FEM IN IN E RESURGENCE Dear Editor, The name 'Resurgence' implies re-birth and the abandonment of outworn traditions. I th in k i t was the name, principally, that attracted me to the magazine two to three years ago. I found what I expected —that it was intended to be a vehicle for the purpose of taking a new look at things rather than fo r the purpose o f supplying text-book information. "The scope is not how to do, but why to do", as you put it.

However, though we have to ask 'why?' at every step to see whether what we are doing is in alignment w ith our basic 'w hy', the 'how' has to be examined to make sure i t does not contravene that basic 'why'. Devolution, decentralisation and self-sufficiency are means o f attaining the liberty o f action which we see to be basically desirable, and it is natural that you deal with them at some length; but I am puzzled that you do not deal with our many institutions which need to be re-examined. Our educational system, our National Health system, our monarchic system, our competitive system; trades unions, marriage laws, crime and punishment. Often they are matters with which we can deal more effectively by staying where we are, co-operating wherever possible, speaking up where we see harm being done, and standing our ground when we are pushed.

You rarely have female contributors. Present day women are obliged to be concerned mainly w ith the needs o f their own families, and many have other employment in addition; so it may be that the average woman has l i tt le time to consider public affairs seriously. F if ty or so years ago female domestic labour was cheap; consequently there were many women who had leisure to be writing busily to radical magazines. If modern men could stop thinking o f women as a different species with different needs, they might be able to imagine how they themselves would feel were they situated as so many women are today; then they would soon be writing vigorously in your magazine on behalf o f women. That would induce more women to read your magazine and to persuade their husbands to buy it.

I have the January to February magazine before me.

I th in k the article headed 'Button Rule' was not intended to be taken too seriously. None of us want mob-rule, and we all know that democracy is not just a matter o f counting heads. I did not like the somewhat sneering b it about Margaret Thatcher (Mrs Thatcher says that she has never had her face lifte d , by the way). However, the article raised thought-provoking questions. Also, Mr Plewes is not afraid to be audacious, and that makes fo r lively discussion.

Mr Geoffrey Ashe's page often displays a touch o f audacity, and that is partly why I like it. Much o f what he says may appear at firs t to be frivolous, but in my opinion he has astute goodsense. Consider, fo r example, his sly remarks about Goddess-worshipping women.

I wonder whether the average man realises that his gods are Created out o f purely masculine imagination. I am most familiar with the gods o f the Christian Bible —from the thundering Jehovah to the Heavenly Father. The Virgin Mary has become a secondary goddess, but she is portrayed as a rather weak young woman doing as she is bidden, while in pictures and statues she is depicted as a prim young miss with a vapid face — obviously the masculine idea o f what a saintly woman ought to be. Note, also, that all the angels in the Bible are given masculine names and that they are pictured by artists as tall young men with Grecian noses. The pretty-lady angels with wings tacked on to their long nightgowns are made by men fo r children and childish women. I mention these man-made conceptions to illustrate how deeply we are conditioned and to point out what a tremendous re-surge o f v ita lity is necessary, if we are to bring about honest understanding and reconciliation in the relationships of men and women.

Your own passages in the magazine I in variably read w ith warm sympathy; but sometimes you surprise me. For example, your review o f the book 'Ramayana' is headed 'Suffer We Must', and you appear to agree with the philosophy o f the book. To me this doctrine seems pernicious. We do suffer; but we neec not. Suffering may make us less smug; it may make us th in k furiously; but it is not necessary. I t does not enlighten, i t does not teach us to love, i t helps no one.

As a rule, I am inspired by accounts of those who, having found it necessary to opt out of present-day society, are struggling fo r selfsufficiency in the country; but I wish I could learn more about the wom'en who, presumably, tag along like the pussy-cat's behind. How are they managing? Are they isolated? Are they living to their fu ll potential? Probably they feel that they are — in just backing the efforts of the men. We must all do the work for which we are best fitte d . There is a danger, however, that we may wish to maintain a cosily static state of affairs with the shirt-washer forever the shirtwasher, and the typist no more than a machine used fo r literary correspondence; thereby losing much that is valuable. Florence Jones 49, Tolworth Road, Surbiton Surrey.

VEGETARIAN DEBATE

MORALITY WITHOUT SUPERIORITY

Dear Resurgence, We may all have the same given facts, what we make o f them depends on who and 'where' we are. 'Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. I t seems to me clear that the tru th cannot be found in ecological arguments such as David Macilwain and Richard Young put foward—quite simply because such arguments are inevitably in conclusive, and upon deeper consideration, reveal themselves to be merely rationalisations. Thus; who knows what population the earth can support? A t what level of food consumption? With what method o f agriculture? The ecological 'facts' are merely hypothesis.

The fact is, as Stephen Clark correctly states, that the issue is a moral one, and can therefore only be resolved on the higher level o f morality. Moral considerations are prior to any practical considerations and are not qualified by them. Which means in practice that, a l l killing is wrong, then all ecological arguments are ultim ately irrelevant.

I believe that Mr. Clark is right, that his moral logic is unassailable: i t seems to be clearly wrong that the life o f any animal should be prematurely ended in order to provide us with something we don't absolutely need.

I believe Mr. Clark’s moral conclusion to be correct. Where he is humanly at fault is in adopting a tone o f moral superiority or outraged moral sensibility such as often characterises the vegetarian position. I t is pointless and 4

counter-productive to attack others fo r failing to accept a moral insight. (Perhaps there are other issues on which Mr. Clark's attitude could equally be found wanting by people o f more developed awareness fo r just those issues).

What is in place here is not moral one-upmanship but patience and a simple statement o f the position in terms such as Steiner would have used: that there will come a time when human beings w ill no longer eat the flesh of animals nor even conceive of doing so. The whole ferment of argument over the issue merely mirrors the fact that we are in a transition period o f consciousness, moving slowly and of course painfully, with all sorts o f w ith drawal symptoms, towards a higher consciousness—when the issue o f vegetarianism w ill be seen to be o f relatively minor importance compared to issues such as our spiritual relationship to our fellows and to the world o f spirit itself. Yours sincerely, Paul Carline, The Small Cottage, Woodburnden, Fardoun, nr. Laurencekirk. Kincardine.

BOYCOTT FACTORY FARM FOOD

Dear Editor, In Resurgence 65 "Feedback" David Macilwain and Richard Young say they find facto ry farming objectionable and disgusting. Since they both intend to continue eating meat, they cannot expect us to believe that their objections and disgust are at all deeply fe lt.

I f your correspondents are honest with themselves they w ill admit that they eat meat because they like it . I drink m ilk still, letting my liking fo r i t overcome my knowledge that i t is ill-gotten.

Richard Young would like to see all our meat animals on freerange farms. What a nice idea! But 1,400,000 animals are slaughtered each day in this country because people want to eat them. Where does Richard Young imagine they are all going to be accommodated during their lives? They have to be farmed intensively to supply the market created by the consumer.

The only effective way to prove that we deplore factory farming is to boycott its products. Yours faith fu lly . Hazel Brothers, 86 Breton House, Barbican, London EC2Y 8DQ.

MEAT NOT NATURAL

Dear Editor, What a lo t o f faulty logic your tw o anti-vegetarian correspondents display (Feedback issue 65).

It is simply not true that humans are naturally carnivorous. You can train herbivores to eat meat, but biologically they are still herbivores. Likewise, man has adapted to meat-eating, but that doesn't mean that meat is his natural diet. It is ridiculous to berate vegetarians fo r not being vegans when one is oneself a meateater! Yours sincerely, Sarah Lawson, 186 Albyn Rd„ London SE8 4JQ

LAND SOLUTION

Dear Editor, I t is puzzling to read an article like "Solution o f Social Credit" by C. R. Yuille Smith, Resurgence 65. The theme of Resurgence is, to my understanding, towards enabling smaller units to exist in a greater degree o f natural harmony. I f this is so, how can a system involving the manipulation and control of individuals by central bureaucracy be contemplated as satisfactory? Who would run the suggested National Credit Authority in a way different to say, the Bank o f England or the Inland Revenue? Why are these people not running those latter two agencies fo r our greater benefit today?

I f people are seen to be poor in the midst o f wealth, lack of money is not the cause nor will i t ever be. Barter precedes money in both understanding and practice. People can still be wealthy w ith out money, yet money is a magical system that helps our economic activity which, i f i t is used, needs to be used properly.

The division and distribution of wealth are primarily governed by the system o f land tenure. Where people may freely acquire land fo r habitation and production, unemployment w ill be scarce if not non-existent and poverty will be a rare experience. Where land can be held by the few as a private possession against the many, poverty and unemployment will be rife and revolution the ultimate end particularly where population is concentrated.

The collection o f the value attaching to land, which the presence and work o f the community creates, is the means whereby people are set free to enjoy the fruits o f their own labours.

The private enjoyment of that land value is the reason fo r the appearance o f the differential spotted by C. H. Douglas during his work at Farnborough and indeed throughout his later study.

Moreover, i t is out o f the situation o f land enclosure that our present money system has grown, with all its tricks and fallacies.