T?M?

Following last week 's article regarding the Science of Creative Adolescence movement Mr. P. Ness has been stimulated to come forth with the following reply —

"Although it is true that the practical technique of the Science of Creative Adolescence is primarily a do-it-yourself thing, the programme continues for those who wish to come together occasionally. The whole thrust of the practice is to learn how to handle the slippery affairs of everyday life in the same fashion as one handles oneself during the regular period devoted to the practice. One finds in one's life that things no longer get out of hand but that one simply takes it as it comes. Members of IMS find it much easier to stick up for themselves.

It is true that when we first opened the centre in Wellington there was only a trickle of a response, but once we had pulled things together, people really started coming, so that now things are not as hard as they were.

The oral communication of the technique to another person has been likened to the planting of a seed in him. This grows and grows until he too is able to pass this seed on to others. This technique is not one of withdrawal, that is, we don't believe in pulling out of life but in getting stuck into it. The SCA programme is for those who wish to come up and stay up in the world".

P. Ness.

Three letters have now appeared in your paper above my name. None of these letters were written by me. I would not stoop to concretise the perspectives of these letters and I have never projected any perspectives in an infantile paper such as yours. I am distressed to think that great new layers and segments of our society will have read these lies. 1 hasten to reassure them that they are not my work at all, but the vile smears of Stalinist mis-leaders. I hope that this will end the matter.

Half-Eyed Editors on Soapbox

I have sat and watched with increasing dismay as any left-overs of literary sensitivity and philosophical rationality have oozed out of Salient's pages, leaving behind a super-abundance of polemic. Obviously "Salient" still has its uses in conveying information, e.g. the "Food Co-op" article in this week's effort, and no doubt the advertisements are useful and interesting to someone, but our soap box editors' half-eyedness on any subject they consider political is a tragedy for the University.

Having heard several reports of forged letters being published, and blatant censorship on anything considered by their Omnisciences to be detrimental to the students' interests (e.g. Young Socialists' letters), it was still more rational to refrain from asserting anything until more definite proof was obtained. When, however, the editors admit in their own words that "there is no room for a particular person's views (in this case Rotherham's) in Salient", we see a principle of censorship operating which reminds one of South African repression of all, which is not agreed with.

I appreciate the need to produce a paper in which an informed radical viewpoint can be expressed without fear of censorship, but surely the editors can't be so bigoted as to believe that all the students want to ingest is emotional radical propaganda. As for editors who themselves seem to respond fanatically and irrationally to the external stimulus of a Trot, a Jesus Freak or any other arbitrarily—designated conservative, but will print with the least persuasion any article which reinforces their own views, regardless of its standard of journalism or literary value, there is no question that even those who still read "Salient" arc not in favour of this state of affairs.

Don't you have any ideas of your own? It's depressing to read so much dreary, socialist tub-thumping in the pages of "Salient".

Why this constant talk of "bourgeois ruling class oppressors", "capitalist exploiters" and so on? It has all been said a thousand times before, in a thousand different publications, and it's getting bloody boring.

Readers could be excused for thinking that the entire editorial staff habitually shuffle around in cloth caps and musty blue overalls with photos of Ramsey Macdonald and Micky Savage stuffed in the pockets.

Surely at least one person in the "Salient" office has questioned the teachings of Karl Marx by now. Or do you all still believe that a great, burning, blood-soaked revolution is suddenly going to leap out of Naenae, or Gisborne, or Christchurch, or Eketahuna?

The university would be much better if more people thought for themselves instead of slavishly following Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Freud and other venerable dead bodies. "Salient" should encourage people to think as individuals.

There are many ways of interpreting current events, so why not toss Trotsky, Mao, Marx and the rest out the window and do your own thinking? Viewing the world through other men's spectacles distorts the vision.

I have just read my first copy of "Salient" — may I congratulate the Editors on their adherence to the name of this paper; like "Truth" adheres to the Truth.

For example.

Owen Wilkes, in a front page story supporting him, appears one hell of a lot like Castro.

And again? Attacking the merger of Wellington dailies, "Salient" overlooks its own monopoly, and the relationship of its own printers with the group it is attacking.

More? While recognising that government (presumably) breaks up trouble by removing the individual (See, page 2) "Salient's Crime Reporter" (page 5) attacks the group (police) but not the individuals who must have displayed their constable numbers during this reported incident with alleged Mongols.

That's enough.

"Perhaps we need an opposition newspaper" (conscripted subscription also of course), I suggested to a "student face" lunching at my table.

"I wouldn't think so", he suggested "No-one takes this seriously".

If not, Editors, why not?

P.E. Rodgers

In the last edition of Salient there was a cartoon of a student, bound and blind-folded, being fed garbage labelled 'capitalist propaganda'. Thi: same Salient makes the worst capitalist propaganda I've ever encountered smell like roses by comparison. Every article contained emotive language, dubious hidden assumption, biassed arguments, and cant phrases like U.S. imperialist aggression'. In fact, Salient is trying to feed us garbage just as rotten as the stuff the 'capitalists' are supposedly ramming down our throats.

I'm not a rightist, a Nixon-lover or a brainwashed bourgeois. I just believe that propaganda proves nothing and convinces nobody. I think that dishonest arguments are bad no matter who uses them — 'capitalists' or 'socialists'. Down with all slogan-chanters and crap-gulpers, even the ones who write Salient!

Re: Gutless Wonders Unite

Your utterly groundless, immature accusations against all Malaysian students at campus, excepting one, surprised me. Particularly insulting and provocative is your sentence: "If you and other Malaysian students had been less gutless and stood alongside Lee ..."

My dear Sirs, there is no magic in that chap Lee; his views do not necessarily reflect that of the Malaysians at Victoria, The exception offered to your hero from the barrage of insults in the "Salient" volume 36, Number 3, is itself evidence that he is the black sheep in a community which probably regards him as a pain in the arse. Would you stand alongside one whose actions you disapprove of ?Won't we be gutless if we were to subject our views to that of one, Lee's?

Human beings arc born with differences; only primitives assault another because different views arc being shed. Assaulting another person "an insignificant incident?" Would you like to be at the receiving end. Sirs?

We have accepted to satisfy the conditions of our student permits. Perhaps it was felt that before Lee achieves world fame, he might (perhaps) set his House in order: charity begins at home.

I would be glad if you retract your allegations.

Your criticism and insult on 'A Malaysian Student' and the rest of the Malaysian students in "Salient", Mar. 14th was very unjust and unnecessary.

I am ashamed of you and your effort. Afterall, why should I and other Malaysian students show our 'guts' by supporting Mr Lee if we do not believe in his cause.

Tell us, what have you and other students with 'tons of guts' done to prevent Mr Lee's deportation.

I stand amazed at your magnanimity as editors. Do you not think that printing a letter critical of your comrade and mine. H.T. Lee, is too great a concession to the liberal (a dirty word) principles of free speech? Also, is leaving the signature in its original form not a 'de facto' concession to the forces of reaction, despite it demonstrating your remarkable self-control in resisting temptation.

However it is reassuring to see that in your reply you exercise your critical judgement, governed, of course, by sound revolutionary principles, and refuse to print the 'hypocritical snivelling' of a member of the Socialist Action League. We can't have too much criticism of our colleagues — can we!!

I thought it was very considerate of you to print the reply in heavy type as it is obviously more significant than anything else on the page, in fact a truly creditable summary of the whole situation.

I was wondering however, if you don't find it somewhat incongruous that H.T.Lee's actions towards P. Rotherham are described as 'the courage to state his opinions openly and boldly' whereas similar actions by Colonel Lowe towards Mr Alex Shaw, at last year's P.B.E.C. conference, were not regarded in the same light. Or is this what is called journalistic licence? I'm sure you will come up with some sort of an answer.

Practical Christianity?

It seems a shame to me that Salient has to be spoiled by articles which are obviously written and "researched" by someone with an inherent prejudice against a minority group on this campus. I refer of course to Don Franks' article entitled "The Long Arm of the Church". The fact that he has to live with a pathological aversion to Christianity is obvious but if he wants to put this in print please let him do so in a consistent and articulate form.

Mr Franks is always criticising the Christians on this campus for their lack of practical Christianity yet when he sees some of it he immediately condemns it because it clashes with his political aspirations.

On a more positive note, I think it is commendable that someone of Major Major's stature and ability is able to pull a few strings to ensure deserving cases receive fair treatment. Mr Franks would no doubt be content to sit and watch these cases unfairly dealt with.

I think the real test would be to ask those who have received help through the Major's service as to what they think.

Byron Cullen

Young Working class Writer hits back at Critics and exposes their pro-imperialist sentiments

two letters in your last issue move me to comment. Robin Peter's reply to my review of "Sexist Society" contains at least three errors of fact. I did not dismiss the book entirely — I argued that it would be a useful work within its limits. I cannot "afford to wait fairly comfortably for my revolution" — Socialist revolution in New Zealand will not be my own little possession but the work of the masses — "the festival of the oppressed", as Lenin put it. He who waits for such an event — fairly comfortably or otherwise — will find themselves against the wall with Jim Wattie and the Socialist Action League. I am sorry that I am not a woman. However, this handicap has not precluded me from seeing at least something of the suffering in our sexist society. If Robin Peter would like to take me out to dinner or a play and then sweep me off my feet back at her liberated flat we might explore this topic a little further. Shall we say 8.30?

Mr Tripe suggests that all laws and courts be totally abolished and any compromise with this is "Marxist Lenninist piffle". Utopian anarchism is a perepnial pseudo intellectual hobby of bourgeois students. Last year it took the form of messages reading "Anarchy Lives" written in black ink on lavatory walls. This year we may see a "Peking Review" burnt on the front lawn or a date stamp in the library's copy of "Bakunin — the Man". It matters little. The laws, the courts, the monopolys and the whole capitalist state will stand firmly until they confront organized working class revolution. And after that revolution we will need at least one court to try Tripe in, on a charge of aiding and abetting the Ruling Class by default.