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

...because he hasn't complacency to listen to all the rants, that nothing ever happens. You take just an ex- -- exam. Even on the G-I -- course itself, which is certainly { }. { } of your time. Why don't you issue forth? What's in your { }? Be honest, gentlemen. Just examination paper.

Now the Roman emperor behaves just like that, { } Emperor Constantine. Any society, gentlemen, wants to hear these critics and say, "How interesting," and "How stimulating," you see, and "How entertaining." We call these people today "parlor Socialists," or "parlor Communists." There are plenty of them in this country. In Har- -- Dartmouth I can name you -- alone three dozen, you see. They are very radical, and very leftist at their cocktail parties. That doesn't cost anything, you see. And that immunizes the movement of faith beyond your own time. Because once you can issue forth this pus, this acid of criticism inside--and nothing happens--it is completely immunized. It has lost its sting, you see, it's -- as the Gospel says, "It's salt that no longer salts." And if the salt -- how is this -- does the Gospel say it?--"When the salt--."

("When { }.)

Exactly. Well, that's what modern liberalism has done to the human mind, exactly this.

So gentlemen, this is your problem just as much as Emperor Constantine's problem. And that's why Anthony, and St. Augustine, Jerome, and Athanasius are eternal saints. A saint is a man, gentlemen, who can take you and me out of time and space. That's the literal tran- -- definition of a saint. Saint is nothing saintly; it is nothing { }; it is absolutely nothing sentimental; it doesn't smell. It is a very great power, gentlemen. It's the power to take you out of your bodies; space out of your civilizations; space out of the s- -- time of your hopes, and plans, and purposes, and aims; and outside the means or the spirit of the times.

Jerome -- goes against the spirit of his times by translating the Bible, and making it therefore mobile, so that it can survive into any language. I think the Bible has in the meantime been translated into 1500 different languages. That's very typical of the indifference, you see, to any state of affairs. The Vatican is now basing--or was, 10 years ago--basing its hopes for the future of Christianity more on the bishops of China than on all the Christian churches in America today. There's no hope for the Christianity here, in Protestantism, or in South American Catholicism. But there is tremendous hope--if you ever meet one Chinese Christian, you know that he has more faith than hundred thousand American Christians together. And they have 400 Chinese bishops and the -- Vatican is quite confident that in these 400 Chinese bishops and their flock, there may be some spark of renewal, you see, and -- which you cannot expect here. Because here, Mr. Dulles is in the government, so to speak. Christianity is too much au fait, too much arriv‚, you see, too much a political expression of the power of the United States against Communism. How can such a Christianity work? We are -- Christianity is too much identified with this western civilization.

Now Christianity is the power for you and me to say with Mr. Spengler the decline of the West is a fact. But I'm not in it. I'm not interested in this decline of the West. Of course it is declining. The world is always declining. Any world is declining. What's the interest in this, you see? Of course you -- I never doubted that the West is in decline, and that only the planet can revive it. If you live here a planetary life, and not a western life, you will have eternal {life}, and the life everlasting. If you however belong to the order of things -- just good for America or the West, nothing will be left of you. You will be probably just one of the exploiters of redwood, and of soil erosion, and soul erosion, and brain trust, and -- and bank accounts, and ice cream, and motorcars, and -- cetera, and more gadgets. Of course, if you wish to call this your civilization, you are perfectly free to do this, gentlemen. And you will go to the -- to this car cemetery out in West Lebanon.

So gentlemen, I have to say one more word then to explain this fact about Anthony. I don't -- think I don't -- haven't told you anything about him. At the end of the 3rd century, you see, the persecutions of the -- Christians were already fall- -- right on the wane. In 285, the -- actually Diocletian, the great emperor -- the last Roman emperor in the full, ancient sense of paganism, tried to reconcile the Christians. And he had leading Christians at his court. And the -- and so that it seemed that even without the emperor being Christian, there could be some concord, you see, some pacification. It's like a Labour government in Britain, an attempt of doing the thing in a -- in a -- in an evolutionary way. Christianity seemed at the end of the 3rd century to enter into a kind of -- of peaceful armistice with the empire.

This was then, gentlemen, 30 years before Constantine became a Christian. That's very important, you see. There are always these attempts of reconciliation. Just as we tried in 1933 suddenly to be friends with the Russians, you see. So then -- you see, before the real conflict becomes -- here you once more try to be nice. And -- the Christians planned a kind of coup d'‚tat in Constantinople. And they thought that they -- in -- in Rome, it was in Rome. We have information too scanty to know all about it, that the Christians thought they could get the power in Rome in peaceful ways, by boring with -- from within. They had their Hisses in the government. And at that moment, Anthony smelled a rat. And St. Antonius is the man who said that the desert into which Israel went, the Exodus, which led the -- the Jews into the desert out of Egypt--before they ever came to Canaan--had to be revised, revisited, that the people of God had to have an eternal exodus. And he went into the Egyptian desert and founded -- began there to get the life of a hermit. He is the founder of monasticism in Christianity.

Now gentlemen, monasticism in Christianity is a service rendered to the whole Church. You read very often that it's just the same as Buddhism, the Buddhistic monk. The monk -- Buddhistic monk and the Christian monk have absolutely nothing to do with each other, except the external practice of living alone. But I mean the difference between a man who executes a prisoner and who murders him -- a man is obviously very great. It's -- the same axe which kills one and the other, you see, doesn't mean the same between a murderer and executioner. The same is true about this isolation of a Christian monk and a Buddhistic monk. It means the opposite. Because it means, gentlemen, for the Christian monk his faith that this desert is God's creation. For the Buddhistic monk, it means that he goes to the most negated part of the world in order to annihilate life, to negate it. Not to say, "The desert is good," you see, but to say that he can live without the world, without the created world, that he can get into his Nirvana, into his dream, into his non-existence. The Christian monk does not go into non-existence in the desert, but he does go into the desert to uproot--will you take this down as a definition?--to uproot the last vestiges of the imperial boundaries of antiquity, of paganism.

Egypt, China, Peru exclude the desert. The sky over Egypt is only over the fruitful valley of the Nile. Heaven is o- -- over this earth, you see. Now St. Anthony felt that in a moment in which the Egyptian wealth, luxury, well-being had conquered the whole empire--I could give you of this -- of this identification of Egypt and the Roman empire much more evidence. We have no time for this. Diocletian, the last emperor, tried to institute Egyptian priesthood all over the Roman empire. It's a literal equation between the Nile empire and -- and the -- the whole Roman world.

In this moment, Anthony said, "For Heaven's sake, we Christians cannot fall into this idea of a nice civilization of this world. We are the creators of the world, the co-partners of God. We co-create. How can we, when we become {creatures}, and we are just nice enjoyers of this fruitfulness of the Nile Valley?"

So he went outside this -- these temples, and their area, and their section -- the counties--you see, out of the -- -side the 36 counties of Egypt, with their wonderful -- organization of labor, and fruitfulness, architecture, and {groves}, and temples, and festivals, et cetera--and settled outside, where the earth is the Lord's, and not the -- of the stars. The stars have no power over this desert in the sense that anything happens there. Year in, year out, there are no seasons, so to speak, you see. The whole -- rhythm on which the eternal recurrence of the Great Year is based, you see, has no importance in the desert.

We have a report of a monk who had to -- draw water each day two miles to bring it to his cell. And he was asked how he could do this. And he said there would be no merit in doing this just a week, or a fortnight. And they could have settled, of course, in the fruitful valleys of the Nile. Only if they did it every day for a hundred years, their whole long life--they got very old, these people--would they show faith, would they really help the desert to become a part of the created earth.

And so they did. And to this day, gentlemen, the official formula for founding a monastery is that it must be given a desert, an eremos, which -- the -- from which the word "hermit" comes.

You may be interested that -- the founding of an -- of a monastery, ever since the days of Anthony, has been predicated on the existence of a non-empire court, non-templed place, you see, outside the order of templar worship.

-- Today I think the formula has disappeared. But for a thousand years, the monks were very pedantic. The count or duke who wanted to found a monastery had to give--even if it was the richest vineyard which he gave to them--had to give it to them in the form as though it was a desert, you see. Because it was given to them as though it was a desert. Even though in -- for example, in the Rhineland, where I know the documents, there was very fruitful land. And these monasteries later on were of course not put in the real desert, you see.

However, one thing has remained, gentlemen. Monasteries for the -- since St. Anthony have always tried to go between societies, between settlements, and always to develop that non-land between two communities, which was left between them as a boundary. Or in other words, gentlemen, when the monks took upon themselves to sanctify the part of the earth that seemed to people nonland, un-land, non-fertile { }, you see, non-soil in the -- you'll remember, in Noah, when I said to you this new land is a new kind of land. It's not the jungle, you see. It's not the bush. It's the soi- -- the soil redeemed by water, redeemed by the flood, you see. The -- the -- the meaning of the deluge in -- in -- in the Old Testament is that this land is the -- is the new land, which the jungle just isn't, the bush.

(How do you explain { } when they had land { } desert in -- in { }?)

Pardon me?

(How did you -- the monks who settled in the Rhineland used to have a monastery in rich land; how -- how did they --?)

I -- I'll give you this. Just -- you are right with your question.

When the monks came to the Teutonic tribes, you see, to the north of Europe, unsettled Europe, they found that still every village had around it miles and miles of forest, to protect it against animals and enemies. So you would have the settlement of Europe, of these { }--as it is still -- today in Russia--is this way. Here you have your village, and you have a -- a belt. Today we speak of "green belt" in the cities. But actually at that time, the individual settlement of any tribe--and has today still in Africa--a belt of frontier.

In other words, gentlemen, down to 1800, any political frontier was an area, and not a line. Will you take this down? Every frontier from antiquity on, of any political settlement, was an -- an area--for example, a march, like Devon in England. A march -- m-a-r-c-h, of which you have the name "marquis," you see, and "marchioness," which means "the land." Vermont is the -- your best example. Vermont down to 1756 was a march between the French and the English settlements in America. The whole state of Vermont never was then a state, but a march. It was a frontier. Nobody settled there. The last settlement was in Claremont, New Hampshire, as you may know, from here; and from the North, it was the -- in the northern point of Lake Champlain. In between, there was absolutely nothing. And as soon as the French were expelled from Canada, the reason for this march went, you see. There was one domination for both. And so Vermont was settled. Not -- we have no settlement in -- Vermont earlier than 1756, 1757. Dartmouth College was founded for this very reason in 1769, you see, six years after the -- French and Indian War.

The whole history of Vermont--if anybody cares to understand it--but the American historians don't care to understand American history, because they are too proud ever to compare it with universal history--but the history of Vermont repeats the history of mankind. All America has repeated the whole history of mankind in 150 years. The fascination of American history is not that it's an American history. That isn't fascinating. But that in 150 years, this country has gone through all the motions through which the rest of mankind has gone in 3,300 years.

For example, you can see this very easily. You go to -- across the bridge to my town of Norwich, and you come up to the meeting-house hill; that's on top, four miles from the bridge, you see. That's the oldest settlement, because when they settled there, they had to protect themselves still against Indians and animals -- wild animals, and against pest and disease. And they didn't even go to Norwich flat, let alone Lewiston. They went up high, to the highest point, you see. And all the roads in the 18th century in Vermont go right across over the hills. Route 5 was swamp. Nobody went through Wilder. Wilder didn't exist, you see. Christian Street went a mile behind the valley, you see, over the hills. You sit and go from here to Hartford this way, to the Veteran Hospital today.

Then you come in 1817 -- 30 years later, you come down to the -- where now the town hall in Norwich stands, and the grocer, and the Norwich Inn, you see, and where the highway -- goes. That's the second settlement. That's middle ground. There the people already trust their neighbors and are no longer considering the problem of -- of attack, and of disease. And in 1850, Lewiston is founded for the railroad. And then suddenly Route 5 swerves down to the river, and you dare to take in this arc, which the Connecticut River makes there, you see, and go in -- into -- leave Christian Street and go down to the -- to the lowest part of the valley.

Now in these three stages, gentlemen, the American -- the Vermonters--or the Americans, because it's the same here in all New England--have repeated the history of settlement which in Italy, for example, took 2- or 3,000 years.

If you go to Italy, you will find that the first settlement in Tuscany, for example--who has been in -- in Italy, during the war?--well, you may know that much, that you get Arezzo, Florence, and Pisa on the Arno River. Arezzo is the really old Etruscan city. The Etruscans were the first settlers there, who built cities. And they built it on top, just as our meeting-house on the hill here in Norwich -- or here, Hanover, similar. The second layer is Florence; that's much later, 2,000 or a thousand years -- later than Arezzo. You still can see it if you walk from Florence to Arezzo. Arezzo is a tremendous -- in a tremendous, domineering position. Florence is however down in the valley, and already, you see, dangerous to the { }. And then you come to Pisa and Livorno. And that's very late, because that is disastrous. It is not, you see, can't be defended against people who land from the -- from the sea, and it cannot be defended against mosquitoes, and against swamp fever, and all these things.

Florence has its importance only in the Middle Ages. Arezzo had its importance -- in antiquity, a 2,000 year distance, you see. And Pisa is of course--Livorno is -- today the Leghorn, as you call it, you see, is -- was 500 years later an important thing. And Florence -- already was declining; Livorno is a more important city in the 19th century than Florence, as a trading post. Only to tell you, gentlemen, that this -- that the earth has been conquered slowly, and that the monks were the first to go into the wilderness, as we call it. That's the word for -- eremos. Wil- -- wilderness. Yes?

(How did they -- how did they get to the { }?)

Oh, that's not Anthony. That's Athanasius -- that's Jerome and St. Augustine. They didn't. Not everybody can do everything.

The -- the Church stands on four pillars, gentlemen. I put it to you in the form of people. I said to you, Jerome; I said to you, Augustine; I said Anthony; and I said Athanasius. Now, St. Augustine says that our own purpose must be defeated, that the age of God, the Sabbath of God, the City of God, is not to be confounded with the city of man. Completely lost today. The liberals of this country published in the year 1936 a book, The City of Man. It's an orgy of stupidity and arrogance. It was just two years before Hitler came, and Mr. MacLeish was of course one of the authors. And it makes me -- really my blood boil -- it's about the heartlessness of these people who never say that they have been wrong. Has Mr. MacLeish ever done repentance for his idiocy? No.

[tape interruption]

...{our programs have} crumbled. What's the -- left of this world of -- of democracies, and liberals in -- in 1936? What was the surreptitious fiction? I'm very sorry. Did I --?

What was the -- what is not allowed, gentlemen, to write about the city of man? Why is a book which was -- was a symposion in which the leading liberals of this country said, "How wonderful life could be if we only would only agree?" But we don't. It was an imitation, an aping of the title, The City of God. God's city is one, because God is one. But men are many. And there is no City of God. It's just -- abstruse as world government. The world is manyness. Our sinful state, as far as we are worldlings, our nature, is divided. There are men and women, for example, who must make war upon each other; where would the interest of life otherwise be? We must court. We must -- you -- everybody is born, gentlemen, in a hostile world, and he must come to love it.

Now won't you give the next generation also an opportunity to love? You cannot love what is already loved. You have always to remain in this world, and you come to love something, which means that when you are born, it isn't yet love. Otherwise you have nothing to live for. God created a world in which your generation, and the next generation, the next generation must always still have something that i- -- hasn't yet been loved, and that you can come to love. Therefore the world is manyness, because otherwise, if we can -- wouldn't come into the world, we would have nothing to do.

You have still to find your mate. You still have to find your vocation. As soon as you have the world as one, gentlemen, you would have a -- a mechanical, bureaucratic filing system in which everything would be provided for you, and you would go -- bore around -- around and -- "Why should I live? I'm a mechanism. I'm planned. Everything is predictable."

Now the tragedy of man is, gentlemen, that he can only love that which hasn't been loved, and therefore, for Heaven's sake, understand that the world must always contain unloved parts, unloved elements. This is what the liberals won't see, because they have placed in the place of love, reason. They plan the world for others, how reasonable it could be. They coerce, they rob, they deprive people of their freedom to love. The freedom -- to love, however, is based on the assumption that you and I cannot anticipate what the next generation will have to love.

Now the City of Man is a blasphemy. It -- thinks that man can arrange this world into one city, without God's will. Of course in the very moment God came, and took these children and shook them, and put them now down in a field of ruins, and said, "That's what your city of man looks like." Shouldn't they perhaps begin to weep over this and say, "We have been arrogant and superstitious"?

The -- it's superstition, this book, The City of Man, an arrogance, a blasphemy, an impudence. Because you -- this man, St. Augustine, wrote in 428 this book, The City of God, these people thought it was a good idea to write The City of Man. It would be a bestseller. Of course it was, and was forgotten six weeks later. Even if you mention it to Mr. MacLeish, he'll shrug his shoulders and say, "Oh, well; that's what we thought." I mean, these minds have no brain, no memory, no feeling, no -- no sacrifice, no shame, for example. It's all thought out.

This is very serious, this book, gentlemen. It happens here in America every day. Every journalist, gentlemen, mints a tremendous eternal value like The City of God into some current thing. Mis- -- here, Mr. Lloyd Wright's son who writes, My Father Who is on Earth.. Now it has taken mankind 3,000 years to say, "Our Father in Heaven" -- "who is in Heaven," you see. And here, in comes the son of Mr. Lloyd -- Frank -- Lloyd Wright -- pardon me, Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect, and -- and writes, My father Who Is on Earth. Or Mrs. Lindbergh, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a -- similar cannibal, writes a book -- an article, "My most interesting character." A man who was an invalid, probably a very nice man, went -- a writer. And she worshiped him, and she visits him, and then he dies. So she says, in the Reader's Digest, "the flesh had become word." Now you know that in St. John, the world had taken 6,000 years before the Word had become flesh in the figure of the perfect man, and the perfect God. That can only be said once, you see, that the Word had become flesh. Only once. The Incarnation is a unique event. But of course Mrs. Lindbergh, and Mr. Lindbergh, and Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Brown, they can write any article on any human being and say that their -- its -- the putrid flesh of this man had become word, because she wrote a nice -- an article about him.

This -- you see exploding a tremendous historical event of uniqueness, the coming of Christ into this world, of the real order of mankind, and its restitution to its { } power of speech, and to human freedom. And she writes this article -- it appeared in a -- three years ago in The Reader's Digest: "The flesh has become word." Now you can follow American puns from Mr. {Edman} to Mr. {Tedman}. They all live on reversing the biblical and the eternal words of the spirit in -- as -- by the reversal, they -- the result is a joke. Something { }.

And -- that's how they look at it. They take a biblical expression, turn it around, and sell it. Commercialism, gentlemen, is nothing but that, what you call "commercial." Any advertising does this, you see. You see, you look up to Lincoln as a great man, so Mr. Ford sells you a Lincoln. If there wasn't first the great reputation of the unique man, Lincoln, he couldn't sell 10,000 Lincoln cars, you see.

By which I mean, gentlemen, the Roman empire, and your own times, and the liberals always mistake the one thing that is necessary and transform it into the many things that are pleasant, or that are available. It's always the possible, it's always, "We can do this, too." "We can" -- "Why not?" This "Why not?" you see, is the way of the world. The City of Man is a book: "Why not? Good idea." It isn't necessary. Not only is it blasphemy, because the title was taken from St. Augustine, who wrote at the moment when he had to survive and had to take out the whole of Christianity beyond the fall of the Roman empire, one year before the Vandals came to Africa. And 500 years before the darkest moment of human civilization was reached in the West, he had to write The City of God to encourage people to hold on through the dark night, in the faith that the -- God's ends were not man -- men's ends, and that it was still worth living for God's government, even though the government of the world as people had known it for 500 years was fast disappearing. That's the meaning of The City of God.

Now look at the blasphemy of writing in 1937, under Hitler, who -- who couldn't be comprised in the city of man, certainly, because he just didn't want { } -- a man, you see, to write then a pleasanty -- a pleasant book, The City of Man. A study, so to speak -- that's a study in real semantics, gentlemen. The study of real semantics will always tell you that faith, and love, and hope--outside time and space--is sold over the counter for a moment, for a season, for a fashion.

So in every moment, gentlemen, there have to be people who go outside time and space. The Christian era depends on the sequence then of all these four men. In every generation, you have to have some type of Jerome, some time of Augustine, some time -- type of Anthony, and some type of Athanasius. You have to do it. The existentialists -- Kierkegaard, Nietzsche have tried to live -- relive these people's sacrifice, these people's indifference to their own time and space. It's no accident that with Kierkegaard now--it took him 100 years to be heard. He died just a hundred years ago. Who -- which American has ever heard of Kierkegaard, except now? Very strange.

Why? Because you have to be taken out of this damned civilization of the West, because it's crumbling fast. He can do this, because didn't live in his time and space. Nobody else can. The only man -- in American literature who has any significance is Herman Melville, because he too was thrown out of America as a pariah, as a -- as a leper. And Moby-Dick is only alive--as you -- you know, {Nickerson}, what I think of Melville in this respect, you see--because he was exiled from America after he had written it. So now we can -- we can go back to Moby-Dick and cease to be Americans of the 19th century. Without Melville, you wouldn't even have any soul in this country to which you could peg your -- your -- refer as somebody who was indifferent...

[tape interruption]

...a monk. A Puritan is a man who lives in this world as though he was a monk. That's all what Puritans meant. It's not the clergy, but the -- the laity, who takes over the duties of { }. And you have to have this, gentlemen. If you have -- I told you once, if there is nobody today who doesn't go to the movies, and doesn't read the papers, and doesn't listen to the radio, there is no { } for man left. The new asceticism is not with the liquor, and not with { } sects, and not with all this nonsense. But it is with magazines, and news, and radio. The people who literally formed this country or the world did { } people who need not listen to the radio, because that's their -- {the form} today of the asceticism which is needed today to overcome the world.

So there is { } chance for any Dartmouth graduate. Mass monasticism, or Puritanism, gentlemen, inside fellowship. Now you see, Jerome, by translating, created a much wider fellowship. You see, you still believe in the native tongue. You don't know any other language. You are embarrassed when a man speaks with an accent. You want to hear { } to see. You {love} everybody regardless of faith, color, and race, and not regardless of accent. Translation is a widening of human fellowship, you see. Christianity makes for new fellowship. And the third thing is mission.

So you can put here, instead of "fellowship," "transmission," or "translation." And for monasticism and Puritanism, you can say "omission," because what is needed for a man, gentlemen, to come to life is that he omits certain worldly features of his environment. And "missa" { } "mass," I try to use one root, you see. It's not a pun. But it is true that the one root of Christianity of our era -- it goes in these four directions of mission, that is, conquering people who have never heard of the Gospel; omission, that's asceticism, monasticism, Puritanism, omitting weeds, luxurious growth, world -- waste of the world which blinds you and -- you see, takes it for granted, when you think they are eternal. And you don't know how much { } -- how much better you could be without. Transmission, which means fellowship despite obstinance; despite your being {indifferent}; despite your speaking a different, secular language--a different national language, a different class language -- workers and employers: what have they to talk to each other? Only if there is a translation of the spirit so that both sides can feel that they are -- that they are represented in the spirit. And mass, the remembrance of the first man who went and overcame this world, and created an era inside of which every event could be measured and overlooked.

So four times I've tried to give you the Cross of Reality of the Church, gentlemen. The four evangelists speak to four different points. Matthew -- goes out from the Jews. He wrote in Hebrew first, and Aramaic. Then it was translated into Greek. He went to Ethiopia. And Matthew is going away. He omits Israel. It's hopeless. Luke, like Athanasius, proves the orthodoxy of Christ against the pious Jews, against the Jews who said, "He's a blasphemer; He -- said -- called Himself He's the Son of God; that's impossible." Luke writes for the Pharisees and { } --. Matthew writes against the Hebrews, the 12 tribes of Israel. And Mark writes against the Egyptians and their star-worship. And John writes for the Greeks, who think that poetry is everything, and he says, "Don't you see that Jesus is God's poem?" That's mean- -- the meaning of "the Word of God that becomes flesh," you see, that man is a more poetical institution than Shakespeare's Hamlet, you see. Shakespeare himself is a poem, not just his poetry. If you could consider yourself God's poem, you would become a very fine creature. We are God's poem, gentlemen. That's the Christian Gospel. We are God's poem. The earth is the Lord's, and no empire is. God created the earth, and not the pharaoh, not the emperor. No pyramids, therefore.

Luke says, like Athanasius, that Christ is God, and not god-like, but that really God, the creative force, has been given us now to co-create his god- -- the universe, to renew it, to re- -- have it reborn every day. And John says that every born -- child newly born is a new song, a new line in the great song of humanity. And therefore, there is always a beyond the existing failure, or the fall of the Roman empire.

So the four Gospels, gentlemen, these four saints of the 4th century, and the four eternal forms of worship in the Church: memory of the founder; mission of -- to the infidels; fellowship inside, between classes and races--you see, no segregation in Church; and at the outside, omission of some worldly -- worldly values. It's the condition for your having a church. The monks represent the most radical omission of the world, you see. But you -- every Christian must have some one monkish element in him. At some point, you must say "No," you see. As long as you have this power, you can get out of the world.

So gentlemen, these four are limiting concepts. You can at one time not remember Jesus, but Pentecost instead. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit. You would still be in the Christian Church. Or you can celebrate the -- the day of the saint, you see. But the memory of the founder is the -- is the most vital point in the Church. The same is true about asceticism. A monk is the most complete ascete. You and I, perhaps we only forgo some little thing by giving a quarter in church on Sunday, instead of buying lollipops. It is still in the same direction.

So gentlemen, you get in three times the same layout of anything that still bears vestiges of the first millennium and its creation of the Church.

Let's have a break here.

[tape interruption]

...history of mankind { }.

(Are we supposed to write this down in longhand?)

As best as you can.

And -- gentlemen, we come now to the definition of the Church. The Church is the attempt to make sure that every human being acquires the power to create times and spaces. Every -- the Church is not the state of mankind. That is the -- the thorn in the flesh, you see, of most world { }. The world needs the Church. "I'm a good man, anyway. And my mother is, and so why { } the Church? The Church -- so the Church tries to make -- to make sure, to guarantee that every human being acquires this power of getting outside of time and space, of surviving the death of the Roman empire, of surviving the lusts of his own body, of surviving the aims and purposes of his own youth, his own ambitions if they are not in harmony with the real accord, and to survive the sheath of the spirit, the spirit of your times.

Obviously nobody can just die for the New York Times. You have to be able to survive all their errancies and all their vagaries. How do you do it? By acquiring a language, gentlemen, it isn't just Pidgin English.

So the deeper layer of mankind must be put into everyone. How is this done, gentlemen? The power over space and time -- or over the s- -- times and spaces of your body; your land; your mind, mental programs, your ideology, as they say today, you see; and the spirit of the times. How do you acquire these four immunities? Only by contagion. The spirit is a contagious disease. No human being can give this to himself. It is impossible to be saved here without history. They -- the -- decisive fact of Chri- -- the Christian era is that a man cannot acquire the power of becoming a hermit and trans- -- writing the City of God, and translating the Bible, and putting down Caesar under God, you see, except in fellowship, in communion. It is impossible for anyone even to be understood, you see. He is a crackpot in the eyes of everybody. Christianity, gentlemen, is a union of all the crackpots. It is of everybody who in every generation appears into the world as a crackpot. It's a shame in the eyes of the Jews, and a folly in the eyes of the Greeks, the Cross. It must be. The only way in which the Cross survives is by fellowship. Only because John, and Matthew, and Mark, and Luke said, "We are of one faith," could they ever survive. Only because Athanasius could flee to the monks in the desert, when the emperor persecuted him for his fight against his authority, you see, did Athanasius survive. The Christians can be of one spirit, although they differ mentally. A worker, and a woman, and a rich man can be Christians together. If there are only rich and poor, then they get class war. They get -- I'm -- one is a Marxist and the other is a capitalist. The -- N.A.M. and the -- and the Communist Party are both destructive of human fellowship.

(Sir? { }--)

No, I can't. Pardon me. Ask me afterwards { }. I am glad to stay afterwards. But I have to hurry, gentlemen, because the second millennium of our era, gentlemen, has still to be dealt with once more. The second -- millennium of our era does not build the Church. That -- in other words, it does not try to make the world indifferent or -- I mean, negligible to every man born from woman. It doesn't take man into eternity, and says, "You can create a -- new times and new spaces, a new era, a new language, a new fellowship, you see, and a new order of things." It is a revolutionary era. The second millennium tries to put the world into such a movement that it will revolve in a proper way without an egocentricity of any pharaoh. The second millennium is a millennium of revolutions as against empires. The content of the second millennium is, gentlemen, that at the end, there's no empire left. Even the empress of India is gone, and the emperor of China, and the emperor of Germany, and the emperor of Russia, and the emperor of Austria/Hungary. That's no accident, gentlemen. Because the old empire was something sacrosanct, as you know. An empire meant a temple in the middle of it, like the city of Rome, or like the -- like Mexico City, and like Peking, you see. And all this has crumbled, gentlemen; it took exactly 900 years to do this, to finish, to change the world from an empires -- a world of empires into a world of revolutions. There is no government, in this moment, in the whole world, gentlemen, which is not based on revolution. It's very exciting. There is not one empire that doesn't derive its existence from a state of violence. Not one. Here, the basis of the United States is the Revolution War, the American Revolution.

What is a revolution, gentlemen? A revolution is an attempt to lift a part of the globe into some astral movement. If you read Dante's -- Divine Comedy, he says that love revolves--the sun and all the stars--and invites man to live in his soul and in his life the same revolutions. The word "revolution" is an astronomical word, gentlemen, but it's purified of Egyptian astrology.

So gentlemen, the world takes the place of the empires. Or the second millennium, in other words, gentlemen, melts the Egyptian darkness, takes over all the remnants of world empires and puts the whole globe, the planet, in its place. The world revolution is the fitting end, gentlemen, of all the revolutions of the second millennium, because it forces upon the nations of this earth the map which you now see in Lake Success. Which is this map? Have you ever seen it? You see, the poles are in the middle, and all the -- the -- the la- -- the countries flap around, like flapping doors, eccentric to the middle.

If you look up your atlas, you still find--in any older atlas--the world in Mercator's projection. With Europe in the middle, America at the left hand, and Russia at the right. It made all the Europeans think that Europe was in the middle, by God's will, you see. It was Europe-centered. This is the map which was used for the last 400 years, in all European schoolbooks, and I think in this country, too, because this country -- obeyed the -- the order of things as looked upon from Europe. Europe in the middle.

Now gentlemen, the history of the last thousand years is to change empires into one world. But in saying this, gentlemen, and in quoting Mr. Willkie's One World, you can see already that "one world" doesn't mean one mankind. One world means just what it means, you see, one earth, one planet. It means that man's relation to the soil, and to the division of labor and production of the goods of this earth has become unified. And everything depends for your understanding, gentlemen, that you should discriminate between one Church, one world, and one mankind or one society. Soc- -- one society is -- has nothing to do with one Church, and one world has nothing to do with one society. You can live in one world, as we live today, through our flying and our telegraph. But it -- you -- still we don't live in one society, you see. A Russian cannot marry, you see, an American at this moment.

So if you kindly would see, gentlemen, that the second millennium takes the place of the empires of antiquity. The first millennium takes the place of Israel in antiquity. And the third millennium only, the Great Society, will have to take the place of the tribes in -- their {human relations}.

So please distinguish clearly, gentlemen. We come from a second millennium which opened up, redeemed--as the Christian expression is--redeemed the empires of antiquity. It made out of many empires one planet. How many minutes now do I have?


Could I go on till { } o'clock? Anybody who has to leave will kindly just leave. I don't know how long it takes, but I wish to give you in a -- again, as a -- the first millennium, some inkling how to go about these revolutionary centuries of the last millennium, gentlemen.

There are six such revolutions, gentlemen, all of universal scope. They were made by six great men, or -- represented by six men. Gregor- -- take down those name--the Pope Gregory VII, who lived from 1013 to 1085. Gregory VII, his -- first name was Hildebrand. The second is St. Francis of Assisi, who died in 1227. I don't know his birth -- year of birth. Luther is the Number 3, born in 1483 and died in 1546. The dates are quite important, and I require you to know them. Oliver Cromwell, 1599 to 1658, I think, or '59. I think '58. Oliver Cromwell -- you -- know them all. Napoleon, 1769 to 1821. And Lenin, died -- 1870 from 1924.

({ }.)

Now I wonder. Who is the last one?

({ }.)

Lenin. Yes? 1870 to 1924. These are three monks and three noblemen, three knights, which you may not know. Cromwell, Napoleon, and Lenin were all gentlemen. That is, they were all soldiers turning into revolutionaries. Knights turned into revolutionaries. Very important. And the three first were monks turning into revolutionaries. Gregory VII was a monk of the strai- -- strongest observation. And his enemies always attacked him, that although he was a monk, he traveled, because a monk couldn't travel. A monk had dedicated himself to this place in the desert, you see. He couldn't move. Gregory VII was the first monk who officially simply took upon himself to travel, and thereby revolutionized the world. He was the monk returning into the world. So was Luther, and so was St. Francis.

I'll give you some -- all these revolutions, gentlemen, then are the revolutions of the world. They changed the map of the world. They cut into all political boundaries, and they tried to make the orb move according to God's seasons. That is, they re-create the political calendar. They re-create the political calendar. The dates, gentlemen, are very simple. The date for the Gregorian revolution is Corpus Christi Day, Corpus Christi Day. Do you know what that is, Corpus Christi, except a town in -- in Texas?

(Body of Christ.)


(Body of Christ.)

Do you know when it is celebrated? Nobody knows? When is Corpus Christi coming in the calendar of the Church? Well, it was instituted rather late, in 1265. It is so famous, because Thomas Aquinas wrote the office for it. He is the poet who composed the prayers and the hymns for this day. It's -- comes 10 days after Pentecost. Now you don't know what Pentecost is, so it doesn't make any difference.

Then you get -- you -- I have only to mention the 4th of July--that's a good example of a -- such a revolutionary day of celebration. You get -- in England, you get the 5th of November -- November 5th, "I remember, I remember the 5th of November," Guy Fawkes' Day. It's the day of the Glorious Revolution, of the landing of William III in -- in England, 168- -- '88. The quatorze of juillet. Quatorze juillet, you know that. What's that?

(Bastille Day.)

Bastille, 1789, ja. That's another such new day in the calendar. With Luther, it's a celebration of the birthday of the prince. That you celebrate George Washington's birthday is the act of the Reformation, because it's a worldly -- the world that is celebrated there, the natural birth of a man. You see, all the saints were only celebrated on their day of death. If you look into the calendar, you have a -- queer mixture today. St. Augustine is in the calendar on the day of his death. St. Francis on -- in the calendar on the day of his death. All the saints of the Church stand there on the day of their death. All the worldly people stand in the calendar on the day of their birth. And Luther was the first whose name got into the calendar for the -- November 10th, for his day of birth. And George Washington's birthday, Lincoln's birthday are derivatives. In every country, you get the -- the birthday of the prince, of the king, or the president as -- or the founder celebrated. That's not older than 1517.

The St. Francis thing is too complicated to go into it. It's the -- the city's birthday, the election so -- so to speak. But I can't go into this, you see. In this country, you have really no annual elections. But when the -- city mayor of London, the mayor of London is elected, that's the day instituted by St. Francis. The annual election of the head of a -- of a community or a congregation, you see. If you had here autonomy, freedom in -- in the academic world, you would have elections of deans and presidents here, you see, as we have in Europe. But this isn't -- { } part of America, the academic profession. Therefore it has no such -- it has bosses, has administration. But the Franciscan revolution instituted the annual election, the inspired election every day -- every year of a -- you see, of a member of the community to lead it. Selectman principles -- there you have it. The selectmen are based on the -- that's a good -- good example. New England selectmen, town meeting: that's the idea of the Franciscan revolution.

So gentlemen, these six revolutions have introduced into your and my life six days -- six forms of celebration of holidays, which didn't exist before. The -- Corpus Christi Day is the day which protests the state. It's a day of the challenge of the Church against the emperor, and the kings, and even the republic. Because, on the Corpus Christi Day the whole clergy and faithful march in procession. And -- it's like St. Patrick's Day here a little bit, you see. The Irish have taken over here this. Really -- what the whole of St. Patrick's Day in New York is this, telling the mayor, if he is a Protestant, he'd better watch out. "This is St. Patrick's Day. We may not have the majority in this city, but, you can't be elected if we aren't with you."

Really, St. Patrick's Day has developed into something -- this parade has taken the place. All these fests -- celebrations, gentlemen, can -- can be substituted, of course. You -- I would say that St. Patrick's Day in New York plays exactly the role for which Corpus Christi Day was created in the Middle Ages: a defiance, you see, of the agnostic state of affairs of the state. Despite the separation of Church and state, you see, it is better for you to be a {knight} { }. It pays.

St. Patrick's Day or Corpus Christi Day -- the second is: the annual renewal of the spirit in your community; that political, secular government should be not longer than one year; suspect any power that is permanent; rotate office. The rotation of office is the idea of the Franciscan revolution, gentlemen. In -- Luther's case, the natural man, the -- the natural -- the lay -- the layman is enhanced, and his birth with his natural gifts. From the highest citizen, the prince, in the community to the lowest, the birthday gives him a right, you see, and not just his sanctification. So it's -- the sanctification of the world by birthday celebration, which you have in Luther, and which you all have received. Even -- Catholics don't celebrate only the day of their saints; they also celebrate their birthday. I observe this with quite interest -- great interest. In -- in Catholic regions in Europe, the birthday isn't celebrated. But as far as I can make out, Catholics in this country do celebrate their birthdays. Isn't that true? That's a Protest- -- a Protestant feature. It's anti-Catholic. It's heretical.

But we all participate in the fruits of these six revolutions, gentlemen, whether heretical or not. I mean, nobody is orthodox today. We are all revolutionaries. Cromwell, with his 5th of November, celebrates the right of resistance, the right to resist unjust rulers. And Napoleon and the Bastille is -- civil rights, revolution in the sense of a genius -- the individual's -- inalienable rights. There quite foreign to the English point of view. In England, the commons make a revolution. In Paris and France, the individual makes a revolution, the great individual, Napoleon. And Lenin, the world lives on its stomach. It does, gentlemen. Any army marches on its stomach to victory.

That is, the world, in its six physical aspects, gentlemen, has been redeemed by these revolutions. Why? Gregory VII says, "Any power that be has to be opposed. Power -- absolute power is completely corrupt. There is no Caesar, there is no world government which is tolerable." The whole era, gentlemen, stands against this idea of world government. One power. Always at least one opponent who can coerce him. It's very serious. Power of this world, gentlemen, must be balanced. There must be an equilibrium of power, because every power left to itself is corrupt.

Lord Acton, a great Catholic of the 19th century, has -- has repeated this word of Gregory VII simply by saying -- it's received in all the history books today--by saying that "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the saying of Gregory VII. Kings and emperors have to be resisted. The Lord Secular, the Lord Temporal has to be resisted by the Lord Spiritual, or the Sword Spiritual.

Gregory VII therefore creates the spiritual sword, gentlemen, the spiritual branch of government, and separates it from the worldly branch of government. Since Gregory VII, you have that which you take for granted, you little children: the separation of Church and state, the opposition of Church and state. Before, nobody could even use the word "state." Didn't exist. And even the word "state," it didn't -- came into existence under Gregory, but the idea came of two swords -- s-w-o-r-d -- two swords. Before, this was unknown. Gregory VII has created the notion of a balance between Church and state. Most people antedate this. But you see, gentlemen, Jesus only said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." He didn't identify the Church of God with God.

[tape interruption]

...{ }.

So gentlemen, Gregory VII has fixed this forever. The Church is in any country, but it is never of this country. If it is of this country, it ceases to be the Church. Number 2, the second revolution, gentlemen, the Franciscan revolution: the state government must be made transient and temporal. Franciscan -- the Franciscan revolution of 1200 forces the -- the state to rotate its offices very quickly. At best only one year, because then nobody has any right to his office. He can be -- the one-year sys- -- ter- -- principle was introduced by the Franciscans, or the Guelphs, as they called themselves; that's the so-called Guelphic revolution.

We have the Gregorian, the Guelphic, and the Protestant revolution made by three monks. And I said, Gregory, Francis, and Luther. And then we have, of course, three revolutions which unfortunately are called by countries. The English, the French, and the Russian. The knights gave their revolution the name of their country.

I think that's very unfortunate. The Russian Revolution is a world revolution. The French Revolution is a revolution of the nation, everywhere. It's not just a French Revolution. It's "La grande r‚volution." The -- the revolution of any nation. And the English revolution is also a world revolution. It placed England, as you know, on the waves, {and its Rule} Britannia, the Commonwealth of Nations. And it is very bad to ca- -- to call the Glorious -- it's a Glorious Revolution more than it's English -- the English themselves call it "Glorious Revolution." It is very dangerous, gentlemen, to acquiesce and to say these last three revolutions are French, English, and Russian. If you call it that way, you deprive yourself of the understanding of its meaning. These revolutions achieve, just like the medieval -- revolutions, something else. We have already opposition of the empire by the Church, by the spiritual sword. We had the Guelphic revolution, quick turnover of the -- secular government. We have of the -- the dignification of the worldly talent, the profession of man, his worldly calling, and ce- -- by celebration of his birthday.

All professional pride, gentlemen, goes back to the 16th century. The doctors owe their privileges in this country today and the high esteem to Luther. -- The esteem in which the ministry was held in the 16th century today is -- in this country with -- with the -- with the doctors of medicine. But they just are another profession to which this has migrated. The nobil- -- no- -- the nobility of the professional man has been created by the 16- -- by the Reformation.

Now what has been created by the -- by the commonwealth of England? The right to resist, the knighthood of every --. The first knight in revolutionary history, Cromwell, who was a gentleman, introduced rightly the -- the right to bear arms, you see, has been given to every human group. The right to resist. Self-armament. I mean, that you are so -- loose on the -- trigger-happy in this country, that every child must have a revolver and kill his playmate, that goes back to Cromwell. The right to resist. That is, that armament, you see, is the natural part of the human -- as a professional, civilian {talent} in the Reformation. So here the military, the self-defense power, you see, the shotgun is given { } every human being as his natural endowment { }. That's the virile character, the English Revolution. And the civilian is redeemed as a part of the -- God's creation by Luther. The military man, the soldier is ennobled by the { }. A gentleman is -- {he is a} militia-man, a man who wears a uniform in the House of Lords -- in the House of Parliament to this day. The man who -- in -- in the -- House of Commons presents the budget -- or receives the budget -- answers the chancellor, the -- the Lord of the Exchequer, { } Mr. { } made a speech -- makes a speech { } introduced--you may have read it { } statement in the House of Commons--the man who answers must be in the { }. Still to this day. Otherwise they wear a long tailcoat, and white tie, you see, and in the House of Parliament. But the man who answers to the king's budget must { }, because in this capacity, the House of Commons was created. People who had the right to wear -- bear arms, you see, for the king if he's right; against the king, you see, if he's wrong.

The right to resist, gentlemen, or the right to bear arms, or the soldier quality of man were redeemed in the French Revolution. It's a man's world ever since, for Englishmen. But not before. That's a great mistake. The -- this famous saying, "It's a man's world," is very short-lived. It only came into being through the English parliamentary revolution. { }. All the politics of English -- the English, you see, are very short. They are only -- were created in the 17th century. Before, the English weren't at all differentiated from any other people in -- on -- in Europe.

Nations are creations of revolutions, gentlemen. Perhaps you take this down. All the nations of Europe are results of these great world revolutions. Why? Because every revolution instituted one nation as the guarantor, as the sponsor and defender of one of these -- of these features, as I have tried to give them to you. The French Revolution, gentlemen, defends the goodness of wealth, the goodness of capital. It is in this sense a capitalist revolution; as it says, that the man who has credit, who enjoys trust, who can invest, who -- is a benefactor of mankind. The -- French Revolution sanctifies not arms and not talent, but it sanctifies wealth, free trade, world trade, commerce, investment, share -- shareholding companies, stock exchange, speculation, get-rich-quick.

The Russian Revolution, the world revolution sanctifies what?

({ }.)

Ja, the masses. Very true. Man without talent, without { }, without courage, without capital. If you deduce these from man, what's -- remains? That he still is mass, you see, has to be fed, he's hungry; has greed, and passion, and lust, and curiosity, and boredom. And the mass is our part, too. We also are in -- contain mass. Can't be denied. We have a stomach. We have lust. This revolution goes therefore to the depths of human materialism, of man as part of the world.

All these revolutions treat you and me as part of the world. "What's man good for in the world?" they say. Well, he's good as a soldier. He is good as a professional. He is good as a -- as a -- as capitalist. He is good as a labor force, as a mass, you see.

Now obviously gentlemen, it's a sanctification of the masses, because this mass is not just {labor}. It's just all mass. Whether you have soldiers, or whether you have labor, you cannot distinguish in this modern revolution very much differently from Marx's id- -- idea. This world revolution is just as much a veterans' revolution as it is a -- a labor revolution, and a peasant revolution, as you know.

So "mass" is I think the best expression. The masses are not to be identified with factory workers, and with soldiers, and with peasants. The way the Communists explain the leadership of the proletariat is that only the factory worker among the masses is sufficiently conscious so that he can lead the other masses. But they also have to admit that "mass" is found, you see, outside the factory. "Mass" is a much more general term of {humanity}.

So we have, gentlemen, the revolutionary force instituted by -- by Gregory VII by saying, "The world can only be revolved, can be moved by a force that is not of this world, the Church." If you wish to change the world, you have to admit that any worldly power must be opposed, because by its own gravity, it will never get out of its rut. The second: make every secular power short-lived. It's the principle of rotation of office, you see. The third, take your talents where they were born. Go to your nativity, to your birthday, a great -- respect for professional endowment -- gifts of nature, you see. The world can only get into right shape if we take the talents where they are born, and not where our Constitution or our planning, you see -- put them. Don't ask that a man be ordained to the priesthood. He may be a priest because he's a poet, because he's an artist, because he's an explorer, you see. Native talent is a part of the world which shall be kept in movement.

Now, gentlemen, I know my time is up, but please bear with me, because what I have to say about these six men is that they wanted to have this world move, although it is the world. The world, gentlemen, is what is moved from the outside. Nothing in the world has spontaneous movement. You have, and I have; stones haven't, you see. Whenever you call yourselves "the world," gentlemen, you have to be pushed. You have to be stimulated, as we say so rightly. You have to be instigated. You have to be examined. You have to be pushed. You have to be demanded. You have to be paid, you see. Otherwise you won't move. The world never moves by itself. The saints do. God does. God is prime mover. The world is that which can be moved. The world revolutions then, gentlemen, are attempts to mobilize all the energies which will keep this world...

[tape interruption]

...{ }. How do you know? Delightful to be in a rut. You were {safe, you see}. Yet everybody knows this is something true. The world can only be kept out of a rut, gentlemen, under what -- which condition? Well, we know it from the atom. If you read -- read about the construction of the atom by Ni- -- Niels Bohr, the diameter of the system by which we move must change; either get narrower or bigger. We keep moving -- the world keeps moving only by a change in diameter. You must either live in an expanding or a shrinking universe. We cannot live in a universe with the same diameter. You have to -- to get in touch with the moon now, with Mars, you see, to keep this world of ours going. It's necessary, because the -- world rotations lead to the insight that we must have an expanded universe, or we'll have a shrinking one. It is impossible to have the same { } movement. { } thermodynamic { }, you see. The most -- the universe can never remain of the same expanse. It must either grow or decrease. You can keep the same movement by decreasing, you see, or you can bring in new masses, and new attractions, and new convictions.

Now every one of this -- revolutions did this, gentlemen. It mobilized other energies, until it now has mobilized the last one, mass. And it has revolutionized and uprooted the quiet weeds, the grass, you see, { } {this inner, movable person}, the -- the national, the factory worker. We have migratory workers. We have nomadized man, man's labor force. And at this moment, the world thereby is kept in movement.

So what I am saying -- tell -- trying to tell you today--I wish to expand on this next time--but we only have how many more meetings?


Three. So it's very short. These six men--three monks, and three knights, gentlemen--have tried to overcome the gravity of the existing world by expanding the universe, and by mobilizing forces that would force the world to move. The word "force" by its own way -- it doesn't move. All revolutions try to make things instead of having decay, and decline, fall of man, and -- as in atoms, make them revolve. That's the Egyptian principle. If you can make the powers of this world revolve, rotate, you see, then you can keep them in beautiful order. If you let them just exist, you see, they fall into a rut. Once they fall into a rut, they get sunk, and become fixed, and helpless, and topple over by their own weight.

This is the -- the very naturalistic approach, gentlemen, since Gregory VII, { }. Revolutionary politics are the only politics that deserve a name. And let me dismiss you by one thought for the next time. All these six revolutionaries had their lesson {implied} that no government on this earth can be studied by itself. Any government -- teaching of political science, gentlemen, which -- here is with the Constitution of the United States, is insufficient. It doesn't tell you where the government of the United States stands in the history of revolutions. The government of the United States has a specific revolution written in 1789, because of the existence of England, and the Reformation, and France, and Russia at that moment. And you cannot believe, or you go -- you go {legion} in the biblical sense, of course, if you know what that means. Look it up in the New Testament what "legion" means. You go a legion. { }.

If you think that you can understand your existence under the American Constitution -- out of the American Constitution, you cannot. The American Constitution is the word in the congress of the world by the revolutionaries. It's one line in this tremendous conquest of the political world by a revolutionary spirit, the revolutionary spirit. The second millennium, gentlemen, then is inspired, too. It is not inspired by saints. The heroes of the second millennium are called "revolutionaries" because they have tried to revolutionize the world, and because the world is that which won't move, you see, by itself. It has to be forced.

[tape interruption. end]