Editors' note: The original of this lecture is badly distorted and very difficult to understand. This transcription reflects our best judgment about what is on the tape, but we caution the reader that we are less sure of the words than usual.

{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

...end in this week, if I can. The development that ends rather tragically in the year -- around the year 1850, and which consumed the religious inheritance of the United States with regard to its people: the primacy of an arrangement of the nation in its churches. And we have seen that the Free Masons were the first effort to constitute a new overall grouping of society in which people would not -- no longer ask each other for their membership in one definite church, and where the local congregation, therefore, no longer exercised the influence on the formation of a man's character and -- and his behavior.

I have given you a number of incidents. But today I want to draw -- to conclude from what we have said by reminding you that if the people turn into the public, something happens to all -- in political and public life--the penalty of which we now have to -- to pay to this day--the public consisting of individuals, instead of families and friends, and being only related to the man on the platform, or the man on the stage, or the man in front of your television set individually makes it necessary to oversimplify. That is, if you have 10,000 people listening to one speaker, you have to be much more simple than if the truth is spread through the heads of families, and then into the family, where it can be translated into various {idioms}.

And so, we get in the 19th century a constant trend of oversimplification. And of this, I will give you now four paramount examples: that is the peace movement in this country, the Abolition movement, the Prohibition movement, and the women's suffrage movement. We can add the vegetarian movement, later comes Christian Science. But the vegetarian movement already belongs to the first half of the 19th century. And I have to try to show you today why these movements are radical simplifications which would have never been understood in the 18th or 17th century. There are -- they are meant for a public, and not for a people.

In order to introduce this -- the matter before you, for all of its weight, because all these movements had to {perish} -- you just have to think of Prohibition for a moment. I'd -- like to read you a sentence, said -- spoken on February 28th, 1832, by John Quincy Adams, who had been president of the United States, as you all know, from 1825 to 1829, and was at that time a simple member of the House of Representatives in Washington. And he said, "Simplicity"--it's a very

important sente- -- statement. And I think you nowhere find it in any American textbook, because they all cater to the public, and they all have to flatter the public. I have not to flatter the public. And he, John Quincy Adams certainly didn't have to flatter the public, because there were still people.

"Simplicity is the essential characteristic in the condition of slavery. It is by the complication of the government alone that the freedom of mankind can be assured. If the people of these United States enjoy a greater share of liberty than any other nation upon the earth, it is because, of all the governments upon earth, theirs is the most complicated."

Now that's like an -- anti-climax in your own thinking. You think that simpler is better. But you see, it isn't. If you have one economic system, that's slavery--be it capitalism or Communism, for that matter. You have to have many economic systems, for example. This you can only ho- -- have if you believe in God. The atheist has to { } on this earth simplified. They have to have Communism or some another form of tyranny, because we can only tolerate the distinctions of sex, and color, creed, if we believe in a higher power that allows for these distinctions. Complicatedness on earth, and simpleness of -- in our belief in one God are absolutely related. If you believe in many gods--as most of you do, without knowing it--most of you believe in the god of the -- of the academic world, of science. And you believe in the god of sports, and you believe in the god of the arts, and you believe in the god of sex. And therefore, underneath this there's oversimplification. All these gods demand complete tyranny over their { }. If there is one god, then it doesn't matter that life on this earth is very complicated. It makes us patient. And we enjoy the differences of creation. It's just the difference between a grove of just pine trees and -- and mixed -- a mixed forest. It has taken the last hundred years for the foresters to discover that mixed forest is the better forest, as compared to one type of growth, you see. We shall discover this, as you go along, in the next hundred years; and the United States and the whole of mankind will only survive if he {can put} up with distinctions and with varieties of man. This is the whole problem today, that the monotony is tyrannical.

And now I think this sentence of John Quincy Adams may give you pause: "Simplicity is the essential characteristic in the condition of slavery." And you can be just as much a slave to television and other mass media than your boss, or a { }.

"It is a complication of the government alone that the freedom of mankind can be assured. If the people of these -- United States enjoy a greater share of liberty than any other nation upon earth, it is because, of all the governments upon earth, theirs is the most complicated."

And I think I'm not exaggerating when you s- -- when I say that you have never heard such a statement in your educational process. I don't think that in any classroom today it's ever stated that complicatedness is a sign of a higher standard of civilization. Wouldn't you agree?

Therefore, I had to bring this home to you, gentlemen, because the movements with which -- we now have to tackle are all simplifications. That is, let's take the simplest--that is, vegetarianism. Since it will not arouse your passion so much, I may use it as a { } model as I wish to convince you that as soon as a religious situation is secularized, as soon as government and politics take over liturgy and prayer, you have to fall, so to speak -- go to one extreme. And we will take a -- several forms in this connection: how this extreme went in, so to speak, come out of it?

But take vegetarianism. Down to 1800, such an -- attitude didn't exist, because people, with the scarcity of food all over the world, knew very well that you ate meat only once a week, on Sundays. And that the meat was for their higher holidays, as the expression of a community inspiration. To- -- -day in an Arabian tribe, the private family cannot eat meat, but when the tribe gets together, camel meat is served, because { } also wine -- only intoxicating drinks are only taken at -- in the tribal assembly.

In other words, the -- older state of affairs is complicated, because the same man alternatingly lives in various stages -- stages of elevation. Sometimes he's { }. If you live all by yourself as a hermit, you'd better live only on water or bread, because otherwise you will have too many bad dreams and -- after some beautiful women. And so anybody who lives all by himself has to work out that he doesn't take -- exciting food or exciting drink.

And therefore, before 1800, life was complex for the individual, because he would eat differently on weekdays, on Sundays, and on holidays. In Switzerland, for example, when I came there first--that's an old democracy, as you know, the oldest on earth--where they voted down women's suff- -- suffrage -- six weeks ago unan- -- nearly unanimously, because they thought it was just one of these oversimplifications--in -- in Switzerland, you had dark bread, rye bread on weekdays; white bread -- wheat bread on Sundays; and cake on holidays. And it was a very terrible sin -- considered a terrible sin if you dared to eat cake on weekdays.

Now as you know, all these -- distinctions which were -- enriched a man's life, because it took it through various moods, have all gone -- fallen by the wayside. Every individual can eat candy all day long--already the children, so

that the dentists may thrive--and it's -- it's all in this country, you see, the greatest lobby is the real estate lobby, and the second greatest is the dentistry. And anything is done to -- to get you very soon your third set of teeth.

And that's oversimplification. Now vegetarianism, the first great apostle of vegetarianism was Amos Bronson Alcott. He lived from -- 1799 to 1888. And I give you these dates as a very good example of the importance of the first half of the 19th century. He's the father of course of May Louise Alcott, the authoress of Little Women. She nearly was killed by her father's exertions and she died two days after him. She was only young -- she only was 46 years of age. And the two -- the fates of the two people were -- were very much closely connected, because Mr. Alcott's bizarre life caused -- his daughters to support him, by a vast output of writing.

Now Alcott, who was living in Massachusetts most of the time, became the -- just the leading vegetarian in -- in this country. And Emerson, his friend, said of him, "He tries to live on acorns." In 1848, or '46 -- I'm not quite sure, the first vegetarian society was founded in America and Eng- -- in England. And you have here, as a result of the efforts of the first half of the century, organized vegetarianism then spreading. Now this is what I try to convey to you, that the incubation of these new simplifying radical or sectarian ideas took by and large 50 years, because they -- before they became then nationally wide -- organized, and influential. We have in these 50 years a time of incubation, a time of personal dedication, and -- the investment of whole fortunes, whole biographies of people convincing men { } that these were very worthwhile crusades.

The second movement of course is Prohibition. Now the first pledges on Prohibition in this country were taken in 1800. The first society for temperance--not Prohibition, mind you, but temperance--were given in 1813 in Saratoga, New York. The second temperance society was founded for the whole of Massachusetts in 1816. And by 1836, occurred a { } split between the temperance people and the Prohibition people. By 1836, the -- temperance society decided to stick by its guns and only to fight spirits, but not wine and beer. But then you get the branching out of the radical, oversimplified movement of the Prohibitionists. And you -- in 1851, the first state of the Union, Maine, the state of Maine, went dry. That's an important date again, like the vegetarian society, you see. The first success in organizational effort. So I only -- to point out to you that it took 50 years for these movements to ripen.

Now Prohibition, of course, cuts into our religious beliefs, because from the first day of humanity, the spirits {exaggerated} -- spirits {exaggerated} were like the meat, used on holidays to express the elation of the spirit. And our Lord in the -- the Communion used wine and -- for expressing the solemnity of this

worldwide communion. You cannot join with other people beyond the limits of the ordinary without expressing your elation. And the spirits are not there to produce the elation, but to express it.

This is totally misunderstood, of course, in a country of individuals. When you simplify and create a public out of a people, gentlemen, you get the vice of -- of the American alcoholic, who drinks when he is alone. Now obviously all drinks have been introduced for social purposes, just as we -- {join} for meat. And as soon as you allow yourself to drink because you are despondent, and you can see in every movie when the hero is despondent, he glugs down some bottles of whiskey, then there is the most complete deprivation. And it is the deprivation of the use of alcohol by individuals who have become members of a mere public and no longer belong to the people, that all our troubles with the alco- -- problems of liquor -- of alcoholic beverages got started and are still with us.

So you have exactly, as with vegetarianism, a -- a split. Instead of eating meat at times, and not meat at other times, you see, we are now asked to eat no meat whenever. And of course, only in -- some groups will abide by it, you see. And you split therefore the population right in the middle between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The same is true with Prohibition. It splits the people in those people who only see the -- the abuses of drinking by the individual, and the others who know that by no external recipes can virtue and the liberty of man be secured, that we are only free if all these things prove to be indifferent; that at times we use them, and at times we don't.

Now as you -- I will follow out the Prohibition story right away. I don't wish to come back to it later. I'm only interested at this moment that you see it as a part of the social disintegration of America, that people split into those people who drink and those people who don't drink. Instead of having in every man's life high days when you do drink, and other days that you live on water, and others where you drink milk. I want to follow up this -- out the story to its end, because it is after all a very strange story.

In 1851, the first state of the Union introduced a -- a liquor law. That was the state of Maine. Pardon me. { } -- try to find my notes. And by 1919, before the Prohibition enforcement law, the so-called Volstead Act, was enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives over the veto of President Woodrow Wilson, who I think deserves great credit for his veto. The facts were such that 90 percent -- nearly 90 percent of the precincts and villages of the United States were dry. And therefore, the U- -- the United States, when it passed the 18th Amendment and changed the Constitution, we -- could say that an overwhelming majority of local authority had already decided the question, and that they didn't do anything irregular at all.

And in the final vote--and I think these figures are very important for your understanding of a society composed of mere individuals and a public--the vote in 1919 in all the states of the Union was that out of the upper houses, the senates in these 48 states, 30- -- 1310 -- 1,310 senators voted for Prohibition, and 237 senators against. That in the lower houses -- the houses of representatives in all the 48 states, 3,782 representatives voted for Prohibition, and 1,035 against. And as you know, this overwhelmingly accepted law and this 18th Amendment was repealed 14 years later.

The president of Columbia University, Mr. Nicholas "Miraculous" Butler -- they called him Nicholas "Miraculous" Butler, but his real name was Nicholas Murray Butler, had an -- an -- had a duel, I mean, a small duel with -- with the famous Senator Borah. And of course, Borah, as coming from the West, was dry; and Mr. Butler, as president of Columbia, representing the whole tradition of the United States and its common law, said on April 8th, 1927--and again that's as important a sentence, I think, as Mr. John Quincy Adams' statement about complicatedness--in 1927, Prohibition was eight years in force. And he said, "You cannot enforce conflicting laws. Something must give way. And when it is the 18th Amendment on the one hand, and the whole body of the Constitution--the Bill of Rights, the whole of political English and American history on the other--which do you suppose will have to give way? It must be this new invading element in our public law." And it did give way. { }.

Now here you have the exact parallel to the problem of complicatedness. If you want to live as free men, you must be patient to a complex set of rules. If you wish to become slaves, you can follow a manipulator or a manager, and go into the desert of conformity, and -- as you do in this moment. This country is the most conformist country in the world, and if we hadn't all the wrangles of the departments in Washington as our safeguard for liberty, the people of this country are much more Communist than the Russians. We have Communism on the { } and so far, free enterprise between the Navy and the Air Force. That's all there is to it. The anarchy { } -- on top saves us from tyranny. The rest is conformity.

Now no Russian can conform by nature, so they have on top a tremendous overweight of -- of coercion. You see, because every Amer- -- every Russian is a non-conformist. You just have to read Doctor Zhivago for that matter. Or Dostoevski, or Tolstoy, or whatever you take. They're all non-conformists.

And so Mr. Butler didn't -- doesn't use the word "complicated." But what does he say? He could have used this word, because he says, "The whole body of the history of English and American {politics}." Now history gentlemen, is the experience of complicatedness. And if you here sit in my classroom, and honor

me with your presence, I can only redeem this honor by showing you that history makes us aware that we are not animals, but as human beings able to love variety on this earth, because there is one father in Heaven over all this zoological garden, and all the various species that we represent.

This is very important at this moment, because all doctrines you hear are making for simplification, just like Prohibition. We are -- told that capitalism is identical to the American way of life. Gentlemen, then we are slaves. Any man who uses -- who is dedicated to one set of means, is a slave of his -- of his former self -- what he says. I -- you can embrace 20 systems of economics, and I have always felt through all my life that it is only a plurality, a multiformity, a pluralism of economic systems that have to inte- -- to dovetail, so to speak, that can save this country. A monk, a hospital nurse, a student, a banker, a manufacturer, they all have to live by different rules of the day. A scholar must invest the first half of his life so that he may be recognized for the community in the second half of his life. That's not capitalism. It's a different system. And there are as many systems as there are products to be produced. If you have to produce atomic power, you have to use another economy than if you want to produce many colored ties -- Truman ties, you see.

And {it is just that}. When were the United States founded on economic system? Never. We had Jeffersonian democracy, where everybody had 150 acres as property, and now we have big corporations. Isn't this the same United States? And it's absolutely different economy. If you can't free yourself from wedding your heart and soul to any means of our subsistence, you certainly have forfeited the American tradition, which is that all the means are -- are available to men who -- who -- and the whole problem is to teach people to use them in freedom and at -- at random. Whenever they feel -- the same with vegetarianism, the same with eating meat or eating no meat. At times, we do eat meat; and at times, we don't eat meat. And so it is with drinking. And so it is, of course, therefore, with all the rest of the means by which we produce our daily bread and our daily drink.

This should be so obvious. But in the words of John Quincy Adams, and in the words of -- Mr. Butler, you hear a minority voice at the time, and yet in the case of Butler, I think -- I mean, very much for you I think it is important -- to realize that in the end--seven years later--he was proven right, that through the unanimous effort of these oversimplificateurs--as {Jakob Burckhardt} has called them, the -- the "simplifiers"--that the -- centennial work of these people was undone. And now what do we have? I mean, at least in the East, I mean, drinking is just overdone, still taking revenge of the repeal.

My -- the students in Dartmouth College have never been so alcoholic as

they are today. I have complained of this. I certainly am a temperance man, and I don't care -- I could live on water. I'm not a man who -- who needs these drinks, but on great days of my life, I want to drink champagne, to express my appreciation for the goodness of life, and other -- then I can -- a year can pass without my drinking alcohol and certainly without my going to the movies, which is another form of your intoxication, I mean. They are dry -- dry {drug}, { }. The movies and television is nothing but a cold intoxication of the mind, instead of drinking alcohol. Exactly why you go to these movies, and why you sit in front of television. You want to get drunk. You want to get away from yourself. Well, that's the reason why people drink -- whiskey. { }. It's both sinful. And the next crusade is in order against the mass media. And I con- -- {shall despise} -- not believe that any one of you is a free soul, and has reconquered himself unless he can tell me that for a whole year he never made use of any of the mass media. That's the minimum proof you have to give -- yourself and guarantee that you know what freedom is. As long as you have to go three times to any of these abortions, it is terrible. You don't know what freedom is. You all depend now on all these stimuli. You have to be simulated, obviously, because otherwise you are bored. I never have been bored except when I to a movie.

[tape interruption]

This is very serious, because we live today after the repeal of Prohibition, and after the end of all these big movements of the 19th century, in an afterglow of substitutions for these simplifications. And the mass media are just { }. They are the new forms of drink, and the new forms of unanimity, and the new forms of simplification, and I assure you that we either will be the most conformist country in the world, or we will find ways and means of training everybody in his right use of these mass media. At times we shall use them, and at times we shall not use them. And the turning off of any of these apparatus is, of course, equally important to the turning on.

Now my point has been that at times, we need these things; and at times, we don't, in a decent community. But as soon as you get public, where everybody is only talked to, as of the moment, you can get these movements. What is the real solution -- my friends, of the Prohibition problem? Well, you know. It's far from simplification. It's Alcoholic Anonymous. Because here is again a family resource. Here is a group form which -- undertakes to show its solidarity with the victim. And that's people's. And that's not public. Can you see the distinction? And it is very vital that you should -- adopt into the vocabulary this distinction of a group service, which Alcoholic Anonymous is -- now renders, and a movement which asks for the subscription of your signature for some big, universal goal.

The next movement, of course, is the peace movement. The greatest, most

gruesome war of all history, from 1939 to 1945, was -- began with the Kellogg Pact in 1928, which abolished the declarations of war, and thought it had thereby abolished war. The Kellogg Pact says that people can't go to war, so Mr. Hitler said, "All right. I'll just invade the enemies' territory, and won't declare war." So ever since, we have undeclared wars instead of declared wars. I think it's less human. And -- the same happened in Korea, as you know, and the Airli- -- the -- the blockade of Ber- -- Berlin. Nothing was declared, because the Kellogg Pact said so.

Now this breakfast-food gentleman, Mr. Kellogg, was a very nice man. And he persuaded the European powers that such a pact to abolish war would be {excellent}. And as you see, it had the similar effect--12 years later, the whole world was at war--as Prohibition had. Twelve years after Prohibition, every man in the United States, and every woman, had to get drunk on methyl alcohol, and die. You know the -- this terrible wood liquor that they sold, the bootleggers.

Very strange, that a -- such a provocation leads to the most extreme, opposite results. Now as with Alcoholic Anonymous, we have -- however, some comfort. There seems to -- way out of -- of war without moralizing. We aren't asking for signatures, without -- starting a peace society. And I'll tell you at the end how -- how I think that war is going to disappear. But let me go back to the beginning of the pacifists' movement.

It's very strange that in the encyclopedia, I have not been able to find the word which should connote this. Pacifism -- -ficism is the correct word. It to make peace. It is, of course, the root of "pax" and "facere," to do, in Latin. Pacifism { } is the movement to make for peace. You say "pacifism," which is a meaningless phrase, because the "x" cannot be explained in this abbreviation. And the older, the beginners of the movement -- said -- called themselves "peace society." But "peace society" comes nearer to their religious or ecclesiastical origin than "Prohibition," and "Abolition," and -- and "vegetarianism," because of course, Jesus, as the Prince of Peace, seemed to be { } for influence in the secular politics.

And I told you that the Unitarians were the people who, as a substitute for the Trinity, offered peace on earth to all men of good will. And so William Ellery Channing, whose life dates I've already given you, 1780 to 1900 -- 1700 -- -80 it is, I think, to 1842, gave his first address on peace in 1816. And it was still clothed in the shape of a sermon. But other -- differently from usual sermons, it led immediately to the founding of the Massachusetts Peace Society. And {1816} therefore marks the date of an American peace movement which far out-ranked, and far overran all -- peace movements in all other countries. The American pacifism became famous and got -- notoriety all over the universe. And -- so to speak,

most people in Europe would say that Americans were pacifists.

Now pacifism is, of course, very much related to our approach to American history, to this attitude that during peace, you must not think of war; and during war, you must not think of peace. I have tried to show you that your paper has to be written about this question, that people will not stick to the outcome of the war, but will try to backslide as though the war hadn't happened. It happened after the Mexican War, when one-third of the United States suddenly had to be -- was won over, and California itself, and Utah, and Texas, and -- again Colorado, and Arizona, and New Mexico, and when people still thought they could abide by the Proviso of 1820, you see, and {couldn't be} -- go back to the slave fugitive law, and wouldn't have to settle the question of slavery in the West.

And this is again true about pacifism at large. It is not an accident that the worst war { } the worst peace pact. That the Kellogg Pact of 1928 has always to be seen in the light of the next world war, this undeclared war, so to speak. Pearl Harbor, typical example. The Japanese attacked; they didn't declare war, you see. They left this to us. { }, because the Kellogg Pact says you can't declare war. "All right," said the Japanese, "We won't."

Jesus has said that He was the Prince of Peace, and that He carried two swords. And that we should give to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what was God's. And He's incalculable. The greatness of a -- a church, of religion, is always that it does not -- is not always interested in the modalities of daily occurrences, but makes us triumph over anything -- form, outer form of our existence, as it is perfectly indifferent to economic systems, for example. You cannot iden- -- there is no social gospel; and Jesus is not a revolutionary; and He is not a reactionary, either. You can't { } {Him to this}. Thomas Hardy -- yes, I think it's Hardy--in a very wonderful play--has said of Him, "He's incalculable" to -- to suggest His complete freedom. We never know what He would have done. That's why it is so interesting to live, because we have to try to find out. He's incalculable.

Since He is incalculable, gentlemen, to say that the whole world has been -- consisted of peace, when the United States are the one country that has waged more wars in the last 150 years than any other country on earth, is just funny.

In peacetime, it's very cheap to say we are peaceloving. And it is very cheap to say in wartime that we are belligerent and bellicose aggressors. The interesting thing, obviously, is in their we- -- interweaving of these two strands, and to be bellicose in peacetime, and to be peaceful in wartime. That's difficult. Then you will honor your enemy, and you will be -- and as chivalrous as -- as --

Grant was in Appomattox, towards Lee, and you will not treat the enemy as Mr. Eisenhower treated the enemy in 1945, when there was no chivalry.

And we have a constant decline, through the pacifist movement, of the treatment of people at war. Such cruelties have never happened in war than after the Kellogg Pact. If you read the history of the wars before -- if you take the Revolution War, how chivalrous people behaved to each other, how prisoners were treated. It is very touching. You just read the surrender of Cornwall, and the behavior of the French generals towards the prisoners of -- when we -- when Cornwall surrendered at Yorktown; you will be surprised. Such a man -- such a general in this moment he's { } he's chased out of this country by his compatriots, because the fanaticism in wartime is as limitless as the pacifism in peacetime. Both is worthless and both is inhuman.

The problem of man obviously is to be at peace with mankind while he's at war, and to be at war with mankind while he seemingly is at peace, because these are two { } you see, obstructing wickedness and -- and not keep smiling, but get very, very, very angry indeed in peacetime, and to be very -- debonair and very indifferent in wartime, where the guns take away your passion. You don't have to be { } in wartime.

Instead, what do you see -- you get -- in this country if you read the propaganda of the last two world wars, all over the universe--especially in this country--people were whipped into a fury so that the peace, for example, in '45 couldn't be established, because by and large--most people who are a little older may -- it may come back to their memories--the United States entered the war in their heart and soul, with passion, after the setback of the Battle of the Bulge, and Christmas 1944. Then they { }.

And therefore, the soul of man, you see, rose into a war much slower than its technological weapons, and he can -- technological weapons. And so we have today, to compare the fact that we cannot make peace after a war, because we have whipped the nations up into such a fury that when the {armistice is agreed}, the people are crazy with --. And now they have to -- you see, they want to see blood, long after the end. The souls of men, in other words, { } the rhythm of technology.

We live today in a strange universe in which the technological occurrences move much faster than you and I in our biography. You can fly to Europe, and you haven't arrived. Your body is there, you see. Most peo- -- tourists who go to Europe leave Europe before they have arrived yet. { }. I know this, that you carry your Americanism, of course -- all over the globe. Everybody does. I -- my nature -- everybody carries his nature, and before he can -- before he can

slough it off, you see, he already has a return ticket { } and he has to go back. And then he ne- -- he was in Europe, he never was. His body was in Europe. And the soon- -- the quicker you -- carried through Europe, the less you have opportunity to slough it off. Settle in one place over on this other continent, if you can stay three months or six weeks in one place in Europe, you have an opportunity of arriving. Otherwise, you haven't.

I had two students to whom I had preached this Gospel. And instead, of course, they went through 21 countries in Europe in one summer. And at the end, they quarreled with each other: did they go to Austria or did they not? Among { } other countries. It was decided that they did -- went to Austria, because there the janitor -- the concierge of the hotel, the janitor, had a blue cap. This was Austria.

Now this is the -- the new situation. Now please, this is not a joke. But I offer you to -- to -- this to your consideration. Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew this and he said in the middle of the war, "This time for many years, we cannot conclude a peace."

So perhaps it helps you to understand why it is inevitable that we have no peace as yet. By the grace of God, the Cold War has kept us maturing. And perhaps in 1959 and '60, there may be some peace made. But we have had no peace, and this is your illusion: that you can be backsliding into the times before the two world wars, that you can whittle down the so-called "foreign aid," and the poor president of the United States had to plead with his people that they understand that where they are five soldiers fighting among the Allies for one American soldier, that is nothing but death, that we should at least pay a little bit. These poor $4 billion, which are absolutely nothing, a drop in the bucket to these Allies. Instead, we get a Congress that said, "Throw it down by one-half." Would any other position in the budget be treated -- whittled down to one-half? It's quite impossible; get it whittled down by 10 percent. But it isn't yet accepted as a position in the American budget, because he -- the two world wars have not yet been digested. The souls of man have not made peace in this country. You are still at war, { } living in the year 1912. Most of you are.

So these are very practical things. Pacifism blinds men against their own constant transformation between belligerency, fight, competition, you see, giving battle, and enlar- -- opening up, and letting them breathe in and out. So in -- at every moment, we alternate between opening up and including; and -- shutting down, and excluding. And the inclusiveness and the exclusiveness are interdependent, obviously.

Now war is an attempt to exclude, and peace is an attempt to include. If

you say, "I'm a pacifist," you say, "I never exclude. I always include." This cannot be. We have a skin. We have -- noses. We have frontiers. We have limitations. And very often I get very tired of people. And at other times, I can't be without them. Isn't that the truth about all of you? And therefore, to say, "I'm a -- for peace," is just as interesting as when a minister in a sermon is against sin, you see. So he {says so}, you see. But of course, the more he says that he's against sin, the more he is for sin. That's interconnected, you see, because I think { }. So we alternate between virtue and sin. We exclude and we include. We breathe in and we breathe out. And the attempt to get vegetarianism or Prohibition is just as strange as to get pacifism.

The next -- situation is the women's rights movement. Now in order not to be stoned, let it be said that I had a mother and six sisters who are suffragettes -- and were suffragettes. So they may redeem me. { }.

It's a similar problem. Obviously, with the Industrial Revolution, you see, more and more activities which were governed by women in the house, which -- under their leadership, and under their management, were trying to { } into the open of a factory system. And when the daughters and the mothers no longer had their right of direction, administration, and { } position in the home and had to go out into the open market place to deal with these problems, the -- a new law was followed. And that the real issue, of course -- before the house today, that since women -- women's economic activities no longer are done in the house, and the word "economics," which meant housekeeping in Greek, now means the housekeeping of the whole world, the -- woman has to become a member of the world household. And accordingly, her status in the world household has to be as queenly and as princely as a princess and a queen in a little -- single house has been. This is the real problem of the women's -- movement for new rights, for a new law, for a new order of things.

The { } and the -- this country at this moment tried to free the Negro child and leave the Negro adult without his vote, so it seems to me that it means to put the cart before the horse, if you start the problem of women's rights with the women's vote. It's the opposite situation. I think the Negro proposition cannot be -- cannot be improved by sending the babies to -- to the desegregated kindergarten. It only can be helped if the Constitution of the United States is obeyed, by which it is said that any taxpayer has a right to vote. And on which the very existence of the United States is based.

Oh, { }.