Awake!, December 8, 1950

Download: PDF — Awake!, December 8, 1950

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

Newi sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital Issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. •‘Awake I*’ has no fetters. It recognize# facts, faces facts. Is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political axrtbitions or obligations; it is unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not ba broaden on; it is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps Itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom* It n?-intains integrity io truth.

“ Awake I” uses the regular news channels, but is not dependent on them Its own correspondents are on all continents, in scores of nations. From the four corners of the earth their uncensored, on*the-scenes reports come to you through these columns. This Journal's viewpoint is not narrow, but is international. It Is read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through Its pages many fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.

“Awake I” pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of a righteous New World.

Get acquainted with “Awake 1” Keep awake by reading *‘Awake 1”

Published BemlmOntelt By WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC.

117 Adams Street Brooklyn 1, N. Y„ tL S. A.

N. H, KwORR, PreHdent Grant Suiter, Scoretary

Printing this issue: 810,000 Five cent! a copy

Lamfwi Is which (hit imaiJM Li tull I Aad: Semjurouttkl?—Bngllsh, German, Spanish. Monthly—Afrikaans, Danish, French, Greek, Pawsuese, Swedish, Ukrainian.

Office Tearly Subscriptlim Hau

AmWlta, US., LIT Adant SL, Brooklyn 1, N.I. *1 A «i troll*, 11 Beresford R<t, Blnthflald, NO. Bs Gsuli. 40 Erwin Aw., Toronto tf, taurtd fl Enilsnd, 84 Craven Tenia. Loudon, W. i Ba Soitit Africa, 828 Boston House, Cape Town 6s

ftemiffiUHi should Em ivic to office in your country lu compliance with reaulntLocs to guarantee safe delivery of money. tamlttencea are icceptid at Brooklyn from countries where no office U located, by luirmational money order only. Subscription rates In different coimtrlp, art hero stated in local currency, kotlte of re plrat Jon (with reniwtl blank) b itni at least two uem before inbatrlpUtD ex* pins. Gt ana* of iftrtii wt«i sent to w office may bo npocted effect!*? within one son in, Send your old as well as new address.

Enterod as seand-dm matter at Brwklyi), N.

Act of March 3, 18T9, printed in U. fl. A.

CONTENTS

Ilie United States Loan to Franco Franco Restores Church-State Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, Inc.

Bilbao Hails Franco—or Else!

‘•Health Begins in the Soil” Commercial Fertilizers Blamed Return to Natural Fertilizers

Which Way, South Africa?

Barnyard Social Register

The Gulf Stream

Whys and Wherefores of Taxes

The Indian in 'trinidad

Education

Religious Divisions

A Whale of a Steak

"Your Word Is Truth”

Why Jehovah's Witnesses Preach the Way They Do

Chemocracy, Latest of the Isms

Watching the World

AWAKE

“Now it is high time to awake."—Romans 13:11 &

Volume XXXI Brooklyn, N. ¥., December 8, 1950 Number 23

THE UNITED STATES LOAN TO FRANCO

Why would a democracy back a fascist tyrant?

MANY will recall Aesop’s tale of the eagle fluttering helplessly earthward pierced through with an arrow. Noting with dismay that the arrow’s haft had been feathered with one of its own plumes, the eagle moaned with its dying breath, “We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."

The famed fable seemed due for a resurrection in American minds during the last week of August, 1950, with the great “American eagle” playing the leading role. Congress had just approved a $62,500,000 loan to the government of Spain’s tyrannical Fascist dictator, Francisco Franco; and few have forgotten the havoc the forces of fascism blitzkrieged over the earth not ten years ago. Aside from the moral aspect, close U. S.-Franco fraternization is feared as weakening to American prestige.

Following Senate approval of the loan, one commentator had called it a 'Christmas present to communist propagandists’, and President Truman and his State Department have agreed publicly with this. Some have wryly suggested that Franco has more friends here than in Spain. Eyewitnesses claim the dictator is hated bitterly at home and tolerated only as an alternative to another civil war.

Coming at so critical a time and representing such a jolt to U. S. policy, many have wondered at the action of Congress. Probing some of the mysteries of the matter, The Christian Century of September 13, 1950, had this to say: “Thus we have financed a fascist dictator, whose ports supplied Hitler’s submarines during the war, and who, as Norman Thomas reminds us, said in 1941, ‘What a joy to see the German bombers one day punishing the insolence of the skyscrapers of New York!’ Why was Congress pushed into this vote of approval of Franco? One of the most interesting newspaper pieces we have read in a long time was the one in which Mrs. Roosevelt tried to answer that question. 'The course Congress has followed/ she wrote, ’makes me wonder what the hidden reason is for its action.’ ”

After restating her inquiries as to whether the reason might have been pressure from high government officials, home state voters or the interests of labor and agriculture, The Christian Century asks if there might be still another source of pressure not considered by Mrs. Roosevelt. Awake! answers that much evidence is available to provide another able candidate as the pressure source. The inquirer’s search is spurred by The Nation’s scathing denunciation of the loan, in its issue of September 9, 1950. In part it said: “The money will go to him without strings—or hope

of repayment; so there is no reason to believe that it will not be used to resuscitate the huge system of graft which greases the wheels of the fascist machine and the palms of Franco’s followers . . . But congressmen need to prove their anti-Red zeal before election day, especially in districts where Roman Catholic influence is strong; so they spend the taxpayers’ money to support Spain’s ‘Christian gentleman’, who has several times been turned down by the Export-Import Bank.”

The same magazine’s August 12 issue declared, “Credit for Franco’s victory goes to his paid lobbyists here;... to the Joint Chiefs of Staff ... to the cotton senators . . . and to the Catholic Church, some sections of which have exerted tremendous pressure . . . The pressures—military, political and clerical—were too severe.” Some not versed in the politics of the Catholic Hierarchy may ask, Why? A brief lesson In modern history will help to answer this.

Church vs. the Republic

For centuries under the Spanish monarchy the Catholic Church in Spain enjoyed the luxury of supremacy peculiar to its one-time glory throughout Europe during the feudal Middle Ages. Spain alone of all Europe had almost completely resisted the progress and enlightenment of the Reformation and the times since. But Anally the day of reckoning arrived, bringing with it a sudden revolution, the downward crash of the decadent monarchy and the birth of the new Spanish Republic. Eyewitness accounts tell of the joy among the masses and relate that this preponderantly Catholic nation, almost with ecstasy, burned Catholic churches and monasteries as symbols of past slavery and sources of incitement against the new government.

The restoration of order under the Republic ushered in the best rule the Spanish people had ever known. This despite the fact that the government had to hurdle the agination of radical communist elements on the one hand and the hordes of the church and the monarchists on the other. AU laws linking the church and the state were blotted out as Catholic autocracy gave way to laws of religious freedom. Religious officials were restricted to purely theological activities. Under the religious congregations law of 1933, religious orders enrolling 38,000 nuns and monks became civil societies subject to taxation, and art treasures worth millions reverted to the state. The centuries-long accumulation of wealth by the church while the peasant labored for virtual starvation wages at last reaped a recompense.

The Republic’s birth in 1931 had drawn the fire of Spanish bishops of the Catholic Church who had condemned its new constitution specifically and democracy in general. Now from Rome directly more venom spewed forth. The pope’s rage knew no bounds, and he roared back his reply with a decree of excommunication against the entire Spanish government. The fate of an excommunicate from the Catholic Church is indeed dire, as it lays him at the mercy of “church swords” and frees Catholics from any vows of fealty to the one so branded. The pope’s excommunication decree against the Spanish Republic was equivalent to a declaration of war.

The literal declaration came later when, in 1936, behind “church sword” Franco, the revolution broke. From the beginning no attempt was made to hide the Hierarchy’s love for Franco and his affection for the church. In 1945 the Vatican radio quoted a broadcast by Archbishop Gonzales, coadjutor of Bogota, saying, “It is thanks to God’s Providence that Spain has regained her youthful strength ... It is a blessing to see how true and healthy is Spain’s revival in the social, economic, in-tellectual, and above all spiritual spheres

—like the Rock of the Catholic Church, on which it is based . . ■ The nation is a defender of truth, and deserves the support of God/*

The archbishop is free and easy in the way he throws God’s support around to the four winds. Let correspondent Leland Stowe jar his memory about this “defender of truth’1, the Franco government over which he fawns. In his article, “Franco Lies to Win’1 (New Republic^ May 19, 1937), Stowe cited Franco’s cover-up of his slaughter of 3,000 or more peasants in the bull ring at Badajoz, and his laying of the civilian blasting of Durango (including the machine gunning of fourteen nuns) to a 'Marxist mob’, which a London Times writer declared existed nowhere in the province.

Franco Restores Church-State

Yes, during the inexcusable Spanish Civil War, the church did not hesitate to continue backing a black-hearted murderer who, though himself a Catholic, did not hesitate to mow down like flies the gallant Catholics who $tood up for the legitimate Spanish Republican government. Why? So that today Spain could, under Franco’s resurrected church-state of the Dark Ages, enjoy its “revival in the social, economic, intellectual, and above all spiritual spheres —like the Rock of the Catholic Church, on which it is based”. Little wonder that some frank reporter in Time magazine (May 29, 1944) revealed: “It is unfortunate that the Catholic Church in Spain is back doing business in the same way. Once again the Church is exploiting the people, selling indulgences, collecting its ten per cent, doing all the things that helped bring on the civil war.”

The years since the close of World War II in 1945 almost drip with Catholic propaganda favoring Franco, calling him “one of the greatest living leaders today” and praising his Spain’s "religious zeal”. High points include the pope’s special blessing on him and his fascist government in November, 1945, and again the following year. Why not? He has restored Rome’s religious hierarchs to their coveted lucrative position on the necks of Spain’s halfstarved peasantry; he has suppressed Protestantism, abolished all liberalism and individual freedom so dear to democratic lands. In triumph, the church in Spain brought out a new official catechism categorizing all liberal institutions including Protestantism, freedom of press, conscience, worship, assembly and instruction as sinful, but not listing as such nazism or fascism*

Behind a propaganda offensive largely Catholic-inspired, Franco succeeded in hoodwinking America, Britain and France so that during the Spanish Civil War they held to a “non-aggression” pact ‘to keep the war from spreading’. Meanwhile, the nazis of Germany and the fascists of Italy poured arms, men and money into Franco’s war chest on an out-and-out Ioan basis while ■ mumbling “non-aggression” with their oily mouths. Still, not for three years were they able to wear away the Republic’s defenders. To this day the Hierarchy from Rome will parrot the line of Franco that it was a Red-run, Red-supplied Republic. But the facts of observers testify that the communists never did control the Republican government, and the world knows the Loyalist authorities had to buy with gold arms to defend their cause, from the only governments recognizing their right to do this, Russia and Mexico.

If it was merely communism the church feared in Spain, why publish condemnations of principles like free press, worship, speech, conscience, assembly and instruction—things no communist government stands for? And if these principles represent a threat of communism, does the

Catholic Church, then, consider the United States government communistic for upholding these?

Pouring on the Whitewash

The tide of gush emitting from Rome’s world-wide voices is seemingly endless. One Catholic paper points out how “lucky” the United States is to have a fascist dictator in Spain instead of a communist one. Paid advertisements have frequented the public press, placed there by Catholic papers and orders like the Knights of Columbus, highlighting evil deeds they attribute to Loyalist soldiers and completely overlooking Franco’s openly murderous campaign. For refusing ^pain entrance into the United Nations in 1946 the action of that assembly was tagged a “kangaroo court”. The Missouri State Council of the Knights of Columbus all but gags thinking persons with its galling plea: “For if Spain . . . should fall before the Red Fascists, the last outpost of Christian civilization in Europe will be gone.1’

An overwhelming tirade from influenced individuals, pleading for Franco as a bulwark against communism, has burst forth, especially from Catholic priests and teachers or other dignitaries. Capping them all for unbelievable credulity and slush is the statement of Philadelphia’s Judge Clare Gerald Fenerty on May 22, 1949, before a Catholic society gathering: “No nation in the world can so honestly claim to have saved civilization as can Spain. Franco’s victory was a world victory.”

This obvious barrage of Catholic pressure has not gone entirely unnoticed. It was noticed by Federal Council of Churches president G. Bromley Oxnam in 1946. In May that year, The Christian Century unmasked the charges of communism leveled by Franco against the former Republic, and nakedly pointed out that Catholic pressure kept American aid from goIng to the Loyalists during the civil war. In August, 1950, the same magazine declared that Democratic Party leaders concluded surrender to current Catholic pressure would be necessary to retain their Congressional majority in November.

As though Franco’s miserable record needed any recalling, we will remind that despite much talk about reforming his government the Spanish caudiUo has done nothing of the sort, and his 28,000,000 still live without fundamental freedoms, including even the right of a fair trial. A member of the former Republican government estimated, in 1944, that at least 300,000 victims had been shot under the Franco regime, that from 60,000 to 70,000 political prisoners then resided in jail and that another 380,000 were under surveillance.

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, Inc*

True, Franco did not declare open war on the Allies during the second world war. But that is all. He did everything Spain was then capable of doing to insure a Hitler victory. Innumerable documented letters between Franco and the Axis partners reveal el caudiUrfB sentiments for them. A memorandum by Germany’s ambassador to Spain dated August 8, 1940, outlines Spain’s willingness to then declare war against the democracies if promised certain returns by Hitler. The fuehrer’s quibbling over terms, not Franco’s love for democracy, prevented further action.

A Columbia Broadcasting System correspondent declared from Paris in 1946 that Spain was then a haven for “at least 2,000 Nazi agents classified as ‘dangerous* ” Similar charges linked Spain with Argentina in sheltering nazis. One congressman declared Spain the “new center of world fascism”. In the midst of seeming Nazi triumph in 1940, Franco taunted the British ambassador by asking why Britain and France did not give up while there was stW time to spare further destruction.

Captured official German documenta carry the stream of evidence on and on. Hitler exhorts Franco to further good works for the cause. Franco can’t wait to reply and “make certain clarifications and confirmation of my loyalty*’. Franco assures Mussolini of his wish to enter the war at “a favorable opportunity”. Mussolini acknowledges the statement gratefully. The files proved overwhelming in their indictment of Franco as pn Axis partner in every sense and prompted the U, N/s 1946 condemnation. However, the following year witnessed the launching of the unparalleled Catholic propaganda campaign in America. Significantly, in 1947 the U. S. delegate abstained from a second U. N. condemnation of the Spanish government. On November 4, 1950, the U. N. General Assembly approved a resolution lifting the 1946 U. N. ban on sending ambassadors and ministers to Madrid.

To be sure, the postwar model of Spain’s “dime store Caesar”, dripping with his friends’ whitewash, has talked loud and long about how he never, never really liked associating with Hitler and Mussolini and how he now just hates that mean Russian bear and oh! just knies the American eagle and British lion. In March, 1949, the Spanish foreign minister did indeed say that the future of Spain was bound up with that of the United States. But when the Nazi star seemed risen in permanent brilliance, the two-faced Franco wrote to his then bosom companion: “Dear Fuehrer: ... I stand ready at your side . . . and decidedly at your disposal, united in common historical destiny"

4 Handout for a Hoodlum,

Spanish sources and U. S. admissions indicate that “no strings1’ could be attached to the loan. Just how those responsible could ever feel free to trust a lying murderer like Franco to spend the funds for the purposes desired by America is beyond imagination. With interest we read press dispatches of Spain's appropriating over £90,000 for the suppression of Protestants and Freemasons. We read of the Spanish government’s making loans to the Catholic Church for the building of seminaries* Are these the things the United States’ legislators had in view when they appropriated the loan for Spain? In further awakening revelationSj Drew Pearson reported in 1946, on the basis of State Department files, that Franco had extended aid to Argentina’s fascist state. The same reporter revealed in July, 1949, that some of the senators working for the loan had been under advice of Jose de Lequerica, Spain’s wartime pro-Nazi ambassador to Vichy.

What, then, of the final flimsy argument c4 Catholic propagandists that since the United States as well as the United Nations recognizes other dictatorships, including that of Russia, whom Rome calls infidels, mongols, the forces of Genghis Khan, etc., there should be no hesitancy to deal with the anticommimistic franco regime. Yet the Roman Church practices this very same principle on grounds of far less expediency. In February, 1950, the pope broadcast a strong condemnation of press censorship and totalitarian methods in general. Report of the broadcast ivas at first suppressed in Spanish papers. However, immediately thereafter explanation was offered that the speech referred only to “iron curtain countries”, not to Spain. Thereafter, the speech was printed with this explanation. The Catholic Church boasts that all of Spain's press is Catholic and subject to Catholic censorship, so there can be no question of the church’s approval of this explanation of the address.

This hypocrisy is capped by the fact that though the church so deplores the "heathen hordes of the Soviet* she hails the victory of Franco, who enlisted the help of thousands of North African Moors in his legions while conquering Spain, Rome is not scrupulous. Anyone who will serve her ends can join the ranks of her ‘pure crusaders’, Any thug can be used to destroy freedom. Then, to maintain their tyranny, the shameless hierarchs turn to the democracy they tried unsuccessfully to wreck and ask for a handout for their needy “church sword". Many fear that by the loan America is feathering arrows for her own downfall, financing a confessed murderer and backing a government described by one writer as the symbol of "rule of the world’s blackest clergy, most reactionary army and most degenerate nobility". They hope for some obstruction to the loan’s completion.

But Catholic and Protestant alike who have true hope are learning that real freedom and the promise of life itself are not to be bought. They are God’s gift to those who will turn to his now operating ‘government of peace*, the Theocracy. This kingdom will need no loan to spread its rule earth-wide, destroy oppression of every kind and establish permanent and united peace.

Bilbao Hails Franco—or Else!

A TRIUMPHANT victory for Franco! An example of “spontaneous enthusiasm” on the part of the people of Bilbao in hailing the Spanish dictator! That is what the Spanish propagandists would have us believe.

G. That it was a victory could hardly be questioned, for the comment was made regarding the lack of hostilities on Franco’s visit in June to the city of Bilbao, a stronghold of opposition to his regime. There he faced not only Basque apposition to his dictatorship, but a city in which thousands of leaflets had been distrib' uted urging a boycott of all celebrations and threatening violence during his visit. When the boycott failed and the violence diu not materialize, one supporter said, “If he can carry it off this well here, he doesn’t have to worry about anywhere else.”

G. But the “spontaneous enthusiasm” reported by the Spanish press was definitely open to question. Whence would such enthusiasm come? Why should Bilbao suddenly turn out with flags, banners, holidays, festive occasions and more-or-less enthusiastic throngs to welcome Franco? Light was shed on this by the Basque delegate in the U. S. A., Jesus de Ga-lindez, in a letter to the New York Time# (June 29) which told of the Basque underground’s report on the preparations for the “spontaneous demonstration of joy” over Franco’s visit. He stated that prior to the visit the local governor had ordered aii factories in the industrial zone of Bilbao to give a full two-day holiday with pay to all workers, if they attend the “spontaneous” demonstrations. [It was reported elsewhere that the government ordered that names of workers who did not show up be supplied to authorities.]

C Fishing boats along the coast were given to understand that they would be welcome in Bilbao, or else. Police made a house-to-house check-up along the thoroughfares Franco would use to be sure that flags would fly from every window, and, as an additional precaution, tenants, were ordered to give a list of those who would watch the parade so that special extra “guests” provided by the governor could be present at empty windows. When Franco arrived the well-arranged, carefully planned, “spontaneous” celebrations began. There waa no violence in this city that was crawling with police, plain-clothes men and motorcycle escorts, and where for miles civil guards patrolled the roads. 1

Franco's visit to Bilbao was highly publicized. It was an evidence of his thorough domination of the country. The lack of hostilities was a political triumph, but the enthusiasm was not as great as official Spanish press sources implied) and the city's “spontaneous" expression of joy at seeing Franco could well be compared with the man who had a gun rammed into his back and heard the words, “Smile, brother!” He smiled. So did Bilbao.

idiots known as cretins. Concerning iodine deficiency in small children, Dr, J. For* man, editor of the Ohio State Medical Journal, stated;

“Their little bodies develop, their brains sharpen, their nervousness and irritability disappear, when they are given as much as a trace of iodine.” And regarding the need of other elements he adds: “Copper is used in parts per million to prevent anemia, both in animals and in ourselves. We do not need much iron (about enough to make six carpet tacks) but we need that very badly and we need a constant replenishment in our bodies . . . Magnesium is essential to the formation of bone and teeth and plays an important part in the metabolism of phosphorus and of sugars and starches. If it becomes sufficiently reduced in an individual, such a person becomes irritable, the heart runs away with itself and finally, if carried to the extreme, the victim dies in convulsions,”

In view of these facts the question presents itself: Can It be that faulty nutrition is one of the causes of man succumbing to degenerative diseases and that it is based on impoverished soil? Such seems to be the opinion of the Medical Press and 'Circular (a physicians’ professional magazine published in England), for it editorially states: “The first and indispensable condition of health is that it must be based on adequate nutrition/’ and that “Whatever way we look at it, health begins in the soil”.

■That opinion is also shared by others, tn a forum on “Soil, Food and Health” at the recent 10th annual meeting in New York city of the Friends of Land, a society of conservationists, it was shown that the health of man, as well as of plants and animals, was directly related to the soil. Reporting on this forum, the New York Times, September 30, 1950, in a news dispatch entitled “Hidden Minerals Held Fer-tiltty Key’ll quotes Dr. J. Forman as saying that by proper soil conservation “we can easily raise enough of the right kind of food to feed twice as many people as we have in this country today and do away with nearly all disease”.

At the same forum Dr. K. Starr Chester, supervisor of the agricultural division of the Batelle Memorial Institute, at Columbus, Ohio, stated; “The nutritive value of oqr daily foods is on the down grade, mainly because of the constant decline in the fertility of our soil. Complete fertilization of the soil could easily talte care of the increasing population in the world for many generations.”

Commercial Fertilizers Blamed

Interesting light as to the cause for the decline in the nutritive value of our crops is shed by the following quotation, taken from Carrell’s Man the Unknown:

“Man is literally made from the dust of the earth. For this reason his physiological and mental activities are profoundly influenced by the geological constitution of the country where he lives, by the nature of the animals and plants on which he generally feeds. His structure and his functions depend also on the selections he makes of certain elements among the vegetal and animal foods at his disposal , . ,

“Man is, first of all, a nutritive process. The staple foods may not contain the same nutritive substances as in former times. Mass production has modified the composition of wheat, eggs, milk, fruit, and butter, although these articles have retained their familiar appearance. Chemical fertilizers, by increasing the abundance of the crops without replacing all the exhausted elements of the soil, have indirectly contributed to change the nutritive value of cereal grains and vegetables. Hens have been compelled, by artificial diet and mode of living, to enter the ranks of mass producers. Has not the quality of their eggs been modified? The, same question may be asked about milk, because cows are now confined to the stable all the year round, and are fed on manufactured provender. Hygienists have not paid sufficient attention to the genesis of diseases. Their studies of conditions of life and diet, and of their effects on the physiological and mental state of man, are superficial, incomplete, and of too short duration?’

The foregoing, coming from the pen of an eminent authority, one who enjoyed the highest reputation among the orthodox conservative medical profession, is of the greatest interest and value. Note that he testifies that those who make health their business, the hygienists, have not paid sufficient attention to the source, beginning or cause of diseases, and that he points an accusing finger at the food we eat, and beyond the food to commercial methods and fertilizers.

Also putting the blame for increase of degenerative diseases on commercial fertilizers, Dr. James Asa Shield, assistant professor of neuropsychiatry of the Medical College of Virginia, said in an address before the Southern Medical Association Convention, as reported by the Associated Press, “that food produced from soil fertilized with chemicals has caused an increase in degenerative diseases throughout the United States/’ Particularly did he single out the high incidence of multiple sclerosis (a hardening and degenerative disease of spine and brain) in the United States and. certain European countries as being due to the widespread use of commercial fertilizers.

To the same effect is the testimony of Dr. Max Gerson, German refugee scientist and eminent authority on cancer. Says he: “The fundamental damage [as regards cancer] starts with the use of artificial fertilizer for vegetables and fruits as well as for fodder. Thus the chemically transformed vegetarian and meat nourishment, increasing through the generations, transforms the organs and functions of the human body tn the wrong direction . . . Another basic defect lies in the waste of excrements of the cities. Instead of returning the natural manure to the fruit-bearing soil, it is led into rivers, killing underwater life.”

That use of commercial fertilizers adversely affects vitamins is the claim of Dr. McAlison. According to experiments made by him, the vitamin content of foods is directly related to the vitamin content of the soil from which they are taken, and which in turn depends upon the organic elements and biologic life of the soil, all of which are harmed by the use of commercial fertilizers.

Return to Natural Fertilizers

If the indiscriminate use of commercial fertilizers is responsible for not only poor soil and poor plants, but also poor animals and poor human creatures, a return to organic methods should show a beneficial effect on man and beast. Has such been found to be the case? Yes, it has. In fact, there are many farmers who testify to the improvement in their livestock as a result of changing from commercial to organic fertilizers. Stamina and resultant value of horses have increased as much as sevenfold; diseases such as contagious abortion in mares have been arrested; and even immunity to such dread cattle ailments as hoof and mouth disease and rinderpest have been reported by those taking the lead in the return to natural fertilizers. And what about the effect on humans?

Institutions in England, New Zealand, Canada, etc., have made a change from food raised by help of commercial fertilizers to food raised on land supplied with natural elements, and all report the same improvement. Representative of such reports is the one appearing in The Lancet, an English medical journal, to the effect that “a striking improvement is reported in the general health and physique, particularly as regards freedom from infections, alimentary upsets and dental caries”.

The absence of incidence of many degenerative diseases among Oriental peoples who feed the soil only by natural methods has been pointed out as evidence or proof that the use of commercial fertilizers is responsible for the prevalence of such ailments in Western countries. Whether or not this one factor is solely responsible may be open to question (other factors such as excessive indulgence and pace of living are doubtless involved), but in view of the foregoing it seems certain to have at least some bearing on it.

More could be said on this subject, but the foregoing will suffice to show that degenerative diseases are related to faulty nutrition and that proper nutrition is not merely a matter of eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, etc. So long as use of commercial fertilizers increases the cellulose and carbohydrate content of plants, and thus their size, without adding, but rather detracting from the trace elements, vitamins and proteins, just so long will man be handicapped, and needlessly so, in his quest for health.

The above facts also throw light on the condition known as “hidden hunger” from which many people, usually unknowingly, suffer because of lack of certain vital elements, and they explain the ever-increasing manufacture and sale of vitamins and supplemental mineral elements. That such products do serve, at least to an extent as substitutes, was brought out at a legislative hearing some seven years ago. After Dr. Morris Fishbein, head of the American Medical Association, had testified that such were worthless, Dr. Eddy, nutritionist of Columbia University, produced statistics to show that by supplying vitamins a certain large plant increased the earnings of its piece workers from $7.50 to more than $10.00 per day.

Other Factors Also Involved

It might be well, however, to sound a note of caution in this regard. While with* out a doubt commercial fertilizers have caused deficiencies in vital factors, resulting in turn in degenerative diseases, it is nevertheless reasonable to conclude that there are also other factors involved. The Bible states, “God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap," and that “the wages sin pays is death”. Degenerative diseases are prevalent and increasing in such places where fast living is prevalent and increasing. Modem Sodom’s “fullness of bread and idleness”, ‘love of pleasures rather than love of God,’ use of tobacco and over* indulgence in liquor are without a doubt all involved.

We cannot sow to selfishness, overindulge our fleshly appetites or consume our energies on the altar of selfish ambition and not expect to reap suffering and disease. Along all these lines each individual can practice common sense, self-control and right living, regardless of how much he may be able to do about the facts above given relative to health and the soil.

The Bible holds out the hope of a new world, where every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and where the “inhabitant shall not say, I am sick”. (Micah 4:4; Isaiah 33:24) Doubtless in that new world, now so near at hand, the natural cycle of keeping the earth fertile will be restored and all men will benefit therefrom. But everlasting life will come only by taking in knowledge concerning the only true God and the one whom he sent forth, Jesus Christ.—John 17:3, New World Trans.

fly “Awoke!" carrttpondeni fn South Afrko

SOUTH Africa is greatly indebted to the French Huguenots who arrived in 1689, For their love of the Word of God and freedom of worship they put everything at stake, even their lives. Their example and influence have left an indelible mark on the history of the country.

But is it generally appreciated and realized that the principle of liberty is more and more being pushed aside, not only in other parts of the world but also in our country? The story of suppresion that is related in this article clearly indicates the presence in this land of a class of persons of great influence in the counsels of the people who are ever on the lookout to make breaches in the walls of defense against the evil winds of oppression to achieve their own selfish and narrow ends. So let all sincere people ponder seriously the implications of the following facts,

A teacher in the Transvaal Province through personal study of the Scriptures dared to come to conclusions not Th agreement with the views of the “orthodox” Afrikaans-speaking denominations of the country. The teacher concerned, Mr, L. C. Kotze, had taught at Palmietfontein, Tret-som, near Vaalwater, Transvaal, since 1945.

The trouble started when a friend of his, with whom he was lodging, expressed the complaint that an African, a witness of Jehovah, who was working among the Africans, was propagating communism. Mr. Kotze refuted the charge, as he was acquainted with the facts. Thereupon this friend, Mr. Oosthuizen, became violently angry, and bade Kotze straightway to leave his home, which he did. He added: “I shall get you* out of this place, Henceforth we are enemies,”

That same afternoon Oosthuizen went to the local clergyman. Together they drew up a petition headed, “The Christian parents of the Palmietfontein School wish the transfer of Mr. L. C. Kotze because of his identifying himself with ‘Russellism’.” (“Russellism” is an enemy appellation of reproach for Jehovah’s witnesses.) The week that followed the parents were visited to get their signatures. Quite a few refused to sign. At a school committee meeting shortly afterwards the chairman (the above Oosthuizen) warned Kotze that if he became a “Bible Student”, as some local people call Jehovah’s witnesses, ‘things would be made hot for him.’

Another incident, which was rather puzzling, was that when Mr. Arthur Middle* ton, the former principal, recently resigned his position, Kotze was appointed to succeed him. On the day of the opening of the school at the beginning of the new quarter another principal was present, having been appointed a few days after Kotze. All this occurred about October of last year.

On November 9, 1949, the matter was taken a step further when a deputation of the School Board was delegated to meet the objecting parents. Meanwhile some parents regretted that they had signed the petition and withdrew their signatures.

The deputation consisted of a Mr. Neeth-ling and two clergymen of different denominations (once in violent conflict with one another). Oosthuizen, the man who had started all this trouble, saw to it that he was at Ny1st room right early that morning. Nylstroom is the seat of the School

Board and the place of residence of these clergy.. He accompanied them on the way out. No wonder that Neethling, in his speech at this gathering, gave expression to the predetermined effort to oust Kotze at all costs when he stated they had come to rid the parents of the 16-year-old plague of “Russelllsm” and that he had personally called on De Malan (the premier of the country) to consult him and that Dr. Malan had counseled that the School Board had the power to see to it that they got the right kind of teacher.

The former principal, Mr. Middleton, who had been teaching at Palmietfontein for many years, was and is a witness of Jehovah. When the local clergyman tried to oust Middleton because he was a “Bible Student”, Oosthuizen was the one who more than any other did his utmost to forestall Middleton’s transfer, as he reckoned that such would be a severe loss to the school He even approached Kotze at the time as a fellow member of his church to assist him in countering the parson’s efforts.

At the beginning of 1950 Kotze was appointed acting principal of the school. This apparently angered Oosthuizen more than ever. By persistent agitation and intimidation in co-operation with the local clergyman many parents were persuaded to “go on strike” and keep their children from attending school. By this method they had shortly before forced the hands of the authorities to grant them the bus service they were clamoring for.

Inspectors Find in Favor of Teacher

To find a way out of the deadlock the local inspector suggested a departmental inquiry. The Department of Education at Pretoria sent two inspectors to investigate. They found in favor of Kotze. In line with their finding the department informed the local committee that they could not transfer Kotze, as he did not wish to be transferred. He was a man of irreproachable character and had in no respect violated the regulations of the department. He had never taught any doctrine in his classes. The parents were instructed by the inspectors to send their children to school.

But Oosthuizen and the local parson were not satisfied. Backed by the connivance of the School Board they persisted. Again 15 parents were persuaded to keep 19 children from school.

Legally the striking parents were chargeable. It was the duty of the School Board to see to it that the children attended school. The three clergymen on the board and their associates, however, preferred to connive at the delinquency of these parents, The parents knew that they had the support of these men who were responsible for the proper enforcement of the law, but who refused to do their duty. Locally those of the parents who wished to send their children back to school were specially attended to by agitation and intimidation.

Oosthuizen and the local clergyman, Vi-viers, saw one possible open door yef to get Kotze transferred: The attitude of the Transvaal administrator, Dr. Nicol, an exclergyman. Would he not yield to the pressure of his former colleagues of Nylstroom and Palmietfontein? He had the power to transfer without stating any reason, if in his judgment such transfer was in the interests of education.

Administrator Uses Autocratic Power

In the end the administrator, evidently after some hesitation, yielded. Kotze was instructed that he would be transferred as from August 1, 1950. On receiving this notification he wrote to the administrator as follows;

“Herewith I desire to strongly protest against my transfer to another school.

"One of the parents got angry with me

when I tried to prove to him that Jeho-van’s witnesses did not propagate communism. Thereupon he decided to oust me from here. The question of my faith was merely a convenient stick to hit me with.

“The parents have been incited and intimidated in a most disgusting manner to keep their children from school in order to get me from here.

“The proper procedure from the start would have been to prosecute the parents. That would have cleared the situation. The conduct of the School Board indicates that they are not competent to fulfill their duty. I urgently insist on their dissolution.

“To my knowledge no teacher has yet been transferred on religious grounds. We are Jiving in a democratic land. A dangerous precedent has been created. In my immediate neighborhood there are teachers who believe as I do. It is a very easy matter to oust them in the same manner. Will I not possibly be persecuted in the same way at another center? I am fighting for the freedom of worship not only of myself but also of my colleagues.

“Respectfully but urgently I ask you to cancel my transfer so that justice may triumph.”

As a member of the Transvaal Teachers Association Mr. Kotze invoked the assistance and protection of this organization. In a most sympathetic letter the secretary of that association replied on June 23,1950.

“We conclude that you have been persecuted for your faith and that personal differences also played their part. We regret it and strongly disapprove. You may rest assured that we are on your side.

“We have discussed the legal aspect with our legal counsel. It was found that while you have been wronged morally, you have no grounds of appeal to the courts of law. The regulations, backed by the Education Act, grant the Department (and more specifically the administrator) the right to transfer a teacher without assigning any reason. Read section 23 of the regulations, a copy of which was recently sent to every school.

“We once contested the right of the Department to transfer a teacher in the Supreme Court. The decision of the court was plain. The only proviso is that the teacher should be transferred to a post at least of the same grade.

"We therefore have to face the unpleasant fact that you will have to submit.

"For the very purpose of combating 1his situation we now more than ever press for the institution of a board of appeal, and trust that we shall succeed.

"That you should want to continue at Palmietfontein, we can well understand. But we ask you to consider whether it would not be better for your peace of mind to go elsewhere. Is it not part of the Divine will that you go to fresh fields of labor? Now we only understand in part; one day all mysteries will be cleared up to us?’

A kind letter indeed! In sharp contrast to the conduct of the professional preachers who “profess” to teach the Word of God.

Here, then, we see in which direction the clergy leaders of the people are leading them. Right into the intolerance from which our ancestors fied when they came to these climes. The occasion for their doing so is the same as that of their prototypes, vizT, hatred of any sound Scriptural reasoning. When they are cornered by Biblical argument they became spiteful ahd turn into fierce persecutors of the innocent exactly as they did in the days of Jesus.

Clergy's Vain Fight

They get little real satisfaction out of it these days, however. Their iniquitous deeds are dragged into the open, and they do not relish the full glare of publicity

turned on works which they prefer to perform in the dark. (John 3:19-21) Moreover many honest people are turning away from such teachers in disgust

Not only >vas the above teacher forced to see with his own eyes what was practiced in the name of “Christianity” by some of the leading men of his “church” connections, and so dissociate himself completely from them, but four families of the vicinity have begun to look more thoroughly into the true teachings of the Bible. They are now turning their faces in the direction of the new world rather than continuing to walk along with the present evil world which is in its “last days”, its “time of the end”. Public lectures, which were attended by large numbers, and home Bible studies are helping them as they are helping so many others round the globe these days. This gospel of the Kingdom is being preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, whether the clergy like it or not.—Matthew 24:14.

Barnyard Social Register

<[ To the casual observer the antics within the chicken coop may not seem of much apparent significance* However, this is far from true. What may appear to the onlooker as meaningless and indiscriminate pecking by the hens is, to the contrary, a matter of the highest importance. Kansas State College's Dr. Alphaeus M. Guhl has carefully studied dozens of flocks of chickens. Dr. GuhVs studies reveal that a rigid "social register” is almost immediately established in any flock of hens. The order is determined by no other factor than the respective pecking ability of each hen. Each receives a rank above all of those that it can successfully peck. On the other hand, any that can out-peck the one mentioned will be ranked above her. This order in life is very important in that it determines the Older of eating and receiving of various privileges around the coop.

As an experiment, Dr, Guhl assembled eight white leghorns, and, true to Dr. Guhl's word? the eight hens quickly found who could peck whom, and their society was set up. It is to be noted that the hens near the top of the ladder are of a haughtier spirit, whereas those lower on the scale are of a more docile and “feminine” spirit. As proves to be true with virtually all forms of life, the more ladylike ones have greater sex appeal, and the chances of their eggs becoming fertile are better. However, because of her privilege of being able to sleep as long as she wishes, scratch for worms where she pleases and the many other benefits common to her position, the queen of the roost usually enjoys the long' est life.

As an experiment, Dr. Guhl took the most humble and docile hen of those assembled for the magazine research and for six weeks injected her with male hormones. The results were amazing. Forsaking all of her former meek and lowly manners, this last-place hen became a sudden aggressor. One by one she eifrrr inated her rivals, laying low each in order till she confronted the queen herself. Then, unhesitatingly, she flew at the number one hen and in a flurry of feathers and beaks had successfully pecked her. Standing in triumph over the fallen one, the victor accepted the "crown” and a new social order was proclaimed.

THE Gulf Stream has well been described as “a warm Mississippi in the cold Atlantic”. Yes, it is a river in an ocean, in fact, just one of many such rivers. But, you ask, how can that be, a river in an ocean? How can it keep its identity, how can it keep from being swallowed up, from being diluted and dispersed in all the surrounding water? Besides, does not gravity account for the flow of rivers on land, they always flowing lower and lower until they reach the sea or ocean? What accounts for the flow of these ocean rivers?

Consider the Gulf Stream, the best example of such rivers. It is from forty to fifty miles wide and from two to six thousand feet deep. Traveling at a rate of three to six miles an hour, its flow is estimated at some 500 billion gallons or about 2 billion tons of water a second. Recent reports indicate that it is somewhat narrower and travels considerably faster than was once supposed. Even large ships entering its course can feel a pull. No insignificant rivulet, this Gulf Stream!

From where and to where does this stream flow? Emanating from the Gulf of Mexico, and hence its name, it flows out between Cuba and the southern tip of Florida, turns northward and, parallel to the United States but usually some 200 miles offshore, continues until it reaches the latitude of a width of 167 miles. When it gets as high as the island of Nantucket it is deflected eastward, slows down considerably, and from there on is known as the Gulf Stream drift, then gradually forks, going north to the Arctic ocean and south to the west coast of Africa.

Characteristics of the Stream

The Gulf Stream has many striking characteristics. First of all, it has its own deep-blue color, which is in striking contrast to the murky green of the ocean.

The line of demarcation between the stream and the ocean is discernible even to nonsailors and has been noticed by aviators a mile above the ocean. Along its path eddies are continually forming and breaking off. These last from a few minutes to one or two weeks; the larger ones occur every sixty to seventy miles and are often 250 miles in width.

The Gulf Stream also has its own degree of salt content, higher than that of the ocean. It has its own warm temperature, around 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and its own warm air. Also, it has its own storms and fogs, and its own marine life.

The Gulf Stream brings with it tropical marine life which differs greatly from that found in the ocean flowing on each side of it. There are the flying fish; the sailfish,

which grow to six feet in length; and the tarpon, also a large fish which anglers find to be a real fighter. Most remarkable of all, however, is the Portuguese man-of-war, so named because of being found in the latitude of Portugal and resembling a miniature warship. It is an outsized jellyfish which floats on the surface of the ocean, and its bright colors make it one of the most beautiful of all sea creatures. However, it also is one of the most dangerous of fish, having tentacles which grow from 12 to 20 feet in length and whose sting is capable of paralyzing fish and inflicting serious injury to man.

Also, the Gulf Stream is marked by great masses of the gulfweed, the sargas-sum, which looks like large greenish-brown rafts and on which swarm hosts of other creatures of the sea,

Franklin Publicizes the Stream

The facts regarding the Gulf Stream were first brought to the attention of the nautical world by Benjamin Franklin* About 1770, while postmaster for the American colonies, the question came up as to why the British packets crossing the ocean always took a week or two longer than did the American merchant ships. This seemed to be particularly strange to Franklin, as the Yan kee ships c arried much heavier cargoes and were less adequately manned than were the British packets. Inquiring of a Yankee sea captain, Franklin was told that Yankee seamen in the whaling business had discovered the existence of a stream that was much warmer than the ocean itself and that had an eastward flow of about three miles an hour. Yankee ships would avoid this stream on their westward trips but the British, trying to stem its current, would lose as much as 70 miles a day.

As ocean charts of his day contained no reference to it, Franklin requested that this sea captain indicate the course of this Gulf Stream on an ocean map, which he readily did. Whenever Franklin crossed the ocean thereafter, he made It a point to note this stream and to check its temperature. He found that it was always warmer than the ocean on either side of it and so concluded that a thermometer might be a useful instrument in helping a navigator to identify it. This in turn would serve as an aid in determining the location of a ship*

Franklin's method of identifying the stream by means of temperature readings is considered as being fundamentally sound today. However, the Gulf Stream no longer serves much of a purpose in aiding navigators to locate the position of their ship. Why? Well, first of all, nautical instruments today are far more accurate than they were in Franklin's time; errors of 5 or 10 degrees were quite common then. Besides, the Gulf Stream has been doing considerable meandering in recent years, so that its course is no longer as set as it once was. Also, the eddies that continually form and break off from the stream may be as warm or even warmer than the st;’earn Itself and being as much as 250 miles wide would make for that much of a variation.

Franklin published the following facts: The trade winds, which blow from east to west in the vicinity of the equator and which, doubtless, are due to the rotation of the earth, pile up a lot of water on the western coast of the Atlantic* Much of this enters the Caribbean sea and flows over into the Gulf of Mexico. From there it spills out into the Atlantic between the tip of Florida and Cuba.

Another factor that today is considered as having a bearing on the formation and course of the Gulf Stream is what is known as the “terrestrial circulation” of ocean water. There is a continual circulation of I

the very cold water of the Arctics at great depth toward the equator and of the warm

water of the equator on the surface toward the poles.

Stream's Assets and Liabilities

The Gulf Stream is both a bane and a blessing as far as man is concerned. As it moves out eastward into the ocean it meets itself coming back in the form of the ice-cold Labrador Current flowing from the north. The meeting of these two extreme currents creates the number one shipping hazard of the' Atlantic, and that on the most direct route from the United States to Europe, by means of the Great Circle. As a breeder of bad weather it is unequaled, causing great storms and the worst fogs in all the world. Besides this, as icebergs break off those glaciers in Greenland, etc., and start to come south, the eddies created by these two currents tend to stall them, thus increasing the hazard.

Incidentally, these factors were responsible for the sinking of the British luxury liner, the “Titanic”, world's largest ship of its time, on its maiden trip to the United States in 1912. As a result of this disaster, in which more than 1,500 people lost their lives, an international ice patrol was formed.

To ships traveling the route of the Great Circle the Gulf Stream may complicate matters and prove to be a bane, but to men on land, the lands of western Europe, it is indeed a blessing, bringing both warmth and moisture. Ireland owes its1 reputation as the Emerald Isle to the Gulf Stream, and the climate of Great Britain, Norway and Northwestern Russia would be at least ten degrees colder in the winter were it not for the warm breezes of that stream. As a result some of the northern ports of Norway are open the year round as is also the port of Murmansk, on the northwestern tip of Russia. And the branch of the Gulf Stream that goes southward is credited with giving southwestern Europe the more favorable climate that it has, to compare with parts of the United States in the same latitude.

Every now and then there is some excitement over the Gulf Stream changing its course. In recent years flying fish were noticed near the coasts of both England and New Jersey, and in 1949 for the first time its blue waters were in sight of land in the United States. However, navy hydrog-raphers assure us that even though the stream is acting rather eratic in recent years there is not much likelihood of its changing its course to any great extent. The “continental shelf”, that area of shallow water off the coast of a continent, would prevent this stream with its depth of from two to six thousand feet from com-ing much closer to shore than it now does.

The story of the Gulf Stream would not be complete without some reference to the Sargasso sea of the Atlantic. The location of this sea is determined by the central whirl of the Gulf Stream and has been variously estimated as being somewhere between 20 and 35 degrees north and 30 and 75 degrees west, for a total area almost the size of Europe. It is an area of practically no ocean currents or surface circulation and is covered with large islands of gulfweed or sargassum, hence its name. The current opinion regarding these islands of seaweeds, however, is that they are composed of pelagic or oceanic plants that grow right on the surface of the ocean.

Yes, there are strange ocean rivers that have their own characteristics and that follow a regular course in the ocean for many, many miles. And the Gulf Stream, with its flow of 2 billion tons of water per second, its tropical marine life, its role as a breeder of peril along the Great Circle route, its great Sargasso sea and, above all, its benign influence on the climate of western Europe, is the queen of them all.

Whys and Wherefores of Taxes

Now, he's just a common man;

Tax him, tax him, ah you can.

Tax his house and tax his bed;

Tax the bald spot on his head;

Tax his bread and tax his meat;

Tax the shoes clear off his feet;

Tax his auto, tax his gas;

Tax the road that he must pass;

Tax the water, tax the air;

Tax the sunlight, if you dare.

♦ Yes, some poet surely felt bad about taxes J ♦ “Why do we have to pay taxes?” According to the Encyclopedia American af a tax is a $ “compulsory contribution from a person to & a government to defray expense incurred in the common interest without any reference to special benefits received*'. Additionally, modem tax experts hold that “taxes may be im- 4 posed wholly apart from re venue-producing Jr qualities, to achieve desired effects on particu- 4 lar occasions**, and “on the higher level, of & operation, as instruments of human welfare’*.

♦ The number of different taxes imposed or /J collected in the United States has been com- g puted as well above five hundred, being collected by some 170,000 “tax authorities*’, which £ include everything from the federal govern- £ ment to irrigation districts. In the main, taxes fall into the following eight categories, with £ varying features as noted. £

♦ 1. The income tax. In some places this is 1' imposed three times, by the federal, state and £ city governments. Termed a “progressive*’ tax 's because its rate increases with the increase in <■ the amount involved, It is based on “ability to pay". For instance, it is held that a man earning a million dollars can part with $865,000 as easily as a man earning one thousand can part with $12,00. >

…