Words, Words, Words

War, let it be said at once, is the most unnatural, the most artificial of all human activities, for it originates in artificial causes, is waged by artificial entities called “states,” and is fought from artificial motives, with artificial weapons, for artificial ends. Like our civilization, war is an artificial product of that civilization itself, the civilization that has been achieved by the repeal and the repudiation of these very processes of so-called ‘Nature’ which our von Bernhardis are pleased to regard as an everlasting universal law. As Julian Huxley has pointed out, “War, far from being a universal law of nature, or even a common occurrence, is a very rare exception among living creatures.”

Stressing superficial differences between people only helps to maintain the illusion that there may be more fundamental differences behind them. What in truth and in justice requires to be done is to stress the fundamental kinship of all mankind: to stress the likenesses which we all bear to one another, and to recognize the essential unity in all mankind in the very differences which individuals of all ethnic groups display.

Tolerance is the attitude of mind of those who consider themselves not only different but superior. It implies an attitude toward different ethnic or minority groups, not of understanding, not of acceptance, not of recognition of human equality, but of recognition of differences which one must suffer—generally, not too gladly. We must be more than tolerant; we must be fair.

All prejudiced people insist on conformity to the extent of trying to destroy the non-conformist. Since conformity denotes surrender of the individuality, a person who is “different” symbolizes non-surrender, and therefore, an individual who is strong, mature, independent, superior, able to stand up against others with his differences. The prejudiced person cannot bear the implied comparison. Because of the inherent weakness of his own self-image, the “different” person represents a potential menace to his own integrity as an individual or whatever there is left of it. The inevitable response is to attack the menace, the person who symbolizes the difference.

Love is a work of high art, a magnificent transaction of minds and bodies. To occur, however, it undoubtedly needs the support of a number of mechanical, automatic processes possessed of little true spirituality.

It needs to be said that the rights of man are not dependent upon the facts of science or the assertions of racists or of any other kind of statement. These rights rest squarely and firmly upon an ethical principle, the principle that by virtue of a man’s humanity he has the right to the fullest development of his potentialities, the right to fulfill himself. No man or group has the right to stand in the way of another’s development. Such conduct is evil. It is a social evil, and it is only by social means that it will ever be corrected.

Love as mutual sexual satisfaction, and love as ‘teamwork’ and as a haven from aloneness, are the two ‘normal’ forms of the disintegration of love in modern Western society, the socially patterned pathology of love.

Infantile love follows the principle: ‘I love because I am loved.’ Mature love follows the principle: ‘I am loved because I love.’ Immature love says: ‘I love you because I need you.’ Mature love says: ‘I need you because I love you.’

Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love.

In spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power—almost all our energy is used for the learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving.