in strikes and walkouts, but the farmer just swallowed his feelings and plodded on in the hope that somehow the next season would bring improvements. But finally, the protesters’ disease got him—labor protested, students protested, even the clergy had their protests, so why not the farmer?
Protest meetings were staged throughout the country, and farm organizations sent rousing resolutions to the Government, demanding action. They would not be put off anymore by the platitudes and counsels to patience offered by those in authority. They got tough and moved en masse. When Canada’s Prime Minister, Pierre E. Trudeau, met with them recently in Winnipeg and Regina, thousands of farmers clogged city streets with their tractors and angrily shouted him down.
But what is the answer? To whom would you sell ice in the Arctic? To whom can you really sell wheat in a glutted world market? Other countries, too, are faced with the same problem, and they too are clamoring for outlets. There appears to be no immediate solution. What a paradox this produces! Grain-glutted nations have not enough of certain items because they have too much grain, while the underfed and starving see plenty everywhere except on their own tables. It will take a wiser king than Solomon to come up with the answer.
Whatever remedy the Government seeks to apply, one thing appears to be certain: Previous concepts of farm-Government relations will have to be overhauled, drastically changed. Farmers will no longer be able to specialize in one type of crop. Diversified farming under totally different conditions may well return. But it will take some sort of international control to put an end to the “feast or famine” situation that now obtains in most lands.
The competitive system, particularly as regards farm production, appears to many persons to have outlived its usefulness. Many claim that an international advisory body is needed—one that is absolutely impartial, honorable and just, and that would carefully regulate who grows what and where, on an earthwide basis. The lamentable truth, however, is that such a body is presently unobtainable among the political and commercial elements of society.
Surely he will be a wise administrator who achieves a breakthrough with respect to this continuing problem! Human efforts hold out no hope of a sudden solution to the plight of the prairie farmer.
Sanctity of Blood Recognized
✔ Today professed Christians, by and large, think it strange that the Christian witnesses of Jehovah take seriously the apostolic prohibition of eating blood in any form as stated at Acts 15:20. But as historian Kaye notes in his work Ecclesiastical History Illustrated from Tertullian’s Writings, pages 146, 209:
“The primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem in abstaining from things strangled and from blood.”
Bearing this out are the words of Tertullian himself, as found in chapter 9 of his Apology: “Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera. To clench this matter with a single example, you tempt Christians with sausages of blood, just because you are perfectly aware that the thing by which you thus try to get them to transgress they hold unlawful.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 25, 58.