page 6

"We Shall have War"

W. P. Airotciv Mad ?

Airotciv should have his head examined. Most of us are trying to preserve such peace as there is. We don't want to hate. We don't want to kill and mutilate. We don't want to be killed and mutilated. A great deal of time and money is being spent to encourage international goodwill on the student level. To that purpose three Russian students visited New Zealand. To the same purpose I reported the visit in as unbiased a manner as I could. That copy of Salient containing the report is meant to be sent to Russia that the students there may read it. And what have you put in the same issue? An article they are also meant to read: "We shall have war . . . "! There might have been some sense to it if it had any sense in it. But it doesn't. The Russians have all the blame. They are wicked. We are virtuous. So we should make war on them. I may only presume you were playing with some new kind of humour. May I remind Airotciv that he is not only playing with fire but with "atomic" fire.

—J.A.L.

1. Airotciv, W. P. replies: J.A.L. may be right. Somewhere along the chain in the evolution of man—that wonderful piece of creation—something went wrong. Man is now mentally sick, and since I am part of that commendable species—mankind—I, too, am probably sick in my outlook. Perhaps our future is to be found in the psychologist and the sociologist; possibly the whole human race needs treatment.

I cannot agree that we do not want to mutilate or be mutilated. It is my contention that we now really do not care—because consciously or subconsciously we are no longer capable of acting charitably or kindly in relation to our neighbours. There can be no longer humanity or love in the true sense of the word; there is now only the urge to destroy and dominate. This is man's present state of mind. Commencing on this broad basis, and having weighed the pros and cons, I believe the West should fight; because in view of the hopelessness of this world, lighting for what little freedom Communism has not yet devoured is the lesser of two evils (even after having considered the risk of total world destruction). If we light for what we believe is justice, perhaps the human race will see spring again. The Russians are not all to blame; they are not all wicked nor are we all virtuous—that perhaps is the crux of the matter: The clergy will say that too many of us are wicked; too many of us are not virtuous enough; and we are all to blame.

J.A.L. should have read my views against a background of all my other views, my beliefs. Unfortunately, the demands of good journalism and the shortage of time prevented me from presenting my article in a complete, correct context. I was not trying to be funny. I realise I am playing with this (as J.A.L. dramatically put it) "atomic fire." But even "atomic-fire" is relatively unimportant when we compare it with this issue: hope or no-hope, life or death, gladness or despair. That hope (because we are all so apathetic and corrupt) is only a small light; but in the darkness of evil, that light looms large. And we may be able to keep that light burning by acting now, before it is extinguished. Many readers probably disagreed when I said. '"We are all corrupt." By that, I referred to a "crowd-mind." a "crowd-conscience." J.A.L. may criticize this use of the concept of a "crowd-mind." But I would remind J.A.L. (or indeed anyone who reads this) that the sociologist has not .vet succeeded in disproving completely the existence of this entity. It is my belief that such an entity does exist.

Finally, I would tell J.A.L. that this apparently unjustified, morbid philosophy may not be final. Whether or not I will change later on remains to be seen. Perhaps, through these columns, and if the editor finds the space, someone may yet convince me why I am wrong, instead of just telling. me that I am wrong.

2. Editor's note: I do not doubt that the Russian students visited New Zealand to "encourage international goodwill." But why? My submission is this: To spread the growth of Communism. I question not the Russian students, but my doubts relate to the motives of the Government which sent them.

Salient assures its readers that it is very much aware that not all Russians or Communists are evil; furthermore, it is able to distinguish the doctrine and the unconscious tool, Communism and Communists, and even the goodness and badness in Communism itself. But can it be denied that there can be a sum-total, the general effect? The editor's view is that this sum-total is bad. However, J.A.L. is assured that anyone is free to expound his views in Salient. Salient no longer purports to be an "organ of student opinion" at Victoria University. It is only a newspaper containing the views of all those who are generous enough to share them with others. One article calling for war does not necessarily mean that the whole university population is screaming for it. And any Russians reading this should have sufficient intelligence to realise it.