tutes "a nation." This I do, because it does not seem to me
relevant to the matter in hand. If my individual liberty is interfered
with, I cannot see that it helps me much to reflect that a nation, or
"the nation," is not a "sand-heap," but is "an organic being." The
oppression is the matter; and I had as lief be oppressed by a
sand-heap as by an organic being. What I object to is being oppressed
by either of them. And, whatever may be in the future, when men get to
be something different from what they are, _so far_ in the history of
the world it has been true that all kinds of governments have
oppressed the individual. And, so far, the only safety of the
individual has been such guarantees of personal rights and liberties
as have limited the governmental power. And until some one can give
the world assurance that human nature is to be transformed, it will be
just as well to maintain the guarantees, instead of putting still more
power into the hands of the government--whether it be called one thing
or another. While even one wolf is abroad, the wise shepherd will not
get rid of his dog.

But, while the Rev. Francis Bellamy has "come down," to the extent of
virtually giving up any kind of nationalism definite enough to fight
about, he nevertheless goes on with his arguments against the editor's
positions just as though nothing at all had happened. He stands up for
"nationalistic socialism" as though it were something clearly in
mind. And he argues at length that the state of things covered by this
term will not be open to such dangers as have been found to exist
under all other forms of government. Either human nature is to be
changed--though he does not tell us how--or there is to be some charm
in "nationalistic socialism" that is to change the nature of
"politics," disarm prejudice, make philistinism broad-minded, and turn
bigotry into tolerance. Wonderful is the power of _my_ particular
panacea!

Neither of the brothers Bellamy expect or propose any sudden change in
human nature. "Looking Backward" plainly and positively disclaims any
such expectation. So we are not only at liberty to deal with social
forces and factors as they have been, and as we know them, but we are
even compelled to do so. Let us, then, take up some of Mr. Flower's
points against nationalism, and see whether Mr. Bellamy has adequately
met them.

Mr. Flower thinks that nationalism would mean governmentalism and
paternalism--in the historic se