A BOOK OF THE MOMENT THE TESTING . PERIOD OF

THE

New York Times.] •

THE summary which the author, or the publishers, puts on the wrapper of this book tells us that the work is : " A survey of mankind which shows the Whites of Western Europe because of their balance and their originating brain, to be the best hope of the world. But at the height of their achievement they are seen to be surrounded by dangers (such as over-population, the coming economic struggle, the hatred of the coloured world, the make-believe called Democracy, and most serious of all, the degenera- tion of their blood through breeding from the unfit)--which, if not resolutely faced, must lead to certain downfall. How these dangers can best be faced and overcome is the main theme of this book."

I will deal with these magnificent generalities in their order. I agree that' the best hope of the world is with the White Races of Western Europe, and for the reason given, namely, because of their balance—their ability to study all views and to trim the boat between them—and of " their originating brain," which I should prefer to call their imagina- tive and creative faculty. The White Races have more power than the meditative Eastern Races of projecting their thoughts forward, and so of realizing which seed will come to fruition and which will be of no avail.

I have also no quarrel with Mr. Curie's view as to the danger of over-population ; but it is surely .an over-statement to speak of the " hatred of the Coloured world " for the Whites. What is called hatred would be more scientifically described as impossibility of a rapport between them.

I now come to my chief point of difference with Mr. Curie.

I believe, as positively as one can believe anything, that when Mr. Curie and the large number of people whom he here represents talk about " the make-believe called Democracy" they are talking nonsense. True Democracy is not a make-believe. You can make an ugly, stupid man of straw and label hlin, " This old silly is Democracy " ; but that proves nothing. Democracy means the Rule of the Majority, i.e. Folkright ; and Folkright is Anglo-Saxon for justice.

It is just, it is reasonable, and it is convenient when there is a conflict of opinion in a community to say that we must count heads and go by the will of the majority. The majority must decide whether the village pump is to be painted red or blue. It may be very stupid to say that it is to be painted red ; but it is better to let the reds carry it than to have a fight over . the matter—a fight which is based upon the assumption that the blues know better what the colour ought to be. If there were a perfectly clear dividing line in ordinary human affairs between right and wrong, and if the assumption that-the blue view is the true one could not be gainsaid, then, no doubt, it ought to prevail. But in most matters who dare make such assumptions ? The exercise of the Will of the Majority, may, of course, have bad results ; but, on the whole, experience shows that it has better results- than the

Will of the Minority—which is the alternative. In the case of majority rule, the minority have at any rate the opportunity to use reason and persuasion to turn themselves into a majority. In the case of minority rule, such a course is by the nature

of things not open.. A ruling minority has got to keep its power by physical force. It has no other way.

I am entirely with Mr. Curie when he says that the most serious of the trials and difficulties of the white race is " the degeneration of their blood -through breeding from the unfit." Even if the biologist is able to some extent to " counter " him with the declaration that every new-born baby starts physically with a new chance, the fact remains that the bringing up - of too many babies will as a rule be in the hands of degenerates, physical and mental.

Mr. Curie finally tells us that the main theme of his book is to show how these dangers can be best faced and overcome.

I cannot meet 'him in detail throughout, but, speaking ,generally, I believe that most of his remedies are as faulty as his diagnosis, though they are thoroughly well meant,

and incidentally many of them have flashes of good sense. An example of what appears to me to be his wrong- headedness is his declaration,

" Indiscriminate, free education must work havoc with human affairs. It is everywhere bringing about discontent. . . . The conclusion must be that free education is a two-edged sword. For the right people it is the highest boon we can give ; for the wrong, who are in a majority, a waste of time and money."

I Icannot eonceive anything more fallacious, mischievous; or ditngerOus, than this view. If Mr. Curie had been as close a student of the past as he is of the present he could hardly have helped seeing that the experience of mankind is against hint on every-point. Consider his first complaint, that educa- tionlbrings about discontent. Let us be content that it does. Without discontent there can be no improvment in the human race, and therefore it has justly been described as

" divine." It was because men were discontented with walking that they tamed the horse, because they were discontented with the slowness and inefficiency of the horse that they invented, first the steam' engine, then the motor, and finally the aeroplane. It was because they were dis- contented with the evils of slavery that they came to see that slavery was the supreme crime against humanity. When Mr. Curie goes on to say that discontent makes for bitterness, jealousy, and anarchy, he is palpably wrong. Much the most bitter , and injurious revolutions that the world has known have been in States full of ignorant men. Take as proof post-War history. There have been virtual revolutions in half the States in Europe, but only in Russia and Hungary has the scene been deluged with blood. In Russia only ten or fifteen per cent. of the population are literate. In Gerniany, where the whole population is educated, the revolutionary violence was least, though the excuses for violence and destruction were scattered in plenty through the Reich.

There is a luciferous story worth recording on this point.

Some years after the Franco-Prussian War Bismarck, in company with Count Schuvaloff, the Russian statesman and diplomat, were riding down the lines of troops before a great Imperial review. They saw the German officers beating their men into strict alignment with the fiats of their swords, kicking and cursing them till tears of misery and humiliation rolled down the cheeks of their victims. Schuvaloff turned to his host and said, " We couldn't. do that in Russia. Our peasants, if treated like that, would kill their officers where they stood." Bismarck's reply was characteristically brutal, " Oh ! we have no trouble here. All this canaille have been to the University." As educated men they knew that a sudden outbreak would do no good, and must lead to death. -Education is an anodyne, not a provocative stimulant. If you could get the truth out of the revolutionary agitator, he would tell you that the people he likes to work upon are a purely illiterate crowd. Men whose reasons have been trained are always apt to differ from you. A crowd of utterly ignorant men can be whistled backwards and forwards by a few heady words. Instead of less education, we want more.

To say that free education is saddling the State more and more with parasites is preposterous. The parasitic man is the man who flourishes in autocracies and tyrannies. Mr. Curie has a perfect right to say, and in many ways I should agree with him, that we give the wrong education ; but educa- tion full and free we must have if we are to prevent a return to anarchy or tyranny. Look at America, perhaps the best educated country in the world, even better than Germany, for it has civic and political as well .as literary education.

Without doubt the social order is more stably constituted there than anywhere else.

I must not leave Mr. Curie's naive and yet suggestive and stnpulating book without noting his warning as to the deep

hatred of the Whites which has developed among the Black and Yellow peoples. That is a serious fact, and based, I fear, on something essential and primordial. Else how came it that mankind drifted apart into the three divisions of White, Yellow, and Black, each with its own lands, isolated so strictly that for many centuries there was little or nothing that could be called intercourse ? That each colour area remained self-contained seems to indicate some underlying negative

force or repulsion. The problem before us is, Can we overcome this, or is there another modus virendi ?

J. ST. LOE STRACHEY*