That the masses hav1 occasionally participated in revolution is true. But the careful student of history, so confidently invokd by frend Holmes fails to find one in which the masses took activ part that yielded any permanent benefit. I agree with Holmes that by the trend of events they hav been forced to adopt the fruits of evolutionary and revolutionary progress. The great advances that have been made hav been gaind without the help, but often against the opposition of the masses. (The alluring flatteries of politicians, socialist and other, yielding them credit for any part of the forward movement that was not forcd on them, may be effectiv as bribes to win elections, but no revolution has ever been effected at the polls.)

This is not said by way of reproach to the masses. Evolution haz not requird their help; for the vital revolutions hav never been mass movements at all.

To cite but a very few of the movements that hav left their deepest impress:

The triumph of villainous salt-peter over knight errantry. Cervantes put the finishing touch to the discovery of gunpowder.

The discovery of movabl type: the masses playd no part at all in the revolutionary importance of this wide-spreading innovation.

Religious liberty — using the term in its loosely colloquial sense — was not won by the help of the masses but against their virulent opposition.

What the barons wrencht from John at Runymede was in very disdain of the masses. the doughty king was given to understand that he was confronted by Individualists quite as jealous of each his own power as the masses wer redy to surrender their powerz — just az they ar to this day. Thoz barons showd that Holmes errs in saying Without the masses you can DO nothing.

Copernicus indulgd a dream — as Holmes would say. Well, the masses hav not accepted his hypothesis yet; but even if they had, how would that affect the verity or falsity of the Copernican theory?

The French Revolution was a mass movement in the sense that the passions of the masses wer aroused. Whatever of valu that has endured was the work of the progenitors of the disturbance. Its disappointments ar du to the relation of the sans cullotte to the upheaval. And so, if we look for the role playd by the masses we shall find that all they wanted, and all they got, was a change of masters.

Education is now undergoing a revolution of which the masses ar not even aware. Proebel, Pestalozzi, Ferrer, Montessori — wer they dreamers becaus the stodgy masses knew them not?

The abolition of slavery in this country was progressing rapidly under the peaceful efforts of Benjamin Lundy, the Maryland Quaker; but thru emotional appeals to the masses, notably by Harriet Beacher Stowe’s quackery, the masses wer enlisted with the result that no net gain is apparent when the still unpaid cost — added to the liquidated price — is considered.

Just now we ar in the very midst of the most significant, the most formidable, the most promising revolution in the history of mankind. It started with the sponsors of the evolutionary theory, whose leader was Darwin. Not the masses alone, but many who presume to pose as teachers and leaders, ar unaware that we ar in an inter-regnum between ancient and modern thought right now. That we hav lernt new tests of intellectual values; and that traditional and theological standards ar doomd.

Ther is nothing for the masses to DO. All that is needful is that Lies be no longer accorded credence. I do not want to misrepresent my frend Holmes. What he has written is to be read in the parallel column. To me it reads as tho he holds to the opinion that one who first sees thru or dispels an illusion is a dreamer; and that wiser men wil continue to believe the delusion until the masses lern, also, to recognize the fallacy as fallacy. I can understand why the numbskull masses wil agree with Holmes in this, but I cannot understand on what grounds Holmes agrees with Holmes in this. The cherished Lie that the masses believ is that they must not employ their powerz each for himself, but must submit themselvs and their powerz to som authority or sovereignty. Until they recognize this Lie as a Lie we need look for no aid or comfort from them in the current revolution against hte myths disseminated by politicians. Frend Holmes, referring to anarchistic ideas seems to think of anarchism as some scheme that must be won at an election. Whether held by a mere handful — by millions — by all or by but one person — does not in the slightest affect the practicality of the idea. The anarchist idea — briefly stated — is that individuals can cooperate better on a voluntary basis than under compulsion. This amounts, at length, to a denial that men cannot cooperate wisely and profitably unless they do so by permission or under compulsion of authority.