PRICE: ONE SHILLING ■ PUBLI^ÊÉf-^P; '^XÏttO^h^^f RB HEID" The êditörs of this bookl et have published a great number or popular -studies about bolchevism as a wörld - danger and aböutifhe trü^^tu^ètiojrtiri Russïa. Almost all'lri Dutch, and some in Frénch. In English ohly SOMETHINjG ÖN Is one in Russia exposed to sevërè^f^^pi^ioiï iraereiy on: - thef^round that one is a believër? If possible more translatiöns will beïnéftle in jli'e future. OUR LONDON ADDRESS IS: | | ST. S^ÉgjpNïé' HOUSE £ ïWE^Ï^NSTER-ï£)N0QN S. W. i SOMETHING ON COMMUNISM. BY THE REV. F. J. KROP D.D. MINISTER OF THE REFORMED CHURCH ROTTERDAM (HOLLAND) PUBLISHED BY: „GELOOF EN VRIJHEID" 1STE PUNACKERSTRAAT No. 102—106 CHAPTER I. The Perversion of Communism. Taken as an ideal Communism is a system of human society considered by its adherants as a model society. All means of production for the community; all products by (in the name of) and for the community; everything produced divided into equal proportions among the members of the community. And as a result.... no poverty any longer. Equal prosperity' for everybody In this way this idealistic dream might be briefly characterised. A dream! For many a one is of opinion that this ideal being realised, not equal prosperity, but equal distress would be the result for all. Meanwhile, the idealist who expects that this communism would benifit mankind, may be mistaken; nevertheless, he may be a respectable man with noble ideas. But those who pursue ideals are of ten disillusioned by reality! The means of production are — for the greater part by far — in the possession of private persons. This is a characteristic of the much detested capitalism. In order to attain to communism, the means of production must be taken away from these persons, i.e. — according to our notion still in vogue — they must be robbed of those private persons 'who don't want to part with them. In the preceding century already experiments were made to establish small, communistic societies in which private persons voluntarily handed over their property (i.e. their means of production) in behalf of the community. These experiments have caused a good deal of disappointment. The Russian Revolution was an experiment on a large scale, which — in our opinion — is also condemned to result in a failure; but, before its failure will become a fact, it may ruin a great part of the world. Every sudden, unnatural, inmoderate and artificial growth undermines the vital energy and may cause death. Such a growth Communism has experienced. This system of human society, of which — despite its theoretical value — the practical adoption had still proved to be impossible, was suddenly introduced in a country, in which there live many millions of human beings who had never yet heard of Communism and for whom a „small private" property — had been an ideal tül that moment. And not satisfied with this, they wish to introducé it by intrigue and violence, into the whole world against the wish of 99/100 of the inhabitants of it. This artificial, violent extension has withered the salubrious saps which were (who would dare to deny it) present in the original system and has made Communism the monstrous thing we call Bolshevism and which has nothing in common with the idealistic Communism. A human doctrine which was intended to promote the welfare of the community (the name communism proves this) has been perversed and became the tyranny of a very small minority. It is not our intention to explain the doctrine which theoretically aims at making common property of the means of production and the results of labour. That would be wandering from our subject. We want to write about communism as it shows itself at present in its real shape all over the world, i.e. about the corrupted Communism which is called Bolshevism. Whereas Communism, according to its character and destination has been intended for the many, Bolshevism is intended for the few, seeing that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitably connected with it. That this has become the case in practice, follows from the nature of things. Whoever will make the means of production (capital) common property must deprive its possessors of it. For this task only those who themselves possess no capital are fit. And those people are found in the first place among the proletarians. What we have exactly tö understand by a proletarian, nobody knows. We might say that they are those who possess nothing but their children. That would be at least grammatically right. There is an ignorant and also a learned proletariat, by which we have principally to understand those people who have had a learned education, but who have to toil with their brains for their daily bread as others do with their hands, and cannot attain more than what is strictly necessary. Now it has always appeared dangerous to us to entrust the dictatorship to a class of people which cannot be exactly defined. This would be in fact impossible, when they tried to introducé the dictatorship of the proletariat indeed. But in reality we find in the Bolshevist state of perfect joy only the dictatorship of some people who say that they represent the proletariat. And woe to the proletarian who makes bold to think otherwise than these few men desire that he shail think! By the theoretically decidedly anti-communistic joining together of the dictatorship of the proletariat to what is called communism at present, the element of violence in Bolshevism has been brought prominently forward. Matters have come to such a pass that the doctrine is proclaimed: Destroy first the existing system of the world, then build up a new one! This device has found many disciples and — remark able enough — many female disciples. There are only two possibilities: either it is proclaimed by fanatics of weak intellect, repectable perhaps as far as their intentions are concemed, but unreliable in their childlike simplicity; or it serves to conceal the intention of those who — in destroying the existing state of affairs — think of their own prof it in the first place and who put, with a pitiful smile the army of blockheads to the chariot of their egoism. For this second group of people we don't write. For the first we do, for it is necessary that those people are undeceived. These latter suppose evidently that the destruction and the reconstruction meant here, are, it is true, a difficult task, but yet one which will be accomplished in a measurable space of time. Even as for the destruction (suppose no resistance is made), this would not answer to expectations, but the reconstruction on the mins of the old things, would require ages. And nobody knows, owing to the conflicts in the circle of the human race, what the new world would be like. It might turn out quite otherwise than those dreamers of airy castles suppose. And before it takes a new shape, ages of war, blood and suffering must elapse. Destruction is the weapon of a lunatic. CHAPTER n. Bolshevist mentality. When in the anxious days of Germany during the War, Lenin and other Swiss Communists were allowed to go to Russia by Germany, it was the intention of the short-sighted German Statesmen of those days, to bring the enemies in difficulties. They did not realise, that in this manner they gave the impulse to a dangerous attempt to come to the world-revolution, to an inexorable conflict with religion, order and morality. We have to remain fair, however, and to recognize, that in those times only few people were distinctly aware of the consequences of that step. But warnings were not wanting. Plans, such as the Bolshevists in Russia try to realize at present, are older than one generally would think. One of my friends, who always gives me valuable information about what occupies us at present, and also acquitted himself in connection with these articles, communicated to me, that, twenty-five years ago now, he was brought into contact with a young Hungarian, who was extremely red in his political opinions, studied in Switzerland and had made the acquaintance of many Russian refugees there. This young man sketched him brightly coloured pictures of the future, of the fall of the Czarism and the triumph of the revolution in Russia. And once, in his ardent enthusiasm he added the following words to it: "Don't fancy we are content. We have to go farther into the world! I should be able to talk with you of plans at which you would be astonished very much. But all this must be kept a secret as yet." In the light of later events, it is clear, what was meant here. The world-revolution was being prepared then already. And it is this worldrevolution, to which Bolshevism strives openly now. For Lenin has said it very distinctly already. 'Tf we don't succeed in, involving the non-Russian countries in the Bolshevist movement withui a short time, then it will be also lost in Russia." Therefore Bolshevism is propagated all over the world now under the name of Communism and by the most blameworthy means. Therefore the world stands before a period of crisis and danger now: for the present society it means: victory or destruction and though one may be firm as a rock in one's conviction, that it will be: victory, how much blood will be shed and how many tears will flow yet before the decision will falL Therefore, finally, it ia a crime against society to remain indifferent in this cause, as they had been almost anywhere until before a short time, especially in our country (Holland). Of late years a change has come in it. The eyes begin to be opened for the true signification of Bolshevism, and that cannot be otherwise, for in the long run it cannot hide its true nature. The great thing will be to recognize it, before it is too late. Is it too late already? This question has been put now and then by some dejected people, when they stood over against the cynic indifference of the great mass. We think to be allowed to reply in the negative. It is decidedly not too late. Were this the case, the lamentations of the communistic press about the "instigations" of which those on the part of the capitalists are said to render themselves guilty against the poor, innocent philanthropists, who are called Bolshevists, would sound much less intensively. It is of course very well known on the other side, that the whole Bolshevism has been founded on the instigation of „the proletariat" against the existing order. As soon as one makes objections against that, these objections, however, are represented as a heinous instigation against the Bolshevist state! This is a transposition of the facts (happily not a very clever one), by which the truth is falsified. As a characteristic of the present war Moscow wages to make the world-revolution — a facl, you can bring forward the surprising regularity with which, what Moscow wishes and does, is represented as a reaction on the wishes and the acts of the so called capitalistic countries. They thoroughly realize that the assaulter's tactics to represent himself as being attacked, always has had a great success with unsuspecting people. The naivity of the somewhat scatter-brained idealist is boundless sometimes. It often makes the impression of impudence, owing to the singular certainty, with which things which one would like, but which are only pure products of fancy, are said to exist. This sublime idealism is based on idle fancy, and idle fancy represented as reality is a lie. In our explanation, we will try to throw light upon the contrast between phantasy and reality in Bolshevism. As a rule it may be said that all sorts of splendid things are fancied in the form of utopian schemes. At the same time they are represented then as reality and realized already. The examples are ready to hand. Each individual has a right to 8 M2. of dwelling-space for himself in the Soviet Republic, this has been triumphantly proclaimed to the world. But every right is a chimera, when it cannot be realized, and a right which is kept from somebody may be worse than injustice. What has become of that 8 M2., everybody knows now. 'Treating of the mentality of Bolshevism: the community between this system and lie is in the first place and most strongly striking. The notion of "truth" is, according to Lenin's doctrine, an old-fashioned one, which belongs to the „bourgeoisie" and by itself is an impudant lie. The difference between truth and lie ought to be obliterated. The human deeds ought to be ruled by an other contrast: "What is allowed? What is forbidden?" And what is allowed now? All that is in the interest of Bolshevism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anything, including that which we, old fashioned people, call lie, fraud, crime. Those who seldom or never heard of this subject, are perhaps apt to shrug their shoulders here. Not at all, kind and naive fellow-citizens. We are here face to face to an absolute, truth which cannot to be denied and is put down and developed in the principles of Bolshevism. Two things follow: Ie. that Bolshevism is not a political system as each other political system; but that it must be looked upon as a system of corruption and crime, when at least you remain to attach to these words the signification which mankind did up till now; 2e. that never can be believed in the assurances or promises of a Bolshevist or a Bolshevist union. The seriousness, with which the Russian men in power deny or confirm a thing in the papers, therefore has decidedly something amustng! They have hardley any value. Are they given with particular vehemence, then one would rather be apt to believe the re verse; so far they have some value, but an other one than what was meant. And when the Bolshevists in Russia and the bolshevist Communists outside Russia rage so noisily against the lies and the deceit of „the capitalistic exploiters", then always a feeling of astonishment masters him who understands well. The Bolshevist war for power is exactly based on lie and deceit.... And the Bolshevists act as if they are proud of it. The leaders have declared this openly them- selves. But by that and that is a mistake which they can't make good again — they placed themselves and their system outside the society of nations. That seems a hollow phrase. In reality it is the germ of destruction. Bolshevism which will destruct, will die itself by its isolation. Not in vain Lenin doctrines (as we have seen): "Soon also Bolshevism in other countries, or we will be lost in Russia". CHARTER m. Communism and Commerce. In our preceding chapter we spoke about the fact that by acknowledging frankly lies and deceit to be permitted unless for its own interests — Bolshevism has placed itself without the com- munity of the nations. Not only in a moral, but also in a material sense. A prudent merchant e.g. will be on his guard against entering into relations with somebody who admits frankly that he has no objection against making use of deceit and lies if only he sees that this is advantageous for his party. And yet there are many merchants e.g. in Germany, England and America, who carry on trade with the Soviet State and import goods into Russia. How may this contradiction be explained? In our opinion those merchants are so much convinced that the Soviet State wants their articles and that this State cannot do without them-, that they take the risk. In this case it is most advantageous for Russia — at least for the time being — to be honest. For dishonesty would cause in this case that no ••further goods would be imported and this would be a disadvantage for the cause of Bolshevism. However we must investigate matters more thoroughly. The merchant who imports into Russia goods which the Russian Government wants (among those also ammunition), promotes the propagation of Bolshevism and that with the purpose to earn money for himself. Many a friend of mankind, who does not look at matters from a correct point of view, because he is not quite up with the circumstances, protested already against similar opinions. Would it be right to withhold the population of Russia who are not so much guilty as those in power, from the necessities of life? Is it not a duty to furnish these poor people with what they want? This was the way in which they reasoned. This argument would be correct when we had the certainty that what is imported into Russia, was indeed for the poor population. But the reverse is true! In the first place ammunition, flying machines, etc. don't benefit at all the poor population, but these make its condition still worse, because they make the condition of those in power — the suppressors of the nation — stronger. And in the second place — as far as necessary things are concerned — it was proved long ago' that these only benefit those who follow those in power: witholding of all which is necessary for life is exacty the punishment for thinking otherwise than those in power! However one may consider things, the import benefits the bolshevist element of the population. If all import stopped now, the Statesmen in Russia would be at a loss. Still more interesting than the remarks connected with the question of import, are those related with the export from Russia. Industry in that country was made and is still forcibly made an industry of the State. We will not dweil on the most precarious and from a moral point of view most regretable conditions resulting from this, but only state that the cost of production (notwithstanding the very low wages compared with those of the empire of the Czar and those in West-Europe) was much too high and the quantity of the things produced much too small, so that export was properly speaking out of the question: 1. because they want at home everything very badly; 2. because in connection with the very high price of production they cannot compete abroad with the articles produced there. They were compelled by necessity to pay attention to these two objections. For the Soviet-Government cannot do without export to foreign countries; this latter brings in money, and when no money is obtained, the whole regimen is to collapse. Let us see now how the doctrine that anything is permitted even what is most objectionable, if it only serves to fortify the Bolshevist system, acts in the domain of commerce. In the interior the population is short of everything. Yet the articles of which they are most urgently in need are exported. For the Sovietsystem can only exist when money is coming into Russia. But how can they sell in the foreign markets articles which cost so much to themselves, notwithstanding the cheaper prices of the foreign producers? The most primitive means to do so consists of fixing the prices simply lower, than those in the markets abroad. They lose by doing so, but the prices are competitive and in any case they receive money in Russia. This competition by means of prices forcibly kept low in foreign markets is called "dumping". Meanwhile a sale lower than the price of production cannot continue; everybody realizes that the country would get poorer and poorer by it and that this would also be the beginning of the end. So a new problem arises; how can the price of production be lowered indeed? This problem is now being solved in the Soviet-union in a way which reminds us of the barbarian conditions which as we thought had passed for ever. It has been stated that between the material problems of commerce and the problems of morality and religion there is little or no relation. The incorrectness of this opinion is clearly shown by what now is happening in Russia in connection with rendering it possible to throw cheap Russian products on the foreign markets. Even the Russian authorities cannot change the naturaL economie laws. So they have invented a means to make the cost of productions cheaper indeed. This means is twofold: 1. The work is done by way of hard labour, so by people who are not paid for it. Here we have the beginning of a new introduction of slavery! For we must bear in mind that in the present-day conditions in Russia such condemnations to hard labour happen very easily! Moreover labour in the Siberian gold-mines by those condemned happens to an extent greater than ever. Of the cruelties, ill-treatments and worse to which men and women are exposed there and which are crying to heaven, we keep silence here. The life of a human being has no value here any longer: there is continually a new supply of condemned people! 2. The population of one region is simply commanded to leave its homes and to go to another region to work there in a branche quite new to it. The other day 20000 peasants were without further ado conveyed to another region to work there in the colüeries from which the former miners had run away. The will of the individual is not considered at all. It all happens in favour of the (Bolshevist) Community and whoever opposes, is punished. For, this one is „contra-revolutionary!" » It is difficult to realize such circumstances. And it is still more difficult to remain quiet when they are welcomed as being inevitable to improve the conditions in the world. Russia — it becomes daily more apperent — is a victim to a number of idealists, surrounded and ruled by a band of criminals. Of these latter the idealists are most dangerous. Because they are blind to the misery which they bring about and — having good intentions in their own opinion — know to persuade others. Even, helas, outside Russia. For it is of no use denying this — their theories are participated by other blinded idealists, who become in their turn a centre of inferior elements. The whole civilized world must and snall make front against this! CHAPTER IV. Communism and the Child. The theories (and, helas, not only the theories, for these theories are reaüy put in practice) of Communism with regard to education, is so very different from all that up tül now people considered admissable and in harmony with moral law, so very much in contradiction to what a normal man considers to be right and éven natural, that the plain stating of these principals mostly results in a shrug of the shoulders, expressive of doubt, on the part of the hearer. For this reason we shall mention in this article, more than in the preceding ones, the sources from which we took our information and state first of all that these — as you will see — are all of communistic origin. Not long ago an exhibition of russian appliances for teaching was held in Holland. This was exceedingly praised. People that organized this exhibition under the show of making propaganda for the russian systems of education, had no right to be silent about the reverse of the medal. That 's what they did. Therefore it is useful to examine that reverse. We should like to ask the question: What will be the result of the education of the children according to a morality, described by Lenin in this way: everything that is useful to the communistic cause is moral. The answer to this question is to be found in the two following purposes-officially recoghized by the leaders of the Third International: 1. The child must be made into a convinced Communist with a new mentality, who hates the social and moral system of the civilized nations. 2. One should avail oneself of the diligence and enthusiasm of the children for political purposes, be it as agitators, spies or active combatants. We especially draw the attention of the reader to the fact that the children, so far they remain in their parents' house, are encouraged to practice the under sub H mentioned honourable work under the parental roof, i.e. against their parents. The Bolshevik will not have anything to do with the tie, natural in our eyes, between parents and children. Espionage is even very common in the family-circle, which is kept holy in other countries. Indeed, each individual and consequently each child has „duties" towards the Soviet State, which are in contrast with what people elsewhere call family-ties. Let us now see in what way the two abovementioned theses are put to practice. Lenin said: Bolshevism is not a boardingschool for ladies of noble birth. The children ought to witness the execution of the enemies of the proletarians and rejoice at their death. By the way. We should be mihdful of the fact that enemy of the proletariat is everybody that does not agree with the Bolshevic aüthorities, even in insignificant things. In the course of years these words will remain a pillory, which will stand upright, firm as a rock, when his mausoleum at Moscow will have crumbled down a very long time already. In the Investia of 20th of June 1925 occurs the following declaration of the Komintern. The Communistic Youth-International seems to us the most perfect means for the spreading of Bolshevism. The propaganda among the children is perhaps the best by far, not because those children are able to do so much themselves, but because they are able to turn their surroundingsupside down. Here too we feel the attempt of undermining family-life. Remarkable is also the saying of Zinovieff. We should not consider the communistic movement among the children from a sentimental point of view. The fact that children, arms ia hand, took part in the battle, must serve us as an example and as a teaching. This new generation of working-people will no longer know the sentimental ideas of our contemporaries. It is, after all, not useless to point out that the treatment of children as grown-ups in Russia has been more and more organized into a system. It goes without saying that this is very attractive to children. Nothing at which a child rejoices so much as being regarded and treated like an adult. It feels flattered by it and likes to be made much of. Helas, it does not think of the reverse of the medal. Children have repeatedly served as hostages for their parents, whose orthodoxy in the communistic doctrine they were sure of. Repeatedly the small hostages have been shot down too. We add to this how remarkable it is that Bolshevism, which denies the holiness of the ties of relationship, is yet so much convinced of the existence of it, that it compels parents, by menacing their children. As a counterpart of these poor, smalle hostages (whose being treated as adults cost their lives), we want to draw the attention of the reader to a child, that exercized unlimited power itself. You can read about it in the Pravda of the 21st of May 1927, in which a member of the Komintern gives information about a little fellow, thirteen years old, who was specially charged with the government, of the international communistic children-organization. The little fellow disposed of an absolutely unlimited power and there was no act or crime which he could not permit himself. It stands to reason that not each child can be regarded as being a grown-up and so can be raised to the Bolshevist power and honorary posts. The eight millions and odd children, left to their fate and wandering about in Russia, often united .to gangs of robbers-falling a prey to the most horrible moral and corporal miseryprove this with a force which cannot be denied. What now are the requirements, to which such a great one among the small-ones must come up to? What is the marshali's staff, which the child must possess to see the fairy-tale future opened to it? The answer to this question can be given in a word: such a child must entirely be deprived of what the Bolshevist calls: civil morality. By this the Bolshevist understands everything, what a non-Bolshevist thinks moral, holy, e.g. Veracity, uprightness, filial love, respect for the life and property of others, religion. All this is hypocrisy, unless Bolshevism be served by it. Indeed, everything is moral that serves Communism! (Lenin). But is it not possible to lay hands on some special sayings of Communists about the way in which they understand the duties, the position, the work of the child? Nothing is easier. For this honour must be given to the Bolshevist leaders, that they preach openly their principles (or what they call their principals). They even do this with a boldness, which would deserve another name, if the weekness, with which a part of Western Europe returns their lashes with wagging their tails, had not made an impression on them, that, overagainst these mutually quarelüng states, repeatedly provoked by them, they can permit themselves everything, even open-beartedness. Now listen to some Bolshevist theses: Filial love is usually fataL The child, educated in the family-circle, is, as a rule, anti-sociaL (Lilina, wife of Linovieff) late manager of the State-school at Leningrad). We must necessarily instigate the child of the paupers against the bourgeois-child. (Bulletin de 1'éducation communiste, avril 1925). The psychology of the pauper's child must entirely be governed by the class-war. (Same origin). To each question, put by the child, we should give an answer, that brings the class-war forward. Each pioneer i.e. real young communist, ought to become a god-less, but he must know, why he does not believe in God. We hate the christians. They preach love and pity, which is in contrast with our principles. Down with the love of the neighbour. What we want is hatred. (Loenatcharski, late director of Instruction in the Soviet-Republic). By the way. This gentleman seems to be destined at the present moment to become an ambassador of France. Family-life must be replaced by the Commu- nistic party, which will stifle the fervent love of the parents to the children. This love excites m the parents the desire of keeping their children at their sides and makes the latter into egoists. When parents say: my son or my daughter this means, that they think to have a right to educate their children, as they like best From a communistic point of view this right does not exist. The child belongs to Society so to the Communistic Party. To this last quotation must be added, that unless the children fall into misery, crime and sickness because they rove about in troups the really communisticly educated children are absolutely perverted, especially with resard to morality. But (it is true!) our civü so-called morality is an absurdity? CHAPTER V. Communism, Education. The other day, (we mentioned it before), in Holland an exhibition was held of Russian apphances for teaching and such another exhibition is now being announced. Those exhibitions are interesting and they can teach us something. • Yet they are only efforts for propagation, made ready for foreign countries, in favour of the Communism of the Soviet Republic. We may devise particularly practical appliances for teaching, but this is of no use for the teaching, if this is organized — or properly speaking not organized — as in the Russia of the present day. Those who arrange such exhibitions don't draw anybody's attention to the hornble state which characterizes education now Visitors are even led to believe, that in teaching-Russia is much in advance of other countries. How far that goes, will appear from thenext pages. vfhile one of the grievances against the regimen of the czar was, that it neglected stateeducation, the Soviet-regimen had locked-up a great number of state-schools, expecially in the villages, in which a great need of them was feit. This happened to hundreds of them. Some examples! Drastic obes, we acknowledge. In one of the large villages of the Department of Kouban there were two sécondaryschools, (one for boys, one for girls), six stateschools for primary education and two private schools. They were much frequented. Now there is one secondaryschool (co-educational) and one state-school for primary education. The remainder has been closed. At Kamenshaia (Don) there were two secondary-schools, one technical school and several schools for primary education. At the present moment there is one secondary-school and no more. That is the case in every part of the country. The Bolshevists promised the people gratuitous education. This promise has not been fulfilled. On the contrary:. in the schools, in which under the old regimen no fee was due, it must be paid now, that is to say it is not called school-fee, but contribution in the cost of maintenance. Formerly appliances for teaching were got gratuitously, now they must be paid for, because the gra'tuitous-supply has become a derision. E.G. at Sagouny (Department Worony) each pupil receives one copybook and one leadpencil (the latter must be shared with a fellowpupil). This provision must be sufficiënt for two years. In the secbndary-schools the fee has been more than doubled. And what is now taught in these schools? Education is entirely concentrated in the communistic-propaganda. Knowledge follows in the second place. The principal thing is the so-called AB.C. of Communism, a kind of catechism of this doctrine, composed, for the greater part, by the Bolshevic Bukharin. Does the child know this AB.C, the remainder does not matter. Does he not know it, it is not advanced, though it should possess the knowledge of a professor! One example — ridiculous, if it were not so sad —, taken from the instruction second catagory. A pupil was asked: What kind of beard had Karl Marx and what kind of hair had Lenin? It answered this question wrongly and missed its removal. The answer should have been: Lenin had hardly any hair and Marx had a large beard At the Don-University the certificate of medical science was awarded to a lady with the following words: The Soviet-Republic awards you the certificate of doctor of medicine, but don't forget that it is your duty to treat not only the body of your patients, but also to find out their political opinion. A patiënt is often honest and frank to his doctor. The latter has the duty, as well as a member of the G.P.Oe. to be always ready to defend the Revolution. Mind that you at once inform the G.P.Oe. when you hear one of your patients proclaim anti-revolutionary ideas, otherwise you are considered to be responsible for them. This example is one out of many. Perfectly ignorant people — who in the opion of the professors — don't possess the least knowledge, get their certificate nevertheless, because they don't venture to refuse it to them, for they are members of the G.P.Oe. or of another influential body. TT separate domain — at the primary school already — forms the anti-religious propaganda. I'll teil you the experience, acquired personally and communicated by Mr. Douillet, who lived 37 years in Russia. A small, famished boy between the teacher and the communist who attends the lesson. "Do you pray to God, Johnny? the teacher asks. Child: "Yes, I do." Teacher: "Does God always give you what you ask?" The child. keeps silence. Teacher: "Will you just try and ask God for bread ? You are hungry, are not you?" Child: "Surely, comrade! I am very hungry.." Teacher: "Very well! Do pray to God then! Perhaps your Christ will give you bread." The child kneels down and prays. Teacher: "Why Johnny, did God give you bread?" Child (with tears in the eyes): "No comrade! God has not given me anything." Teacher: "Now you see, what your good God means. You should not have asked him for bread, but that communist comrade overthere. Ask him and he shall give it you." Child: "Comrade, would you be so kind as to give me bread?" Communist: "Thafs what you should have done first. If you should have asked me at once, I would have given it you immediately. You ask the good God. But did you ever see him? No! For he does not exist." The communist gives the child a big slice of bread! This little scène reveals the way of working of the Godless in the school. This slice of bread too is an appliance for teaching. But this is not mentioned in the exhibition of russian appliances for teaching. To conclude with a few words about the out-fitting of schools. Except some experimental schools, much frequented by "visitors" that come to study the country, the class-rooms are worse than bad. There are even schools without any furniture, where the pupils are sitting down on the floor and a stifling atmosphere is prevalent: "We put the reader in mind of the proofs of all this being borrowed from the Soviet-papers themselves. The life of the teacher is a torture. He earns starvation-wages, on which he cannot live. He lives continuously in- mortal fear, for he knows that he is surrounded by spies. The Board of Education had issued the following . prohibition: It is prohibited to teach literature in a strictly aesthetical sence; teaching should have a marxistic tendency." This is the opinion of the Russian educational paper (31st March 1929) Slowly and sadly he (the teacher) is dragging on life, a prey to the continuous fear to lose his situation and in one continuous struggle to find something that can furnish him bread. The fate of lady-teachers is much more miserable by far, unless they set aside all scruples and do what (beside their teachingduty) is asked of them. But are not they more miserable then? The number of suicides, especially among these poor women, is innumerable. We conclude with the words of a well-known Soviet author: It is urgently necessary, that measures will be taken to give new life to all these guides of youth, who suffer secretly and are exhausted with fatigüe. But we have not the least hope, that this will happen indeed. P.S. At the last moment this intelligence draws our attention: "From Moscova dated 18th October, it is communicated, that because of the departure of teachers, who look more and more for posts in industry, this year 10.000 (ten thousand, excusez du peu) schools will have to remain closed. CHAPTER VI Communism and Art. In a country groaning under such horrible terrorism like Russia, it stands to reason that art and sience cannot develop freely. They too have to serve the great purpose to try to get to the world-revolution and to the introduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat which means practically the introduction of the bloody terrorism of some men over the whole world. To begin with art: the Soviets do everything possible to make a favourable impression in relation to the Russian products of art in foreign countries. A small success is indeed reserved for them in this respect, because the Russian people occupies a very peculiar and much admired place in the domain of art. This relates to the domain of plastic as well as to that of the other arts. But this artistic taste has not been called into existence by Bolshevism! Bolshevism did nothing else than conforming itself to the earlier forms of art and aimed at adding to it an eccentric element, which was to become the new element in art and which is welcomed as such also elsewhere in our time which is always inclined to extremeties. And as we already said the Russian products of art are often admirable even under the constraint of the Bolshevists. The question is now to which a degree this constraint exists? To such a degree that the artist is no longer free to choose the subject he desires. In this choice he has to have himself led by the economie and political conceptions of those in power. For, to repeat what we have said they like to put art simply in the service of the propaganda of their principles. A pictorical advertisement may be very fine and characteristic. The tyrants in Russia try to reform the whole art into a beautiful and artistic pictorial advertisement. But with that all they must finally expel artistic life out of their country notwithstanding all the plausible assertions of the admirers of "young Russia" and of "young Russian art ; for the creative pressure pushing on the artist cannot have itself bound by one-sided rules of human origin: that pressure is of divine origm! It goes without saying that the pure Bolshevist, who denies the existence of God, will laugh at these words and they will certainly not persuade him to stop his work, which aims as destroying the divine element in art. He does not understand, however, that in doing so he would destroy art itself.... if he were to succeed. But this is a mere impossibility. Bolshevist „art' how original and apparenuy oharming it may be when exhibited outside Russia, never loses its character of propaganda. Let us give two examples. The art of filming in Russia is on a high level from a technical point of view. A Russian film as a product of art is often much superior to what other countries produce on that domain. The purpose, however, is not artistic delight, but the production of a very often subtle propaganda for Bolshevism. "Those two things ought to be kept apart",' enthusiastic admirers say. But this_ is the very thing that cannot be done! The Russian film carefully designed and technically almost perfect, brings the poison of Bolshevism into the hearts and heads of the simple lookers-on, who take it to be true what they see on the canvas, whereas this is a lie after all. Here, too, they work with lies, which are considered to be allowed when being in the interest of the party. As it is with the art of filming, so it is with the art of acting. What do you e.g. say to a play acting in the Dutch East-Indies in which a row of coolies drudge under heavy burdens and are wallopped by their superintendants, while at a distance of some metres Dutch naval-officiers accompanied by halfundressed ladies, look at it unmoved and have some dancers still more undressed dancing before them. This nice piece was performed in the SovietRepublic. They dared not export this into other countries; even at present there are in WestEurope still certain limits to the ability of the public to swallow lies. We have particularly to point here to something that characterizes the whole movement of art in Russia. They intended — we don't know whether it has been effected already for such matters are covered by a mysterious veil in Russia — that no Russian artist or group of artists was allowed to travel abroad if not accompanied by an officer of the Soviets as an "impressario", who would have to see to the financial management. Rather a high percentage of the money received should have to be paid to this officer. This idea is an original one again: three birds killed with one stone. Firstly: propaganda for Bolshevism; secondly a check on the unadulterated, communistic character of the art offered and of the artists themselves; thirdly the Uiting of the Soviet cash. We think of all chose honest spectators who don't know that they are paying tax to Stalin etc. in attending the Russian performances. This has something comical indeed. And it is not to be denied — the ingenuity of Russian masters is inexhaustible. In another domain, too, the Russian men in power give evidence of their artistic sence. We mean in the manner in which treasures of art remove more and more from Russia abroad. Owing to the revolution the great and precious treasures of art became a possession of the Soviet-State. Many private collections were simply taken away. Russia has been selling them to foreign countries for years and years. And the proceeds have benefited the small group of tyrants which sucks out, makes to slaves and murders farmers, labourers and intellectual people under the veil of realizing their fantastic purposes. Those in power want money. Looked from their point of view and taking in consideration their conception about what is allowed and not allowed they are right when they barter away the treasures of art in Russia. But in this respect they can hardly pose as patrons of art. But what to say to those who buy those treasures of art (chiefly pictures) and help in this way to relieve the financial difficulties of those authorities? Formerly this question was answered by being put. At present it is otherwise. Nowadays such a thing is no longer considered to be so bad In any case those treasures of art are not stained with blood. Now that people — in our country too — have come already so far as to have Russian corn imported for the sake of commercial purposes and to have it competed at very low prices with the wheat obtained in other regions, whereas it is known by which men-dishonouring means ■ this wheat is obtained and that the supply of it takes place at the cost of the star ving population of Russia itself.... the buying of objects of art is not thought of so bad. If it is really commerce which requires this then our Dutch merchants prove, at least partly, that they have become very narrowrninded people and that they are contrasted with the excellent merchants of all times, consider exclusively the present conditions and disregard the future. This, however, has not anything to do with Art. CHARTER VH. Communistic propaganda by the Film. A society which puzzles me more and more is the Society "Holland and New Russia". Inteüectual people of more or less fame are members of it. They make it their special object to tighten more and more the relation between the Paradise of Bolshevism and our good Holland In some periodical, in which also several non-Bolshevists cooperate, the attention of the public is drawn to the beautiful and good things which Lenin and Stalin's Russia shows us, although Mr. J. Huyts declares that however closely related political and economical life may be, it is the intention of the general committee and of the editors to find a gurantee in the objective way in which a phenomenon of civilisation mentioned in a periodical, is represented that this phenomenon is placed in the foreground in its value for civilisation and not in its political-economical one. The style is not very clear; but the meaning is no doubt this; that they want to emphasize the value for civilisation of Bolshevism, without making themselves responsible for the political and economical consequences, suppose this should be possible! Bolshevism announces itself to be an indivisible view of life, viz, that of Marx driven to the utmost and now Dutch intellectual people come and corrupt this, saying: "We don't adopt the principals but we hail some phenomena of civilisation resulting from them as a joyful sign of our time. I am not quite sure myself, how I have to judge such a mentality, as 1 am at a loss, too, what to say to a book such as that by H. C. Pieck: "Black and white from Red Russia", with a preface by professor J. M. Burgers and as an introduction a sonnet by Dr. H. P. Berlage. Anybody reading it, realizes that the lastmentioned book, which treats of its subject excellently, is pure propaganda for Communism. There is no doubt that the Society Holland-New Russia, too, plays into the hands of Bolshevism; but the question whether and how far the intellectual people, who lend themselves to such a revolutionary aim, move in that dangerous direction with full consciousness, will always remain a psychological problem. I prefer to believe as long as no proofs to the contrary have been furnished, that we have to do with a boundless naivity, which is, only met with in the case of bookworms and intellectual fools. I should like to say the same of the communistic or revolutionary propaganda by the film. I should not like to excuse the film-league of which Dr. Menno ter Braak is secretary of being conscious of a revolutionary and antinational aim. Art is said to be above all political plots and the question what the film represents is inferior to the manner in which it is done. Now it is certainly true that the art of filming in Russia is on a high level, as indeed some pictures by the Besbonik also testify of much artistic taste, though we might say in this case: "demonie artistic taste". But exactly therefore propaganda by means of the film (of which Russia is fully aware) is so much the more dangerous and I am astonished at the superficiality of the committee of inspection, which gives its approbation to the most insinuating performances. It does not seem to know that Lenin already recommanded the film as a mighty means of propaganda, by saying that they have a magnificent instrument in it in' the struggle for the delivery of the proletariat, for if people tried to realize the object of the whole Russian film-industry, they would never support or propagate it, neither directly nor indkectly! They cannot but laugh in their sleeves at Moscow when seeing the stupidity of "capitalistic West-Europe". "What would happen", Mr. Dr. J. van Schevichaven (to whom I gladly express my thanks here for his cooperation also with the preceding chapters) asks with good right, "when they in Soviet Russia would try to exploit a film in which the horrible situations in that country were reproduced truly and in which (the reverse of it is done in Russian films the employers would be angels and those employed devils?" There is nobody who cannot answer this question. The G.P.Oe. would know what to do with such a scoundrel, and if he was not tortured to death immediately, he was exited to Devil's Island for certain. For that reason I perfectly agree with the author mentioned above, when he says: "Bolshevism acts always and anywhere according to the principle that whatever hostile words and acts they preach and do against non-Bolshevists, they are perfectly allowed, but these things are unpermitted as soon as others preach or do them against Bolshevism. Even self-defence against Bolshevism is a crime, but the assault by the Bolshevists themselves is heroism. So these world-destroyers apply two quite different tests. By protesting in the name of art against preventing to performinstigating films, people who shoot their fellow-creatures without further ado, because these fellowcreatures think otherwise than they do, make themselves immortally laughable, if we may use this word considering all this misery. I think that the more you reflect upon all these things, the less one can think of naivity. It is „The tribune" itself which openly declares about the Soviet-films: "Seeing these films is receiving a lesson in revolution," whereas Constandse leaves his anti-militaristie point of view a little when he writes in the "Free Socialist", about one of the Russian products: "This film speaks. It speaks about the misery of the people, the cruelty of those in power, the necessity of revolution and for that reason it is'propagandistic". It 's a riddle to me how anybody after such statements for the sake of Art (compositor, don't forget the capital, please) can yet stand up for such a revohitionnary propaganda. Only those who believe the foolish device: "Art fdr the sake of art" can still make this mistake. Finally one proof of the great danger which is promoted by the Film-League. You will remember the sensational film: "Ten days which made the world shake". I did not see the performance myself. My time is too little elastic to be able to see such sort of things, but one of our cooperaters of "You are all brethren", went there one Sunday morning and reported us the performance in details. And indeed the whole proved to be a practical lesson in revolution. Whenever a uniform of one or other "capitalistic" State appeared on the canvas, there was a whistling; was the Red Army shown: tremendous applause. When shall we realize that wé are playing recklessly with fire? Parents fear foolish tales of love for their children (and often with good right), but it remains yet to be seen whether they pay the same attention to revolutionary propaganda, which murders the soul of their children and dislocates all fundamental truths not the least those of religious and moral kind Therefore: Caveant consules i.e. be on your gard. v CHAPTER Vin. Communism and moral. I have been for some weeks considering the question whether I am to write in this booklet a chapter on communism and marriage. I am aware that I cannot be quite silent about it; but on the other hand I dare not discuss by any means this subject in details; and considering that 1 have been accused more than once to be too free in my expressions, every reader may understand what this "dare not" means. To be short of it and correct, communism has done away with any natural love between man and woman or has degraded it to such a level that love is quite out of the question, and that we only may speak of brutal passions. "Love does not exist", maintains Slepkof in a book published at the expense of the State and titled "Youth and morals"; there are only physiological phenomena". In consequence of these physiological phenomena the two sexes come together whenever they are seized with a desire to do so and they can leave each other when one of the two parties or both parties don't like to go on with it any longer. That the cases of polygamy, incest and similar things are manifold in Soviet-Russia, and that they are frankly approved of and defended is a matter of course. Infanticide is no shame at all, it is even often protected. But while I am writing this all, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that I have to furnish facts and the character of this book, which must also be fit to be read by children, makes this impossible, so that I only refer to a series of books which treat of this subject and of which one of the best is: "La nuit qui vient de 1'Orient" by Serge de Chessin. So no love between man and woman, only a lower instinct which wants to be satisfied, and which may find this satisfaction in every possible way, unless the struggle between the classes be not prevented, but promoted by it. The same can be said of the relation between parents and children which was mentioned already in one of the preceding chapters. And I pray, dear reader, don't say or think that the danger only exists at a great distance; it threatens us in our immediate surroundings. The writer of "Espions rougës" writes us of a communistic movement in France under the protection of Barbusse, who aims at educating the French youth according to Russian model and who dares to maintain that a such like thing does not exist in our country? One of the favourite songs of this promising youth is the following: "We shall break the window-panes. We shall soil the doors with tar. We bark on the roads free from chain. We will be quit óf the girls not to speak of the old women. Bravo, that 's all! We shall pay a visit to the bourgeoisie and break their bones. Bravo, that 's all! The communistic party is our father, the female section of The Soviets our mother. Bravo, that 's all!" We want to emphasise especially the last part of this song. No love between man and woman, no love between parents and children. This would be "bourgeoisie moral" and belongs to the antiquated Christian view of life. The party is everything and hence the remarkable phenomenon that the Soviet-moral which is so extraordinairy elastic in the case o marriages and the Relation between children over against their parents (think of the recent, sensational process when the son demanded publicly the death of his father!) impedes in a ridiculous way some marriages against which no reasonable creature could object. The "Isvestias" of a few years ago informed us of a peculiar case which is characteristic in this respect. An elderly man would conclude an honest marriage with a widow much younger than himself living in a neighbouring village. The Soviet authorities of his native place thought this a dubious case and held a meeting to solve "this sexual problem". After a good deal of discussing they arrived at the conclusion that it was not possible to give consent for such a union, for the man was rich and the woman poor, and moreover it was not recommendable that two persons of different municipalities married. Unanimously they resolved not to approve of "such a policy", whereas the man was made to understand that he would be looked upon as a contra-revolutionist if he dared to marry nevertheless the object of his affection; by way of mitigation they advised him to satisfy in another way the desires of his old age. It is evident that all morality, at least as we consider it, is bullied by communism. Only the interests of the proletarians are considered. "The only method, truly according to the spirit of Marx", Lounatseharsky says, "so the only right one to define the ideas of duty and justice more correctly, requires that we consider moral simply as a product of class-interests Everything for our class: Ihe morality of the proletarians has no other foundation. Good is everything which leads our party to the triumph; bad is everything which might cause us to be defeated." Such words are quite corresponding to the words which Tcheedaef dared once to write down with his blood: "Moral is what hastens the revoluion; immoral what is an obstacle to it." And be not at ease, dear friend, who shake your head supposing that those ideas are only propagated in Soviet-Russia; they are also defended in our country, though the form may be a little mitigated; and it does not testify of much judgment when people get to sleep with the thought: "matters cannot come to such a pass in our country." Reflect only quietly on these words of Dr. Herman Gorter in his Historical materialism: "The struggle of the classes murders also a good deal of morality, for the moral commands cannot have value over against the class which tries to destroy ours or to make it powerless, and this class cannot have self-sacrifice or fidelity against ours. Only within the circle of the class itself can yet be question of some moral law, over against the other class the highest moral law has as little value as it has over against the enemy". Compare this with the expression of Dr. Mr. J. Valkhof: "The end justifies the means if this end is the progress of mankind, the welfare of mankind as such. Moral is whatever promotes this welfare and only seen from this general aim the means are moral." These words may have been chosen a little more prudently than those of the Russians, I see no difference in principle between the quoted words and this expression of Lenin: "One cannot judge the communists according to the narrow-minded Standard of the bourgeoisie moral A scoundrel may be of use to us, exactly because he is a secoundrel". CHAPTER IX. Communism and Religion. After the revelation of the last few months we need not discuss the fact that Communism is inimically disposed against every form of religion, that "opinion of the people". Hence the furious campaign which has raged against every faith in the Soviet-paradise, nay, against any idealistic view of life. The gövernment may declare whatever it likes (all that is called lie by the bourgeoisie moral does not exist for the Soviets) it agrees perfectly with the Third Communistic International and the Society of the God-less. The 20th of March the general conference of this Society met at Moscow. On that occasion ■comrade Jaroslawsky declared that it is the task of the God-less "to fight against religion wherever it came to stand on firm ground", and he added "that every member of the Society is bound to exert himself to gain to victory for the atheistic view of life which forms the foundation of the Soviet-State". "Our war against religion", he adds, "rests ón the legislation of the State and no pope or «ïhurch-authority can prevent us from striving according to our own view after the purpose at which the Soviet-State aims", and finally he exclaimed amidst a tremendous applause. "Religion must in any case die in Russia". This expresses in our opinion what the standpoint of Communism is regarding faith. I say: faith and not of one or other form of religion. It is repeatedly said that they principally wage war against the Statechurch of former days because of its political view and of its conservative inclinations; but this is not correct. It is true that immediately after the Revolution they favoured different small groups of believers in order to fight with might and main against the Church of the Czar, but when they feit strong enough they trew off their mask and they began to fight against God and religion in every possible way. They like especially to involve young people in this warfare. The edition of August 1929 of the God-less gives all kinds of indications for the red leaders in their war against faith. We also quote a few sentences from the lecture of the representative of the government at the general meeting of the scouts: "Every god-less person need not be a red scout; but every scout must be a god-less one; and not only one who lives simply without God, but an irreconsilable, fighting god-less one. It is an inevitable duty to participate in and to lead the movement of the scouts in their warfare against faith, for war against religion is the most important point of our political programme. The general meeting of the scouts of the Soviet-Republic must in the first place look to the development of the anti-religions action amongst children, especially amongst scouts. As soon as he will be at home, every deputy of this meeting must make for his cell the anti-religious problem without ceremony the order of the day. At the beginning of the new school-year great meetings of God-less children participating in the struggle must be held in every region. These meetings must study the means with which the battle against faith at home and at school must be fought. At every school there must be organized anti-religious clubs". Quotations are abounding. The God-less paper writes: "The school must fight against religion. The child is poisoned with it from- its earliest age So we must fight with might and main against faith, not only at schools, but also in families and among grown-up people." The God-less paper says addressing the red leaders: "You must form groups of atheistic children and when they will have grown older they will join those who carry on the battle against God. Your most dangerous and most irreconcilable enemy is faith." To lead young people in pure atheistic direction no measure, however strong, is neglected and they don't omit any means however unfair this might be called by "the bourgeoisie moral". I have in my possession a number of songs which are taught to children, and which are simply shameful parodies of generally known hymns of the Grecian Orthodox Church. There are some of them which I don't dare to quote. But one verse I translate here to give an idea of the way in which the soul of the child is poisoned: "The whole world begins at last to realize that the reproach of this world is: Jesus. As the rising sun at daybreak, the certainty dawned upon me that the black sheep of this world is: Jesus. So keep clear of those believers, otherwise you would be blinded by your superstition for life. Once I was a believer; but now I have seen that the stigma of this world is: Jesus". We should lack space when we discussed in details the action against faith as it, directly or indirectly, is carried on by communism. Among the many photos which I had made of different characteristic editions of "The Besbosbnik", there is one of a Christmas-edition which was spread on a large scale. At the side of many caricatures we find different expressions like this one: "Away with the Christmas-tradition, obstacle for the socialistic cultivation." Further: "Long live the scientific-Marxistical view of life, the weapon of our class in the battle for socialism". And again: "The fairy-tale of Christ's birth is a means in the hands of the capitalists to exploit the workman." Finally: "The battle against religion is a necessary condition for the revolution of society". This action against the christian festivals becomes even a most narrow-minded one. On the month of December everybody could read that the director of the democracy Jaroslavsky had given orders to continue the campaign against religion with greater force than ever before. A hundred professors, indicated for this purpose by the Soviet-Academy of sciences, had to deliver lectures partly at meetings, partly per radio. This action against "the fairy-tale of Christ's birth must be continued at least till January lOth and no shopkeeper was allowed to display anything which reminded of the Lord's coming on earth. No Christmas-trees, no Christmas toys, no dainties connected with Christmas might be sold. Everywhere specially atheistic shows were to be organized e.g. in the St. Isaak's Cathedral of former days, now transformed into an anti-religious museum. And a similar campaign will be organized on the occasion of Easter next. The irreconcilable contradiction between communism and religion shows itself clearer and clearer and the words of the State-attorney Krylenko are the device of every bolshevist: "I spit on the Christian religion, as I do on all religions: Orthodox, Jewish, Mohammetan ones and whichever may exist." Helas, this is as clear as day; and the radio of Moscow may broadcast whatever it likes, may lie as much as is possible (think in this context always of what has been written here in the chapters on Communism and moral), it is a fact which cannot be denied that in the whole world under the pression of communism everything possible is being prepared in the army of the non-believers in order to attain to an atheistic unity, against which a unity of all believers and those who love liberty will be formed and is being formed already. CHAPTER X. The inunediate danger of Communism. Immediate having two meanings, viz: the danger is threatening at the present moment and the revolutionary action is carried on in our immediate neighbourhood, even without being observed by ourselves. To begin with the last point, we must point with a few words to the communistic building of cells. From more than one side they asked me why I give myself so much trouble about communism, whereas I leave almost alone the S.D.A.P. which is living, too, by the principles of Marx. The reason is very simple. The S.D.A.P. works openly, in broad daylight, so that one is always able to know what this party is aiming at and what currents show themselves in its centre. In that way it is for nobody a secret that the signification of the S.D.AP. as a whole and especially in our country is overestimated. It is a very common thing that a party feeling its inner weakness organizes by hook or by crook enormous meetings etc. because it feels a necessity to put the great mass out of countenance which is to impress the public and which reaüy does not give evidence of being confident of its own power. But as sure as they overestimate the -signification of the S.D.A.P. they undervalue the tendence of the communistic danger. Communism works under the ground like a mole, tries to undermine the whole system of our Christian civilization, and now we can observe this very remarkable scène that the Russian Government gives its orders to secret, revolutionary associations in the different countries with which it keeps up diplomatic relations or at any rate trade-relations which it would like to multiply everywhere. Those revolutionary organizations are called cells, and there is no trade of any importance that has not its own club of which the leaders don't know themselves what numbers the members have and in which a discipline prevails which makes one think of the Terrorism. Woe to the man who commits treason to the "cause", his life is not safe, and nobody needs to wonder when he suddenly disappears in a secret way. Such a club or cell has as a rule its own paper having the name of the most used tooi or manufacture as an emblem. I have different papers of this kind in my possession and though the contents are usually of no importance, the liter at ure is dangerous; for from the very beginning to the end they stir up, work up, and urge on to immediate vengeance against special persons. Not only the different trades are blessed with such cells, but also the institutions of State cherish such serpents and in a critical moment such things may become very important. Train, Post, Telegraph are not free, no more the Army. Especially this last point may be emphasized, for since a long time we have observed that the watchword "down with the arms" only means "ours the arms" and though we have every respect for an honest antimilitarism which means liberal defencelessness, we can cherish nothing but contempt for an ambiguity which intends to keep arms out of the hands of civil society from motives derived from civil morality and civil religion whereas secretly the red army which is in service of the revolution is praised and supported. From Moscow the following wathword was given of late: Let us changè the imperial war into a civil war; and like obedient servants of the Russian Greatmasters, the friends of the Soviet-Union who had a universal meeting at Brussels only a short time ago took a decision which ought to be considered of great importance. Firstly all the measures taken against the contra-revolutionists were approved of: prison, exile and murder on a large scale. And moreover the members of the above mentioned society have agreed to send to Moscow contributions in relation to their means, to strenthen and to reinforce the Social Soviet Republic. Finally those present have undertaken to keep a watchful eye on the war preparations of the principal countries and to wire to Moscow everyüiing they happen to hear about it, whereas nobody may take up arms for his own country but he has to engage himself in the service of the Revolution against his own Government. In connection to this, it must be pointed out that in different countries a secret red army is being formed, has been formed already whereas the troops of a national G.F.Oe. in countries like France, England, etc. are ready. How far they are with a Dutch GP.Oe. I cannot teil for the moment. It need not be a secret, however, that there is a Dutch Red Army. The members of that army have to make the triple vow: 1 promise: To forget never that the world imperialism prepares war against the Soviet Union. To forget never that the fate of the S.D.A.P. of the whole world is closely connected with the Soviet Union. To forget never the experiences and sufferings of the working classes during the imperialist war. To forget never the fourth of August 1914 and the treason of the reformists. To fulfil always my revolutionary duty towards the S.D.A.P. and Socialism. To be always a pioneer of the irreconcilable class-war in the proletarian mass-organizations in tradeunions and in business. I promise: To work at the front and in the army of imperialism only in favour of the revolution. To carry on the revolutionary war, to demolish the class-dominion of the Dutch bourgeoisie. To defend with might and main the Russian revolution and that of the oppressed nations in the East, particularly the revolution in Indonesia. I promise: To fight always for the Soviet Union and for the triumphing world-revolution. Am I right or not, when I say that the danger is threatening in our immediate neighbourhood. And I don't know at which I am to be astonished most; at the impertinence of the Dutch communists or at the drowsiness of our good citizens who really might choose a night-cap instead of a lion as national emblem. Only a short time ago they found in a town I shall not mention, in a communist's house a list of people who were to be killed first when the revolution might succeed. At that list there was the name of the commander of the citymilitia. The latter was so afraid when he came to hear it that he immediately resigned his honorable post and is now leading a quiet life as a forgotten citizen. Apart from the ridiculous attitude, the question may be put if the commander should have any use of his resignation in case of emergency. One may also ask if the papers and institutions which assure themselves the cooperation of the communists should be safe when there would come a revolution. I give a historical event to explain my thoughts. Before the revolution there lived at Moscow a very prosperous wholesale dealer, named R. He saw the work of the secret societies and to' experience no harm in case of emergency he supported Lenin c.s. with a considerable amount of money. The revolution came. The capitalistic "patron" did not show the least fright, had not he given his money to the revolutionary elements for years? Lenin, however thought otherwise. He bethought himself that the same man who had supported him against the Government might now support the reaction against the new directors. They made no ceremony of the man who had dug his own grave by playing his doublé game. How much the danger which is raging in our immediate neighbourhood threatens cannot be said of course. "The Future belongs to God only", calls Victor Hugo to Napoleon in one of his poems, but in this respect I should like to point to Mr. Douillet's speech which he held in the Western Church of Rotterdam. Especially its end is remarkable. The able author of "Moscow unmasked" makes a comparison between the considerations of the orderly citizens in Russia before the revolution and the orderly people in our countries. He ends with a remarkable anecdote. "One of the richest capitalists of Rostov, who possessed some millions of roubles (a rouble has about the value of half a dollar), a capitalist whom I knew very well, had given for the anti-communistic struggle ten roubles; he who possessed millions of them. When I asked him: "Don't you be ashamed Dimitri to give such a small sum. Do you think it better when the bolshevists come to take all your money from you without your, permission?" He laughed and told me he paid enough taxes to the State and gave his part for the police which, as he assured me, would be more than sufficiënt to suppress a communistic rebellion. A few days afterwards this impossible revolution burst out and swept away everything. Now there were civil wars and slaughters everywhere. We lost sight of one another. Three years afterwards I came back at Rostov in the function of a general authorized ambassador of the Nansen-Mission for the South-East. One of my first friends I met was Dimitri. Dimitri as a coachman on a water-cart of the cleaningservice, looking very miserable, dressed in rags. It was perhaps a very bad thing of mine, but my first words were, in stead of greeting him: "Dimitri.... do you remember your ten roubles? Are you in a better condition now?" At first he looked at me in an astonished way, but suddenly recognizing me he exclaimed. "Douillet, do you still live? But soon, recovering himself he looked round to all sides if there might be a person who had understood my words and told in a low voice: "Do he quiet for heaven's sake, speak in a low voice if you don't like me to be delivered to the Tscheka. And then I went up to him to shake hands with him, that old boy.... I saw hun weeping. My dear friends, it was in that way Douillet put an end to his anecdote, don't laugh now when they teil you of the communistic danger, don't laugh to-day, if you don't like to weep to-morrow." CHAPTER XI. The Communism of the First Christian Congregation. More than once we have spoken in these chapters about idealists enchanted by communism; and that many of these think of the ideal of the first christian congregation cannot be denied But it is not right to refer to the Acts of the Apostles verse 42 to 45 as we are goning to prove in a few words. For convenience' sake we let the verses mentioned foliow here: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and they had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Whoever reads attentively will see that the present-day communism forms an absolute contrast with what is so gratifying to us in the case of the first christian congregation. For what did they do in these days? They sold all their possessions or parts of it and they handed the money to the Apostles in order that they would give it to the poor as every man had need. It was a spontaneous manifestation of fraternity and communism. Nobody, however, thought of leaving his possessions to the disposal of the community in order to exploit them on joint account. There was no question about "socialisation" of the soil or about handing the means of production to the community; but it was only to part with one's possessions in behalf of another whose private property was thus augmented. The difference is clear. We also may remark that this action of love on the part of the believers shortly after the pouring out of the Holy Ghost cannot be exactly applauded from an economical point of view. Capital was not made productive in favour of all of them: it was simply exhausted so that it was not long before thé whole congregation of Jerusalem was reduced to great poverty. Is it not generally known how when making his misionary journeys Paul collected everywhere for the poor brethren at Jerusalem? Moreover another point must be thrown light upon, by which the contrast between then an. 34 Chapter X. The immediate danger of Communism .. „38 Chapter XI. The communism of the First Christian Congregation » 43