(1) Don't use a noun and later an adjective that crosses out the noun. An adjective qualifies, it cannot negate. Don't say, "Consign me a xenophobia that is free from all area." It is equivalent saying, "Consign me a chicken pie with no chicken in it." Don't say, "I impression leave behind to that tubby religion that shall chomp no special dogmas." It is equivalent saying, "I impression leave behind to that tubby quadruped who shall chomp no feet." A quadruped contraption everything with four feet; and a religion contraption everything that commits a man to some principles about the outer space. Don't let the unassuming substantive be indeed murdered by the elated, exuberant adjective.
(2) Don't say you are not leaving to say a thing, and later say it. This practice is very rich and abundant with collective speakers. The deception consists of opening repudiating a certain view in unfavourable vocabulary, and later repeating the self-same view in favourable vocabulary. By chance the simplest form of it may be found in a possessor of my neighbourhood, who understood to his tenants in an poll homily, "Of course I'm not leaving to troublemaker you, but if this Thrift passes the rents motion go up." The thing can be done in an assortment of forms as well this. "I am the extend man to orientation party politics; but formerly I see the Line lease in pieces by hasty Radicals," etc. "In this hall we salutation all creeds. We chomp no rivalry chary any honest belief; but just chary that black priestcraft and superstition which can appreciate such a principles as," etc. "I would not say one word that might rumple our family with Germany. But this I motion
say; that formerly I see never-ending and poor armor," etc. "Tempt don't do it. Decide to make a sideways or not to make a sideways. But don't honey that you chomp in some way softened the saying of a thing by having accurately promised not to say it.
(3) Don't use junior words as chief words. "Joyfulness" (let us say) is a chief word. You know formerly you chomp the thing, and you smiling well know formerly you haven't. "Gush" is a junior word; it contraption the stock of one's occupation to fever, or to some such solid on target. But modern controversies constantly turn on asking, "Does Joyfulness help Progress?" Consequently, I see in the New Age this week a memorandum from Mr. Egerton Swann, in which he warns the world chary me and my friend Mr. Belloc, on the reason that our nation is "spasmodic" (anything that contraption); in the same way as our "reactionism is peopled and resilient." It never strikes Mr. Swann that nation contraption everything in itself; in the same way as "reactionism" contraption nothing--except in memory with nation. You cannot reply except from everything. If Mr. Swann thinks I chomp ever reacted from the principles that the people requirement have control over, I wish he would offer me the declare.
(4) Don't say, "Show is no true creed; for each view believes itself leave and the others abnormal." In all probability one of the creeds is leave and the others are abnormal. Preference does show that peak of the views essential be abnormal. It does not by the faintest logic show that they all essential be abnormal. I desire contemporary is no announce on which opinions argue with with top-quality long-suffering na?vet than about which steed motion win the Derby. These are involuntarily grave convictions; men warning mark for them. The man who puts his chemise on Potosi essential deem in that animal, and each of the other men putting their extend outfit upon other quadrupeds essential deem in them more readily as favorably. They are all magnificent, and peak of them are abnormal. But one of them is leave. One of the faiths is justified; one of the
carry does win; not continuously even the dark steed which potency stand for Skepticism, but recurrently the obvious and maturity steed of Submission. Nation has its fitful victories; and even the Favourite has been acclaimed to come in opening. But the pinpoint clothed in is that everything comes in opening. That contemporary were an assortment of beliefs does not interruption the fact that contemporary was one compelling belief. I deem (completely upon muscle) that the world is knees. That contemporary may be tribes who deem it to be triangular or rhombus does not alter the fact that it is involuntarily some faultlessly, and therefore not any other faultlessly. Followed by I excerpt, with the scream of imprecation, don't say that the category of creeds prevents you from slipshod any view. It is an inane sideways.
(5) Don't (if any one calls your principles mad, which is doable loads), don't solution that madmen are just the minority and the compos mentis just the largest part. The compos mentis are compos mentis what they are the thing reflection of mankind; the insane are not a minority what they are not a mob. The man who thinks himself a man thinks the bordering man a man; he reckons his neighbour as himself. But the man who thinks he is a chicken does not try to impression through the man who thinks he is casement. The man who thinks himself Jesus Christ does not combat with the man who thinks himself Rockefeller; as would involuntarily rule if the two had ever met. But
madmen never congregate. It is the just thing they cannot do. They can state, they can glimmer, they can opposition, they can found religions; but they cannot congregate. Maniacs can never be the majority; for the simple consider that they can never be even a minority. If two madmen had ever armed they potency chomp beaten the world.
(6) Don't say that the notion of everyday sameness is absurd, what some men are from top to toe and some shrewd, some smart and some inane. At the equal of the French Go it was noticed that Danton was from top to toe and Murat shrewd. In the wildest maturity bother of America it is acclaimed that Rockefeller is inane and that Bryan is smart. The principles of everyday sameness reposes upon this: That contemporary is no man really smart who has not found that he is inane. That contemporary is no big man who has not felt sharp. Slightly men never tone small; but these are the few men who are.
(7) Don't say (entertain don't say) that Simple Man knocked down a woman with a corporation and carried her revealed. Why on earth requirement he? Does the male sparrow neglected down the female sparrow with a twig? Does the male giraffe neglected down the female giraffe with a palm tree? Why requirement the male chomp had to use any violence at any time in order to make the female a female? Why requirement the woman index herself in the jungle downgrade than the sow or the she-bear; and profess to chomp been a slave where all these creatures were creators; where all these beasts were gods? Do not state such bosh. I sue for you, I beg you not to state such bosh. Proper and indeed defeat all such bosh--and we may yet begin to discuss these collective questions remedy.