saintliness of character but of securing a reward in heaven. Here
you have the slave-morality view formulated by a Scotch
philosopher long before English writers began chattering about
Nietzsche.

As Mr Stuart-Glennie traced the evolution of society to the
conflict of races, his theory made some sensation among
Socialists--that is, among the only people who were seriously
thinking about historical evolution at all--by its collision with
the class-conflict theory of Karl Marx. Nietzsche, as I gather,
regarded the slave-morality as having been invented and imposed
on the world by slaves making a virtue of necessity and a
religion of their servitude. Mr Stuart-Glennie regards the
slave-morality as an invention of the superior white race to
subjugate the minds of the inferior races whom they wished to
exploit, and who would have destroyed them by force of numbers if
their minds had not been subjugated. As this process is in
operation still, and can be studied at first hand not only in our
Church schools and in the struggle between our modern proprietary
classes and the proletariat, but in the part played by Christian
missionaries in reconciling the black races of Africa to their
subjugation by European Capitalism, we can judge for ourselves
whether the initiative came from above or below. My object here
is not to argue the historical point, but simply to make our
theatre critics ashamed of their habit of treating Britain as an
intellectual void, and assuming that every philosophical idea,
every historic theory, every criticism of our moral, religious
and juridical institutions, must necessarily be either imported
from abroad, or else a fantastic sally (in rather questionable
taste) totally unrelated to the existing body of thought. I urge