chief of staff.
For whatever reason, Kerensky let them out of prison, and so the Bolsheviks got into power for seventy years; a long time for a people to suffer for one man's mistake, if it was a mistake.
So with us. However well principled and well intentioned he may be, anyone who lets thuggery get the upper hand in this country will have a lot to answer for in history. In a sense, any breaking through of the conventional pattern of thought and behaviour is ruthless; but it may on occasions be desirable, and even necessary. There is then nothing objectionable in it. It is only when the breaking through of convention is done to commit sin, or crime, or to spread chaos, that it is obviously wrong. If it is unnecessary to break through convention, to achieve a certain objective, I would go so far as to say it was probably undesirable to do so; it should be justified. On the other hand, to follow convention slavishly is bound to lead to disaster in the end; the experience of yesterday, which induces the conventional thought of today, is never adequate to solve the problems of tomorrow. Naturally conventionally minded people are aghast whenever convention is breached; but that is simply because they are so parochial. Let us hope we do not have another Kerensky in this country to solve our problems of law and order. He will be lucky if he is not execrated.
Inviting someone to enter a world without sin has no direct part to play in the making of decisions, which concern the future safety of the State, from enemies without or within. Indirectly the position may be very different. It may provide the hope of a better world, without which many people cannot live.