The Dominion. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1936. A THOUGHT-PROVOKING WEEK

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 133, 29 February 1936, Page 8

The Dominion. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1936. A THOUGHT-PROVOKING WEEK

New Zealand people who have not had their capacity for thinking atrophied by the opiates of the propagandists must have found in the news of the week just ended cause for reflection and selfexamination. Though many may not realise it,, the movements that are shaping the course of events and the destinies of nations in the world without will ultimately and inevitably affect this country. This fact may be readily grasped if we consider the events of history in the light of the fundamental truth that life itself is a process of change. In the plan of creation, nothing is static. Humanity, with characteristic contrariness, is for ever trying to get things settled, but always something happens to disturb the tranquillity of the scene. The persistence of this quest by civilised people in the mass for a settled state of things is all the more surprising when it is realised that such a condition is so seldom the personal experience of the individual. That spirit of unrest which we call a “divine discontent” moves mankind eternally to change the routine of existence in the hope that the conditions of life may be more pleasant, more equitable, more completely satisfying: Man is continually at war with the externals, with the circumstances of. his environment. He is never satisfied, and never will be, for the simple and elementary reason that he was never intended to be; since there is nothing static in Nature, since the very earth itself is in constant travail, it is inevitable that he himself, as part of the scheme of things, and participator in its activities, must be subject to the processes of change. Confronted everywhere by the phenomena of change, and the evidence of its universality and profundity, we should, accept it as a philosophy of life, and as a basis of our national policy. It would be an unsound and improvident philosophy to order our affairs as if the political map of the world were to be the same twenty, fifty, or a hundred years hence as it is to-day. The wiser course would be to assume as a certainty that it will not, and to make preparations accordingly. Even if Mr. Savage and his earnest colleagues were, as the result of their planning and statesmanship, to transform this country into a Garden of Eden, it would be extremely foolish of us to imagine that other nations would be content to leave us in undisturbed enjoyment of our blissful condition. Such an indulgence would be contrary to human experience. There are now three great nations in the world clamouring for territory. They are demanding it with increasing emphasis, in the name of justice, not as a privilege or concession, but as a right. They say it is unfair that some people should have more land than they can use, or seem to want to. use, while others have not enough for their pressing needs. There is no difference in principle between this contention and that so often put forward by our Socialist friends that it is unfair that some people should have more money than they kno>v what to do with, while others have not enough to keep them from want. Nature irrithe wild is for ever adjusting her balances, and in the process changes are observed which demonstrate with ruthless force that unless the weaker elements can evolve means for. their protection they will be annihilated. In the same way mankind, . either in the individual or in the mass represented by his nation,, is subject to the processes of change which, in his own particular social environment, or in the international scene, derive ■ their inspirations and stimuli from an elemental urge to adjust the balances in human affairs. Great estates into small farms. Towns spring up and the farms are. carved into building lots. The pressure is irresistible, and its results inevitable. Magnify this phenomenon in terms of nations and reflect upon its implications—the pressure of unsatisfied nationalism., and its inevitable reactions. This struggle for existence among individuals, and among nations, suggests the question, perplexing and elusive, whether Man is master of his destiny or the humble creature of it. Signor Mussolini would no doubt affirm that a nation worth its salt should have the will and the power to shape its own destiny. Herr Hitler entertains similar sentiments, and so does that aggressive section in Japan that makes, no bones about assassinating people who disagree with its conception of the nation’s destiny. Here we have three powerful agencies of disruption and change. Britain, the United States, Russia and France, having completed their pioneering work, ask nothing more than that they should be allowed to develop their possessions without interference. Will they be allowed to do so without challenge?. It does not seem probable, and if we accept as the basis of our belief the.inevitability of change as demonstrated by the blood and tears in the history of mankind,-and “Nature red in tooth and claw” in the wild, it does not seem even possible. The moral of all this is that we, as a young nation in possession of delectable and tempting islands where Nature is ample and generous in her bounties, should prepare ourselves for the changes that are certain to appear. Near or remote, they are inevitable. Io ignore this eventuality is to reject the entire experience of history and to blind ourselves to the manifestations of the inevitability of change which abound in Nature. Our preparations should be two-fold: First, as emphasised by the Prime Minister and at the Press conference at Napier, to -populate this country in sufficient numbers to refute the charge that we have more land than we need; secondly, to prepare for defence. The more people we have, the more effective will be our resistance to invasion should we have to meet it. If the demand for a redistribution of territories and populations persists, there can be only two possible answers: concessions, or resistance, fhere is the position. It is our duty to give it serious consideration.