get over our baiting habit.  It seems the fact that Russia before the brunt of the German attack and lost incidentally about 25 million of her nationals means nothing to the press.   Is it any wonder that the Russian representatives of the U.N.O. run at the mouth and go off the handle!   As to the Communist menace most of that talk and propaganda is nonsense.   It was the same after World War I.  No doubt if our influential citizens want a war, they will get it.   Many people have said to me,"you know money is made out of wars".  

   The second point is that the masses of the people after every war have a decided let down.   The war and the excitement all over.   People want to talk and thaink of more pleasant things. The atomic bomb news while it lasted was played up in the usual sensational way to make big sales of the papers.  The average reader gets fed up with the whole thing and actually begins to doubt that there is so much danger after all.  An electrical engineer friend of mine in San Francisco a few weeks ago said that many of the people he met thought that  there was a lot of nonsense about the atomic bomb.   Most of the average people are not interested in science.   Their main worry now is to make their low incomes meet the higher living cost.   Since many have children the problem is a difficult one.  The general philosophy seems to be that wars are like tidal waves or volcanoes, "acts of God".   No doubt many people think like Sagitarrius of the New Guardian and Nation- 

     "We head for demolition 
With lightning expedition, 
    Prepared or Unprepared, 
All ends in nuclear fission, 
    E=mc2 

  These I think are the "Higher Realities" that the Committee will be forced to consider if they get anywhere in inhibiting the war fever.   Most of the Protestant churches are against war with Russia but the Vatican appears to be in favor of it.   If scientists could enlist organized labor in the war against war I believe the results would be promising.  That move appears to be out, because most of our inflential executives are against organized labor,  and to them unionism is anathema.   My views may not mean so much,  but I have taken it on myself to give them. 

  I would be pleased to receive the later bulletins of the N.C.S.   I was a member of the Berkeley organization,  but the last bulletin I received was No. 10 -ab out a year ago.  Appreciating your letter, 

    Sincerely yours 
     Rollin G. Myers