the disease that
was sweeping the planet:
Gastonia (NC) Gazette, October 21, 1918
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? To the Editor of The Gazette:
May it not be that the present epidemic sweeping over the
country and taking such a large toll of human lives in the training camps and from the
civilian population has been sent upon us to teach us our dependence upon God
and to humble us before Him. It has
often been the case in the history of God's dealings with His people, that some
scourge or calamity of some kind had to be sent to bring the people to a
realization of their dependence upon a higher power.
Instances of this could be multiplied from the Bible and
secular history, and such calamities have always come for the two-fold purpose
of rebuking the sin of the people and causing them to turn to God in humble
dependence.
Europe had forgotten God; America was losing sight of Him. The devotees
bowing before the goddess of pleasure and the Mammon of this world were
Increasing rapidly. The war was sent as a rebuke to the sin or the world. We
are Just beginning to feel it in this country, though England, France, and
Germany, as well as other countries, have lost the very flower of their young manhood.
Then the epidemic of Influenza came. It
swept over Europe and is now raging in this country.
What does it mean? It
is easy enough to say that it is due to the violation of certain physical laws.
And the atheist will claim that God has nothing to do with it at all.But
many of us can see that God is again rebuking us for our sins, and telling us
that we should bow before Him. Are we
going to do it or shall we go on in our sin until this scourge has done its
worst?
We do not know what will be sent next. But undoubtedly something will come, unless
the people turn to the Lord. The prophet
Amos tells us how God visited one calamity after another upon the people of
Israel, each more severe than the preceding one.
There was "famine, failure of water supply, blasting
and mildew," the sword, and last of all they were to meet God In the judgment.
The people everywhere should bow before God in confession of sin, and call on
Him for pardon. America should be on her face.
We should pray, and continue to
pray until we feel the burden of the world's sin and suffering. And then the
light from our Heavenly Father's face will break through the clouds and drive
away the mists.
The Limits of Politics
-
Last week brought us the image of a half-naked man, painted and crowned
with buffalo horns, howling from the speaker’s dais in the House chamber of
the U...
The Bad Boy of American Fiction
-
The latest installment in an ongoing interview series with contributing
editor Mark Bauerlein. Carl Rollyson joins the podcast to discuss the
second volu...
The Mailed Fist Cometh
-
“For my friends, anything.
For my enemies, the law.”
That epigram is attributed to a fellow named Oscar Benevides. Señor
Benevides during the 1930s w...
The Fear of the Past
-
*"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look
forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."*
THE LAST FEW ...
How President Trump is Lincolnesque
-
We must accept the results of universal suffrage, and not try to make it
appear that we can elect fine gentlemen. We shall have coarse men, with a
fair ch...