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

(...9, 4 November 1953.)

(Say it once more?)

(Philosophy 9, 4 November 1953.)

...pressed for time. And what I have to say today, gentlemen, is -- something has been on my mind for many decades. It is the problem of what war is, and what serious life is, and how far we learn from war about seriousness and its laws as against the world of play in which you exclusively so far have moved in your own life, in your own experience, and also in this course. And if I succeed, it will have made our little contribution to the great science which today is attempted from many sides, a science which will deal with society in its two foundations: teaching and listening, speech and war, on the other hand. The -- modern sociology is based on an analysis of business, an analysis of private behavior of children -- children's psychology. And it cannot at all explain war. And it cannot at all explain religion. And it cannot explain teaching, and why we must teach. There is many -- very much have said why children should learn. But why a teacher, for no pay, or for very unsubstantial pay, should devote a life to teaching, that is inexplicable according to the rules of modern handbooks of sociology. You will not find in any book on progressive education any explanation why a teacher -- in -- in the position -- and in the way in which he's treated in America should give a life to teaching, to teach you brats. It's unbelievable that people always do it, and make the greatest sacrifices. They are the -- the -- I mean, not college professors so much, but the schoolteachers.

As long as you do not -- have explained why a soldier dies in Korea, and why a teacher teaches you against your resistance and -- bad will, you have not explained life, because these are the two foundations on which any society rests: that people, although they could earn more money in other ways of life, you see, prefer to teach; and why people lay down their lives for their country. These are the two serious sacrifices people make. They forgo, while living, the amenities of rich wealth, and distinction, and ease. They teach. And on the other hand, they lie even down their lives for their country.

It is very mysterious, gentlemen, and it is folly in the eyes of modern social science. Because, according to this social science, the -- man is just destined to follow his self-interests, his enlightened self-interest. And both actions, teaching and fighting in war, is against man's own interest. No stretch of the imagination can ever -- will ever convince me that it is myself who is interested

in teaching others, or in -- losing my life. You cannot call this enlightened selfinterest, if you go and fight, and -- and are killed in battle. Killed in action, gentlemen -- all modern social science stops.

So we are preparing here a science of the war. Perhaps the future word for this will take in the Greek word polemos, which means war. I don't know if we shall call this "polemology." Would be an awkward word. But we need one, gentlemen. We need a science of war. This was -- polemos is Greek -- the Greek word for war. And as we all -- call all sciences with the Greek name, as you know, we may be -- be driven to coin such a phrase. And there is one contribution made to this by Mr. Mortimer Adler. Who has seen the book by Mr. Adler in Chicago on war and peace? -- which certainly is -- have you -- nobody has? I thought it was here prescribed reading -- by Adler.

(Is that a new book?)

Well, a new book -- that doesn't mean it's a good book, you see. The Bible is very old. You only read new books, I know. Always the worst.

There is no such inclusiveness in our modern social science. And therefore gentlemen, if you and I, and it's a tentative thing, shall -- should succeed to learn something from war about real life, we would have made some progress. And I prepared the ground by setting you clearly between play and serious life. Again, this isn't done ordinarily. People just talk about men in society, you see. But they nowhere draw the line between seriousness and play.

As to the other facet of serious society, I deal with this in -- as you -- some of you may know, in Philosophy 10, in the Circulation of Thought. So we'll leave aside here this whole problem of the relations of teachers and students, or sp- -- speakers and listeners, or older and younger people.

But I want to do my best today to point out certain lawful contradictions between play and war. I only have to prove to you that we were right when we said that in peace, or play situations which are not serious, we call the tune. We call the time. We call -- determine the place. You remember. We begin and we end. Now gentlemen, the first problem then of war is that if it is a serious matter, there must be a reverse of the order of our experiencing the time sequence. Peace ends, and war breaks out. The end precedes the beginning. Peace is the na‹ve state of your slumber, of your routine ways of life. The first peace out of which you are shocked into existence is when Pearl Harbor happens. War breaks out because peace ends. War is not the beginning in itself, arbitrarily called, because there is no -- everywhere in the civilized world a great tradition that you must not fight a preventive war, or you must not arbitrarily break off

relations to others. War breaks out. By this we try to settle the business in such a manner that nobody has really done it, you see. It happens. It's an event beyond human understanding. And -- nearly always is. Everybody wants to have an alibi and say, "I -- I didn't do it."

You know people here say that Mr. Roosevelt produced Pearl Harbor, that he was obviously in the counsels of the Japanese and managed to make them send their ships to Pearl Harbor. It only -- shows you the idiocy of thinking. All wars break out. Even McKinley, who declined to accept the surrender of Cuba and Puerto Rico by the Spaniards, and said, "I need a war" -- even he could pretend that the hostilities had already begun when he said this. It's a very horrible story. You know that it's the one, lascivious and frivolous war fought in the 19th century. It was fought by Americans, the Spanish-American War. The Spaniards wanted to hand it -- all over on a silver platter and fall and he said, "No. I want a war, so I -- May -- get it in May." This is a very -- a story as bad as the throwing of the atom bomb.

But I'm not concerned with this. I'm here concerned with Mr. McKinley's alibi, really, that as for the last 2,000 years, people have always tried to pin the reason for the outbreak of the war on somebody else, because there is a deep feeling that what provokes a war is that peace has become intolerable, that it ends. It is much more important for us to -- to concentrate on this fact which you do not -- have not accustomed to consider seriously, that the happy bliss of peace ends, just as your life at home must end one day. That's why you have to break forth and go elsewhere, and at first you are -- then an adventurer, or rather lawless, get drunk and go to women, and gamble, and -- and do anything just to get away, because you cannot stay at home. A similar situation, where the first, you see, predicament comes from the fact that a blissful state of peace at home is at an end.

And I think, if you begin to consider peace and war in this connection, you will see that obviously life, in all its phases, comes to an end. You cannot have peace by just keeping it. You cannot be held by your mother at her apron strings. Now this very fact, that these apron strings one day have to be cut, means that you are suddenly at sea. And at the sea of troubles, you see, on which you are now navigating, you haven't found yet the anchor ground. This fraternity here, and this college tries to give you a kind of -- subsid- -- shelter. But it isn't your home, you see. It is the passing, midway station. And you try to find your anchorage later on. And we keep you in suspense.

But the peace of your life is at an end, gentlemen. It is at an end, so we reverse the -- order which you have learned to accept, and we say that war always is the acceptance of the end of a peaceful state for which we -- now

comes the addition -- a peaceful state whose skeleton, whose structure, whose organization we were not fully aware of, which we enjoyed. The peace that is broken, gentlemen, by the outbreak of a war, is a peace received in which we participate as a gift. Nobody thinks much of this everyday peace at this moment. I mean, we just have it. And especially in America, where you only are -- will be drafted, you see, or your next generation, in a universal military training, I think, for the last 150 years, peace was preponderantly a gift, because you didn't have to fight for it. It was just there, inherited from other people.

So peace is unconscious for the people always more -- I mean, by degrees. But civilians enjoy peace. A famous story in the memoirs of General Sherman, the man who marched through Georgia, he says at the end of his life he was invited to the Bar Association's dinner in New York. He said, "I was invited, because before I entered the Army of the North, I happened to be a lawyer. And in memory of my having been a lawyer 30 years ago, they were good enough to invite me to the -- to the dinner of the Bar Association."

And he said, "These civilians who dined me there, and wined me there, not one of them understood that the sword of justice has to be supported by the sword of the soldier." Not one of them remembered -- it was all in 1887, that between 1861 and 1865, not one writ of the Supreme Court of the United States could be served down -- below the Potomac, you see, in Virginia. And that is the relation of war and peace: that the warrior, the soldier, must enforce justice. That without the armed forces of a country, the law just becomes a -- an illusion. You live, of course, in the same, happy, benighted state of the -- as the -- New York Bar Association. They also -- you also think that peace is there, whereas it is of course won in battle. And without the soldiers willing to defend it again, it is lost.

Now you can see therefore how far the civilian has withdrawn from full responsibility always when war breaks out, because he has disarmed. He enjoys the peace fought for before, you see, and thinks he has it, you see. It has come to him, but he is not at this moment, with his rifle, and -- at the dan- -- the peril of his life himself supported it, yet. That's what he does when war breaks out. He goes and joins the armed forces.

But you must see, gentlemen, that -- I -- told you this last time, the constitution of any peacetime period is the fruit of the experience of war. You remember? Therefore when people have forgotten this, you can be sure always war breaks out. War is always necessary when the majority of the people of a country have withdrawn their support from the sacrifices which gave birth to the constitution of a country. It's inevitable, because it is like the pillars of a house cracking, you see, and collapsing, when you withdraw your support from the

state of affairs in which the Constitution of these United States was begotten.

We talked about this last time, you remember, when I said that the federalist Constitution embodies, after all, the experiences of the rebels against the British. You see, they found that they had to have a Congress. They found they had to have -- keep the common law of England. And they had to have a commander-in-chief, and so they had George Washington. And they had the Supreme Court. And they had the -- the Congress. The Continental Congress, you see, was the first to be. There they had to elect Washington. So you had to keep Congress in, in 1789. And you had to elect George Washington now president, but only because he had been commander-in-chief. And you had slowly under Marshall bring back the British common law, which nobody in this country intended to abolish anyway, so that the common, legal basis of English and American civil life, you see, was retained. And that explains to you why the full power of the Judiciary in this country is not to be found in the Constitution, as you know, but it is found by the usurpation of the Supreme Court in 1800 by its famous decision of Marshall, by which he woke up to the fact that the people of this country expected the same legality of process which, in England already, you see, always had prevailed.

And so the story of the Judiciary in this country must not be -- cannot be read out of the Constitution, of the written paper, but it can only be read out of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Who knows of Marshall's fight for the place of the Supreme Court? Well, there it is. But you must -- look at it as it -- a slow experience developed out of the break with the British crown, you see. They had to recover and to find out what this meant, you see. And they found that, of course, this breaking-away from the British crown did not mean handing over the country here to ra- -- a rabble in arms, you see, but to stay -- stave off all encroachments on the letters of property and of de- -- the deeds which were made out here to the individual colonists, you see, with -- which was something not touched by the war. So it takes 30 years, gentlemen, to learn the lessons of a war.

I tried to show you the same thing about the unemployment crisis in 1929, and I tried to tell you that the bonus to the veterans at that time -- when MacArthur had the -- the -- you know, the -- the people shoot at the veterans. That's the deepest reason why he couldn't become president, as you know -- that -- in 1932 it was, was it? -- that this comes from this misunderstanding, or the overlapping of two periods of American history. The bonus was something people had experienced in 1812, and in 1865, that the veterans, the people who had actually fought, should be supported. Their widows should be taken care of. Their children should be educated. All this business of the American Legion.

But there was a -- quite a new problem in 1929. Everybody had been asked to serve, and everybody now had become -- in the future too a potential soldier. And I told you: hence we learn that an unemployed man in this country from now on must be treated as a potential citizen in wartime. And therefore you cannot let him starve. You cannot leave him to charity. And therefore you will -- if you have an economic depression now, you know all the fire department of the government is already geared to shoot at the -- to extinguish this fire, because this country cannot afford an unsupported unem- -- army of unemployed, because they are all potential soldiers. Whereas, in the 19th century, these newcomers, these immigrants, they were just treated as immigrants -- well, if they perished on the way out West, they perished, you see. But today you cannot afford it, because you need every muscle, and every leg, and every arm for the army -- potentially, for the defense of the country. And if you ask service from a man, he has a minimum right of support.

Now this again, as you see, as little as the Judiciary, is not written in the Constitution. And it -- will never be written probably into the Constitution, and it isn't necessary. The Constitution is in the limbs, and legs, and the body of a country -- is a -- of the body politic. And please don't believe that the Constitution of the United States is in the written constitution. You can't blind yourself to reality more than when you believe this. The English have a constitution, but there is nothing in writing.

We have, for example, there are two great issues today at stake, in the same connection, gentlemen. The unemployment issue is not the only one that has to be settled now. The second is your passport question. Can you travel abroad without the special permit of the government? This was always taken to be an elementary right of every American citizen for the last 150 years. As you know, it has been abolished by decree. Not even by a law. Just now the state department writes you and says, "You are considered a Red. You don't get a passport." That is a -- flagrant breach of the constitution of the United States. But unfortunately the majority of Americans believe in the written Constitution only, and therefore they think it cannot be a breach in the Constitution because there is nothing in writing about passports. It doesn't say, "Every American can travel around the world." So we take it away and nobody says anything.

And take the other point. It is nowhere in the Uni- -- in the Constitution that you can settle in -- in California. And you know how they treated the people there, with signs: "You can't accede to California," you see. Closed shop. And -- excluding people from free movement. The free movement inside the country, gentlemen, and the free movement abroad are two elementary rights of every American which have been reckoned as such, and recognized as such, so far. And the government simply had to give you a passport. It had no right to

test you and your loyalty.

But you, of course, are already slaves of the new dictatorial system in which we live all over the world. And you believe, "Why not? The government is so mighty. There is the FBI. There is the CI- -- and A, and who not?" And you take it all lying down. You -- you rejoice when a suspected individual is deprived of his passport. You won't fight for this, because you have -- live in a new era. The two world wars have suddenly altered the Constitution of the United States. I'm not critical at this moment of this, I mean; there are many things to be -- but only you must realize that constitutions are changed by war, and not by vote.

Nobody can go against experience. We have a two-party government today, and Mr. Eisenhower cannot change that. And the Republicans cannot change that. He has to govern with Democratic votes, of course, in Congress, because for the last -- 13 years, we have had a two-party government. Since Mr. Simpson, and Mr. -- what was? -- Mr. Knox became secretary of war, and the secretary of the Navy in 1941, two leading Republicans, this country has never been governed by a one-party system. And you cannot fall back on it. And all the Republicans, with all their bemoaning, and -- and wishing so cannot change this fact, that after yesterday, the election, even more so. Mr. Eisenhower can only carry the budget with the vote of the Democrats. And it's very good so, because that's -- again a war change. In a war, there is no party government. Look at England. Same thing happened. You cannot -- requisition the whole country into a war effort, and then say suddenly afterwards, the accident of birth as a Republican or as a Democrat gives you some privilege in government. This is impossible. The government is for all -- for all the people in a country. The whole spoils system is doomed. Give it up. The sooner the better. And the more consciously. But it is doomed already. All the -- attempts to keep it -- it's obsolete. It's -- began in 1829. The United States have lived -- without the spoils system before. And it was only due to a tremendous wave of peace and prosperity outside, and expansion, which enabled people to divide the spoils. Today there are no spoils. There are just taxes. You c- -- divide -- taxes cannot be divided, gentlemen. Spoils can be divided.

So we are very obsolete in this country, antiquated. What you -- what you are -- what you are taught in this -- in political science is far behind the moon. It's very nice. It's all in writing. But it's not in fact anymore. And the more you believe in the paperwork, and in the books, the less you will be able to act as a true patriot, because you will not learn the lesson of these wars. I told you that Mr. James Duane, mayor of New York, in 1787 tried hard to convince his people in Albany that the Constitution really didn't want to do anything but write, and incorporate, and memorize the experiences of the Revolution War. And a consti-

tution is good when it does this, and it is bad when it theorizes, and -- sells you pipe dreams which cannot be fulfilled, because we don't know of pipe dreams. But we know what is necessary to win a war, or to defend ourselves.

So gentlemen, wars are the origin of the Constitution. There is one other unfinished business in -- with regard to our present-day Constitution. One is, as I told you, the unemployment question. "No depression, no depression, no depression," everybody says, you see, which is just the recognition, you see, that everybody has to have a job. Second thing is: passport and free movement in the states. Very ambiguous. Not quite solved.

The people in Texas, they would like to go everywhere, but they -- I think they would like to exclude all of us. Texas wants to -- rule the Union. I mean, that's the mood, that's -- of course Joe {Causley} said. But I mean, you can see that regionalism is quite a power. And it -- you can think of a moment when these regions will try to get their tidelands. You can explain by no stretch of the imagination why Texas should have the tidelands, and Vermont and -- New Hampshire, two -- so poor states, shouldn't get a share of the oil that is found there. It's just for -- for a -- regionalistic reason, because Mr. {Shivers} had to deliver the vote, which is very good reason in a two-party system, you see, but which ceases to be good reason in a two-part -- in a one-party -- in a -- in a nonparty government, after a war.

So you see, it's the twilight between two constitutions which settles all the big issues at this moment. Like this Texan oil question. You had still to win this election on the basis of an allegedly two-party system. Therefore the tideland question couldn't be settled otherwise. I can see this.

I have a dear friend in Texas who explained this to me carefully. And -- well, we didn't come to blows. But it was quite a -- a difficult matter to -- it's always difficult to live at the same time in two different periods of legality, you see, of law, of constitutional rights. And that's what we do at this moment. The whole question of the -- Texas is, so to speak, antiquated. In 1900, it was clear that if -- when a state delivers the votes to the new president, then the president has to give them something for -- for his -- their vote, you see. But today this is very doubtful. And it will become more doubtful every year.

But I -- there -- I want to draw your attention to another unfinished business. According to the written Constitution, this is a sovereign nation. And this is, in its army and its armed branches, absolutely self-contained. And we can raise our tariffs at will against every other country. America is hovering. However, it is a fact that we only won the last two wars, or participated in the last two wars by a coalition. If you have to fight twice several years in alliance

with England and France, you -- they not only have relied on us, but we have now to rely on them for our protection. We are in Berlin, and if France and England make an alliance with Russia, we become the laughing stock of the whole world, because our American soldiers in -- in Berlin would just all be encircled and imprisoned.

Have you ever thought of the fact that the Americans in Europe are out in front? And at best, they are backed by England and France. But it isn't at all clear to you, gentlemen, that your idea is absolutely wrong that we are backing England, and -- and France, and Europe at this moment. This isn't so. We are engaged in a world struggle of influence. We are pioneering, you see, against the Iron Curtain countries in Germany, and if we are deserted by Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, England, or anybody -- or Scotland, perhaps, when it goes -- separates from England -- then we are licked. You live in the fiction that the United States came out in support of England and France. That's all over -- so much water over the dam at this point. If we should be deserted -- France, the French would like to do that, as you well know, you see, and give the Russians an air base in France, they would sell out for anything, just to have, you see, a quiet life again -- then we suddenly would be looked upon in Australia, in New Zealand, in -- in Singapore, in Bombay, and specially in South America as the laughing stock of the world. And Mr. Peron wouldn't -- like anything better. He would make it -- an alliance with Russia right away. And he would unite South America, which is a good idea in itself, you see, and would have a tremendous South American continent, the next Soviet Union. And it would just be south of the Equator in America. This is not so fantastic as it looks, because that's Mr. Peron's idea in general. And whether you call this "fascist" or -- or "Communism" makes absolutely no difference, you see. He wants to rule. And Mr. Malenkov and Mr. Peron could understand each other very well.

So gentlemen, the ex- -- foreign policy of the United States has ceased to be foreign. We live in the twilight of a new constitution in which NATO or some solidarity with some non-American powers will become compelling, or has become compelling. Take -- think of Canada. Our whole defense depends on Canada. Obviously we are -- if I -- even forget Europe. The Canadian defenses against the atom bomb carried from Russia are more important and essential than our defenses.

Now you may say that there is a sovereign Canada and a sovereign United States of America, if you want to lull yourself into mental sleep. And it's very nice to bandy around such a formula. And I have seen with dismay that we have forbidden the Canadians to fly over the United States territory, as you may have seen, their airplanes. Fantastic. That's -- you see, belongs to the days of -- of 1829, perhaps. But to do this at this moment, you see, is utterly ridiculous, to

treat Canada as a foreign country like Bulgaria, and to say to the Canadians -- the Bulgarians they can't fly over our country an airline which they would like to land in -- in Mexico City as I understand it, or somewhere. Did you see it in the papers? It just was in the papers two days ago.

Well, gentlemen, and you tolerate such things, because you are sound asleep and therefore you do not participate in government anymore. We live long ago already -- since you do not understand the real problems of this country, which are no longer problems of this country, and you do not accept the war as making constitutions. You are daily more indifferent. Or you are counted out with regard to the decisions that have to be made in Washington. You don't understand them, anyway. And you don't even try to understand them, because you look up the Constitution and say, "I don't find anything about this there." You know perhaps that in the Constitution you don't read anything about the spoils system, either. Or the two-party system, for that matter. It isn't in the Constitution. Yet you believe it, that this is part and parcel of the American system.

Only -- what I'm -- trying to drive home, gentlemen, is: in studying war and peace in unity, you free yourself from the cobwebs of mere paper. The Constitution is not arbitrary. The answer is not when you say -- when I say, it isn't in writing, that there is no law. There is sacred law. It's paid for with lives. You see, the -- your fear and timidity of the civilian in this country -- especially the woman is -- that if you do not stick to the letter of the law as written, that you then land us in a mess of arbitrariness, of dictatorial, you see, messiness, of whims, of tyranny, of despotism. Now you understand perhaps that this isn't so, that the laws of the land are consecrated by the victims of the wars that have founded it, and that you know very well why an unemployed has to be in some way measured, maintained as a potential soldier. That's not arbitrary, you see. You -- then you can debate how he is best maintained. You can have universal service. You can fight depressions. You can subsidize farmers, so that their jobs are always maintained and so on. But you know the goal, you see. You know what has -- what is just. Justice, gentlemen -- and not the wording of a paragraph in the law -- justice is begotten in wars. "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" -- where is this from?

(The Three Musketeers?)

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers."

(Thomas Paine? { })

Most unbrotherly man -- under the sky. Self-righteous and nothing but.

Just civilian. No, that's a soldier's saying, Sir. That's in Henry V, by Shakespeare. That's the experience of the army. Have you never heard this verse? It's one of the greatest verses in the English language. The brotherhood of man is founded where it is -- you can find out about brotherhood. Do you think you can find out about brotherhood in Dartmouth? Here is companionship, fellowship, friendship -- all you like. Brotherhood? That's something very different, gentlemen. Brotherhood is when one man is willing to be killed so that nine others are saved. When you jump into the river and save somebody else, you show your brotherhood. The same is true in an army.

And the result of brotherhood is, gentlemen, that the man who is killed lives on with you, that the veterans represent the dead. Not their own interest. The bonus is the great -- error, and the pension plan for the veterans or their widows. That's undignified. But in 1960, I'm quite sure, and you will find out about this seven years from now, the war generation will determine the elections. And the -- by -- what they think by that time will make law. It takes always, by and large, 15 years before this voice of the soldier can become articulate. And it becomes articulate not because these people are any better than you and I, who have not fought in this emergency, but because they carry with them the in- -- imperishable memory, or presence of the people who have not come back. And by this wait, they bring the war into the peace.

If you look up my -- a book of mine on -- on American history, it's called Autobiography of Western Man, Out of Revolution, I have given there a list of these reactions 15 years after every American war to the founding of the country in a new law. You find the French and Indian War, and you find 15 years later the Continental Congress. You find the Mexican War, the -- the getting-together of this vast stretch of the west -- California, Texas, Arizona, et cetera, and you get in 1860 the new Constitution that the Negroes cannot be imported to the Western states and the abolition of slavery. And you get in 18- -- 1917 the World War, and you get in 1933 the New Deal, the recognition that an unemployed is a potential soldier, and that you have to do something {about it}.

Don't poke fun then as good Republicans at the New Deal, gentlemen, because it dishonors you as soldiers if you do that. The New Deal has nothing to do with civilian needs. It's the waking-up to the fact that the United States have been involved in a world war, and that 15 years later, they have to recognize this fact. And today, you are faced with the same issue. In 1960, you either have to found a real solidarity with the Western part of Europe, or you're licked. And with Canada by the way, too. And who cares today for the Constitution of the United States? Find a constitution for the people who have fought shoulder and -- shoulder to shoulder in the last two world wars. This is what you have to find. Obviously that's the real political issue, and all the other issues. Here, Mr.

{Trost} or Mr. {Minot}. Who cares? You can even put up with Mr. Wagner when it comes to the worst.

It's indifferent, this matter. It's -- of course it has to be done, you see. But don't concentrate on these things. They are second-rate. Everything in America today is second-rate in politics if it doesn't solve these great problems: economic depression at home, and solidarity with some people who are not United States citizens abroad. How you solve it? That is -- completely undecided. We live, gentlemen, bec- -- in a state in which the war has not yet found its peace. Don't forget it. And it will not find its peace before, I think, 1960 by and large, because it takes the United States people, who are a democracy always so long to wake up to the facts. You are always living far behind the events, because no -- here, we -- you are -- don't allow a statesman to be ahead of his time.

So gentlemen, at this moment, this is just happening. Now this is very important for the second rule of serious life. Gentlemen, all serious life enters our conscious will, and our actions in the form of a rhythm from peace, which I here call "na‹ve peace," or "used-up peace," through war to the next peace. Any new generation grows up, enjoying the fruits of victory by their ancestors, and does less and less about this -- sacrifices which has led to it. You have inherited here a glorious heritage since 1620. There are no red Indians. There are no wolves. There are no bears. There aren't -- there's nothing. It's all used up. Our woods are empty. The moose is gone. The buffalo is gone, you see. And a short while it looked as though even the United States people would be going. But now you have children again. That is, we have used up the endowment of this country, the heritage of this country to a large extent, because people said, "I'm here for the enjoyment of my life, pursuit of happiness, high standard of living." And this is the typical attitude of the spendthrift who doesn't care. I mean, it is not -- not an accident that every American child you ask for some decision says, "I don't care." -- By which -- he counts himself out of life, because life begins where you care.

I'm desperate about this. I gave a riding lesson to a boy. I said, "Do you want to gallop? I'm willing to take a risk and let you gallop."

He said, "I don't care."

So I said, "Then you won't gallop."

He was very much surprised. I -- he -- I -- he thought because I was, you see, teaching him -- the teacher has to put up with any impudence in this country, and impertinence. When the child that says, "I don't care," then the teacher is still obliged to do right by him. I don't think that I am. But you know this --

the attitude in this country, because Pe- -- the child just says, "I don't care." Everybody says, "I don't care."

Now the "I don't care" attitude, gentlemen, must always lead to the outbreak of war. It must, because it is -- the person who says this uses up more energy than is available to him. The word, "I don't care," just implies that he doesn't want to know where the resources of the peace that surround him come. What he has to pay for it, not in terms of dollars and cents, gentlemen, but in -- forms of sacrifice, of abstinence, of abstemiousness, of refraining, of self-denial. Now self-denial is forbidden in this country. You want to have self-expression. And then you get the Dartmouth Quarterly. I wish they'd use some self-denial there.

Nothing to express in an American boy, because all his life he hasn't cared. Now do you think you can express anything if you don't care? Carefreeness doesn't lead to literacy, doesn't lead to articulation. It doesn't lead to a vote in the affairs of the country. The carefree -- the never -- the do- -- daredevil attitude, "I don't care," gentlemen, is very nice for private consumption, but you can be sure that this man is absolutely superfluous. In the affairs of state, he has no voice. You cannot turn to him and say, "What should I do?" Don't ask him, because what he says will certainly be nonsense.

So gentlemen -- we -- we discover, gentlemen, that war is the reestablishment of an order lost and the discovery that the order cannot be reestablished without new elements entering this order. Obviously we have kept the Constitution of the United States as far as possible in this last war. And we have added -- are in the process of adding certain new elements, which we are going to discover. We haven't found out yet what it all implies. Can you be deprived of your passport? Is the good will of the traveling American, the missionaries, the tradesmen, the professor, the journalist -- can it really be spared in the system of -- of the United States lying in a wide world? Can we really say to Miss Mes- -- Mrs. Mesta at will, "You go -- you don't go to Russia," you see? Aren't we depriving ourselves of the very best potenti- -- potential, you see, which we have in the world, that so far Americans have been always treated wherever they went as a good uncle?

That is, they have been welcomed, and they went always under their own steam. And then they told the people back home what to do. But our civilians, gentlemen, in the last 200 years were always ahead of the government. And now you expect the government to be ahead of you. Heavens! The government cannot be ahead of you, but you -- suppose it is. You allow these people in Washington to run your world affairs, because you do not contribute anything to it. Who has gone to Europe with any one of these schemes in the

last year? Well, you have done something, you see. The -- is it more important that you should have been there? This is the question of the passport, you see.

Now, we discover something about times. Here, time comes to an end, and a new time begins. But it takes time to establish the new time, so to speak. And gentlemen, what we call the present of a war -- "in the presence of a war," we learn a tremendous lesson. What we call "present" is the overlapping of past and future. You learn in school, because you go to the physics laboratory, that in observing outside life, this is the past; the past begets the present -- you can read this in textbooks of physics -- and then the present and the past together beget the future. Gentlemen, that's a superstition of your age.

Since Christ came into the world, and since all religions of mankind have tried to teach you something -- since Judaism, by the way, too, the Old Testament -- we know that there is no present in -- on -- where we can collaborate. No -- sav- -- where we speak of a state of affairs, of a state of a science, of the -- the state reached in civilization, which is not predicated on the encroaching future and the still-lasting past.

All during this period, from 1939 to 1960, gentlemen, there is a cold war, as you call it quite rightly, you see, a war situation. And remnants of the past, like Mr. {Fay}, and Mr. {Trost} and Mr. Dewey, and other people linger on from the past. And partly we wish to keep them. The spoils system, for example. It's there. And it's still going on. But all the time, we already know that a new era has dawned. There is France and England. There is the hydrogen bomb. There is a whole world, very tight and small today. And there is the unemployment question. And there are the subsidized farmers. And there is everything different. Here you have capi- -- liberalism. And here you have -- in the mi- -- they have the -- a society -- a world society of some type. You don't wish to destroy yourself. And in the midst, you have the garrison state, as Mr. -- Eisenhower calls it at this moment.

Well, gentlemen, I can show -- say -- tell you one thing. Except for the United States, all states are garrison states, since we know of their existence. Athens, and Sparta, and Rome, and Persia, and England, and France, and Spain, and Austria, and Italy -- there has never been anything but a garrison state. That is, a state living from one peace through a war into the next peace. And the idea that this is a new invention, of a garrison state -- have you heard this slogan? Wie? -- is idiotic. America just enters civilization. That's all that happens. America is now in the -- inside the world. But the great lesson is, gentlemen, that any state of life is between those forces of the future that already are knocking at the door, and are partly already recognized, and those -- parts of the past which we have not yet buried, and where we -- you have still to choose which are still

lively, you see, vital, and which are not.

The great lesson, when you look at the serious business of war then is: that the future and the past create the present. Will you take down this slogan? It is too far -- difficult for you to understand. But in humanity, gentlemen, the goal has been known since the first man has moved. Peace. Don't think that your forefathers 5,000 years were less intelligent than you. They created all the things which you have -- are using up at this moment, and spending, and wasting. The idea that ancient man had not more genius is absol- -- wrong. He has begotten you. Therefore, of course he -- they -- these people had more enthusiasm. Do you think the -- the poet of -- Homer -- Homer's Iliad and -- and Odyssey was not a greater man than a -- a bestselling -- short story writer of today? Or -- the man who wrote the Greek tragedy? Or Alexander the Great, for that matter, who first conceived of the unity of mankind in military forms?

But you again, you see, you have so many things which -- when looking at war you suddenly can give up as errors and fallacies. The -- it is this that man has always known his future destiny. The future destiny of mankind is peace. And the first man has known this. When Cain slew Abel, he knew that he had forfeited his peace. And that that was a curse, and not a blessing. That is -- was negative. It was -- it has miscarried. Now we always miscarry, but the goal has been known all the time. No doubt about that. And the people knew it better in those days than you know it. You don't care. Oh, peace, or war, cold war, warm war, hot war, luke- -- it's -- it's lukewarm war, and God will spit out the lukewarm. He has no use for lukewarm people. But He has use for people who de- -- accept the fact that they are between the beginnings the -- of a heritage which already has seen partial peace. That's why we exist at all. Your parents didn't -- didn't throw you out into the wilderness because you were too weak. They -- they rescued you. And there is a future, a larger peace. A more comprehensive peace. More peace, so to speak.

And therefore, gentlemen, it is not true that the present is the -- the -- caused by the past, because gentlemen, in physics, there is no presence. If you look into the physical world, there is one stream. And if you watch me at this moment speaking, what has been future one second ago is now past. While I speak this sentence, the amount of past, you see, is increased, and the amount of future decreases. I still have now only 25 minutes to go, and five minutes before, I had 30 minutes to go. Therefore gentlemen, your illusion that the present is something by itself, standing on its own feet, is an error. The present is a fiction in physical reality. But it is not a fiction to speak of the present state of the Union, because at this moment, there encroach upon us the necessities of making peace with the powers with -- whom we -- you see, fought as allies, by the way. Russia was our ally. You won't -- forget that, you see -- in 1960, per-

haps, and the fact that we woke out -- rudely out of a wa- -- a peace in which every nation was suffering by herself, and could forget the plight of her neighbor.

The present, gentlemen, then is in natural science nonexistent. This is perhaps a corollary, by which I must warn you to draw on any empirical statement of the physicist about time. They know nothing of time, because in physics there exists only past and future. And the future is only cal- -- is -- an elongated past; that is, a pa- -- a future that is qualitatively in no way differing from the past. The conditions of the past also will exist in the -- future of the physicist.

With us it's quite different, gentlemen. In a war, new qualities of life are created. The future is quite different from the past. Any American knows that he lives in a -- very different from Europe. It was created at one time, the Am- -- type of the American, the life in this continent. Didn't exist in 1492. Didn't exist in 1776. It has been created here under the special circumstances of the happy consequences of the Revolution War, which created new conditions for Da- -- Daniel Boone to go into Kentucky and created the type of the -- of the happy-golucky, boastful, and victorious American pioneer.

So gentlemen, if you learn one thing out of this meeting today, it would be this: divide your insight on time in two different chapters, and say to yourself that when the physicist speaks of present, he makes a loan in the social sciences, in politics, in the life of the family, you see. In the laboratory, present doesn't exist, as per se observable. It's a split second. It's a millionth of a second. And then you can still, as you know, diminish the millionth of a second, and you can theoretically have a billionth of a second, which would be present. That's why in Homer, the present is called the -- the blade of the razor, you see, of the razorknife. That's what it is: a razor-blade present in physics. So it isn't worth mentioning it, so to speak. It has no extension.

This is the only empirical fact in the physical world, that there is no present. Has no extension. All presences, gentlemen, are created by the acknowledgement that the future is as real as the past. God is omnipresent, because God is the whole future and the whole past. "As He was in the beginning, now is, and ever shall be" therefore is the first scientific formula on time. But the "now" is only that time which is needed to bring in the new eon, and to finish and use up the old eon. In Jesus' life, it was 33 years that He had to spend, so to speak, on being a Jew, and forgo this, so that nobody today calls Him this, because He, in these 30 years, lived out His whole citizenship in the -- Old Israel, and therefore became the citizen of the New Israel.

Present is a creation, gentlemen. It comes from our faith in a qualitatively

different future. We have the power to introduce new elements into the life of the race, into the life of the continent, of the earth, of the world. You can have a new idea. You can behave differently. You can forgive your enemy. You can make peace, in other words. Peacemaking quality, gentlemen, is not in nature. No animal can make peace, except in domestication. If you -- you can bring animals, you see, to behave. But then it's a human trait in them.

To make peace, gentlemen, is that testimony to our knowledge of our destiny. We are much more the masters of -- of our future than you think. But we only are when you don't call yourselves the masters of your destiny. Destiny is your master. You are destined to make peace. It's a foolish way of saying, you see, "master of our destiny." That we cannot be, you see, because our destiny is there. You can miss out on it, but then you are not the master, you see. Then you just fail.

There is another childish word which you must throw out, gentlemen. That is the idea we live in an -- "era of transition." Matthew Arnold made this famous phrase in the midst of a century of peace. He was bored stiff obviously as a Victorian, and he said, "This -- this ch- -- age -- half-born" -- how -- what -- anybody remembers this slogan? "Cannot quite come to life. Semi-stillborn." No? Does anybody remember? Matthew Arnold was an English writer of some substance. Well.

Gentlemen, we are always in this transitional stage. To call any one time an era of transition is ridiculous. It's for fools. Don't do that. It shows that you are, I mean, just repeating literary -- literary clich‚s. The essence of man is that he tries to create a present out of the encroachment -- that's I think the best term -- of the future and its demands on us, and the laws of the past still inhering in our bones, so to speak, in -- in our environment. And since we know that the peace out of which we come isn't good enough, and since we know that a better peace has to come, we are always in the middle of it. Soldiers don't have to be told that this is so. They lay down their lives as the kind of causeway between the end of one phase and the next, you see. They try to bridge this abyss.

But gentlemen, religion is the application of the war principle in peacetime. As more -- the more religion you have in peacetime, that is, the more you su- -- see through the semblance of peace in peacetime, and see that man is at war and at peace at the same time -- the more you are a believer in peacetime, the less war is needed. Religion is not a luxury, gentlemen. Religion is the looking-through -- through your play, is a looking-through your -- idiocy that you begin and you end. Religion is simply the acceptance of the inevitable death of any good thing in life, if it is not renewed by the same energies which have constructed the good thing. And that's sacrifice.

Religion is voluntary sacrifice, gentlemen. It is a civil- -- soldier in civilian dress. If it isn't this, it isn't religion. Then it's just lip service and hypocrisy. What you call religion usually is this, organized religion. Religion is the acceptance of war and peace. Can you see this? Because to the Christian, to the faithful, to the believer, this time is simply a war between the destiny of man and his shortcomings in the past, you see, his animal nature and his knowledge of the final peace that he must help to acquire and to win for all men.

It is therefore, gentlemen, that we have made some progress now. We have first learned that in serious time, there forms a present. In a play period, you only have the present. You say here in this classroom, we have this happy, wonderful meeting from 1:25 to 2:45, gentlemen. And there is nothing to care for before and after. This is spare -- taken out of context, and we are here at present together for one hour and-a-half. But this is artificial. Obviously, we are not here struggling except with your post-lunch difficulties of digestion. We are not reminded of the past, as Mr. Eisenhower is every day. If he has to head a party, you see, and he doesn't want to. You can see it in every utterance of the man that he's simply torn between the state of the country which he already embodies as the commander-in-chief in the war, you see, and his civilian strings attached to his position as president.

You -- I may say so. Washington was commander-in-chief first, and then he became president. Now think of Mr. Eisenhower who was commander-inchief first, you see, for the whole country, and now tries to be a partisan president. And you see the irony of his position. But you also see perhaps the providential character of this man, because he cannot forget either one of his positions, you see. He has to bring them together. That's the meaning of his presidency, that -- two cannot be kept apart as we could afford in the happy-golucky century of expansion.

Gentlemen, play time only knows the present. Real time is divided into past, present, and future. Can you see this? Then you understand that play time is incomplete time. It's not the real {type of time}. It is the -- you see, saved out, artificially isolated.

Now, religion, or faith, for that matter, or belief -- I don't care how you call it -- certainly the tradition of revealed religion does meant this -- that the veil is torn -- from the eyes of civilian people and they see the war behind the peace. And therefore they are willing to make the sacrifice any minute, and not just wait till everybody is mobilized. Do you think that is a -- not an ac- -- that it's accidental that you are all mobilized now as military -- men, because there is no religion anymore alive since 1865 in this country? For 80 years, the religion has gone to sleep, or has just withered, and then it comes back with a vengeance,

with a war. God sends us wars when people don't believe in peacetime, that their str- -- construction of their legality is based on sacrifice. There's always as much religion as there is not war, and vice versa.

So gentlemen, the religious man forgoes this {play} presence. That's what he does, you see. He for- -- Christ forwent his sense of humor. He was in bitter earnest. I have heard Americans on this campus complain that Jesus had no sense of humor. Of course He hadn't. He could have had -- plenty, you see. But He had to show that He was a {warrior}...

[tape interruption]

...to say officially at a meeting on religion that Jesus -- obviously couldn't be the highest religious leader because He had no sense of humor. Instead of turning around and saying, "Since we have so -- too much of a sense of humor, we aren't quite serious." Which is true. That wouldn't be shameful, but that's just it. We aren't quite serious. We can always laugh. I don't think you would laugh if you had to go to the Cross. Five nails. And not even doped. He declined to be doped, as you know, when they tried to dope Him with wine. But there you cannot laugh.

So this damn "keep smiling" in this country is good for Chinese. And you know, the Chinese don't understand war. They have always hated soldiers, despised soldiers. And this country is a good Chinese colony here, at this moment, with the Rotarians as the Confucians of this country. You always keep smiling.

This is the religion of America. It's a pa- -- pastime -- life, just pass the time. Pa- -- kill the time. Murder the time. Don't divide it into past, present, and future. But play, as you play on the playgrounds, where there is -- present only, happily forgetful of anything that has gone before, and anything that is looming on the horizon. "Oh, we wait, we wait." Hitler was there. We -- Mr. Roosevelt was not allowed to telegraph Hitler, although he knew that we had to enter the war, that we have 10,000 airplanes. We had a neutrality legislation. We had not one airplane, and we couldn't even send airplanes and manufacture airplanes for France and Eng- -- and England. And so the poor man had to wait until the country here was invaded. But of course, every serious man in this country in 1936 knew that Mr. Hitler meant war for the United States. But you have- -- couldn't be told. The elections would have turned against Roosevelt. He wouldn't have been reelected in 1936. So he mustn't say so.

Gentlemen, this country is great for isolating the past from the present and the future. You live because this happens, gentlemen: when people play not

consciously, by distinguishing play and seriousness, but make serious life into play, they think they live at present, but in fact, they live yesterday. And with you, time has been running away all the time. Think how you have been surprised by everything that has happened over the last 15 years. You can't remember it all, but you know how surprised you were by Korea. But don't you think we made Korea? Did we not divide this country at the 38th degree of latitude? Isn't that the silliest undertaking a person could take, for given unity, to draw a line in between and say, "Here -- here, it's given to two different governments"? So we brought it all on. Of course the Koreans want to be united, the Northerners as well as the Southerners. They hate us both, the Americans as well as the Russians. Why shouldn't they? We have divided the country. Isn't that the worst that we could do to them?

So yesterday, yesterday. You see, you could -- can divide Canada and the United States at the 54th degree of latitude, because nobody lived there, you see. And you cannot divide a country that -- in the middle of its life, and just here -- around the waistline, you say this is -- falls apart. We have done this, because you lived yesterday. You lived in the wilds of this country, where everything can be looked upon by the arithmetic, by the dollar and cent, and by the yardstick, and by the -- the -- the mile, and the foot. But no living, going concern can be treated in this 1830 geographi- -- geography way, as you have treated the rest of the world. Mr. {Wynant} here, from New Hampshire, who sold the Berlin people down the river by not asking for a -- for a highway from Western zone into Berlin, or zone -- strip of land connecting Berlin with -- with the West. Is this complete idiocy? Yesterday, yesterday, yesterday. Not living today.

Gentlemen -- so this is the next rule -- when serious life is lived in a playlike fashion, it appears to be lived today. But in fact it is lived yesterday. It is made into a past, and the people who want to play while something is really serious become dated, antiquated.

On the other hand, gentlemen -- you take the revolutionary. He is serious, furious there where he still could play, where peace -- things are not so bad. If you have a professional revolutionist, you see, who says, "The whole world is so wicked and so bad that it has to be smashed. We have to have a catastrophe, we have to have a new order of things," such a man -- well, they don't exist in this country, but they do exist in other countries. You see, the rebel per se, the man with the dynamite, you see, and the torch, this man would, so to speak, because he doesn't play at all, even where there is still time for play, for humor, for peace, you see, he would try to live in the future exclusively --. A professional revolutionary, or a fanatic in Christianity, you see, a sectarian, is such a man who -- who denies past and present, and lives in the future exclusively.

So I think you see that bloody seriousness, beastly seriousness denies the claims of the past and the present. And the butterfly, the -- the -- the playlike quality in us, when overloaded and overdone, dooms us to be dated, to be ruled out of history as already done in.

So I think you can see perhaps now this is quite serious what we learn from serious times, as three tenses unfold: past, present, and future. The three tenses are not separately understandable. There is no past without a future. And there is no future without a past. And present is the -- the gap between their spelling each other, as on guard, when you stand on guard and the next comes. It takes some time before one leaves the post and the other takes over. That would be the present, you see.

Very important, gentlemen. You will begin to understand the idea of the Trinity, if you understand that time is seen to be unfolding. Here you -- we sit. At this moment, you become conscious of the elements of the past, and the elements of the future, of your destiny, you are preparing yourself at this moment for life; that is, part of your life as -- is dismissed as past; part of your future is encroaching on this college and gives you the schedule, and gives you the -- the reason why you are here, you see. You are here because the future encroaches on you. And at this very moment in this classroom, we have the tremendous privilege of seeing your time and my time unfold, if you like, into these three elements of what is our present, and what is past, and what is future. But don't believe, gentlemen, that the future, and the past, and the present are bricks.

Every man at every moment when he comes to his senses is in this wonderful, unfolding process of deciding what in him, what lives, is past, and what is future, and what is present. Take a girl who is in love with a man, and she decides she has still to wait a year till her parents will approve. She wants to finish college, for example, or -- high school, or what have you. Well, during this year, that's her present time, you see. The past is still encroaching on her lawfully, because she keeps to -- in -- towards the parents, you see, she keeps her tongue, her mouth shut. Towards her lover, she exchanges letters. She is -- there she is already living the future. Well, that's the difference between a decent girl and a girl who thinks she has to elope in the first moment. She has no present. She only breaks away like any fanatic, you see, and breaks away from the past. Thinks she's rid of the past in this manner. She isn't. Comes back with a vengeance. This year in between is -- will be her making, very often, you see, because she shows equal loyalty to the past and to the future.

Gentlemen, we must -- the past is that part of life already lived which deserves our loyalty, because it's already part of the future, of our destiny. Any

past out of which you come and I come is already a chapter in the future, because we can't reach the future if we do not take up where we leave off. And you must therefore become in this college here, at this moment, gentlemen -- this is my ambition; I don't -- I know I won't succeed with mo- -- many of you, but I have to try -- you must learn, gentlemen, that the free man is a man who can manipulate the past and the future at will. That is, you decide which parts of the past still deserve your loyalty, your service. And you decide how far a better future is already making demands on you so that you have to give up parts of the past.

In this sense, you are very free, because you decide what is past and what is future, in other words. It's you. Every man does. That is a tremendous freedom which people in the Christian era enjoy, that we can transform things allegedly past into things of the future. And things allegedly future into things of the past. Think of television. If you wanted to, gentlemen, you -- television would be a -- thing of the past. That's just up to you in your personal life, whether television has a future with you. That's not left to the manufacturers of television. That's your decision.

Now gentlemen, the last thing I would -- wanted to -- would like to say is that the real time is always at least a triple beat: future, past, and present. Therefore, gentlemen, political life -- religious life only is real when it embraces and encompasses three generations. There is no government, there is no state, there is no church that deserves these great terms of a "nation," or a "government," or anything that is just there for a week. And it isn't there for a lifetime. It must be able to connect three generations of man, the middle generation willing to save something from the past, and soldiering for the next peace.

If you have war, peace, and peace beforehand, then it follows, gentlemen, that you have fathers, sons, and grandchildren; or grandparents, and fathers, and sons -- however you call it. Always three generations, because Mr. Eisenhower now must think of the children born today when makes his peace in 1960. The Americans of the next generation must have an opportunity. You see, that's his duty. He must think of the past, of all the glorious generation beforehand. He can telescope this and say at least one generation that did not fight in Europe or in Korea, you see, must be taken into consideration, the generation of -- let's say, of Senator Taft, you see, and the middle generation, the veterans of this present emergency of the last two world wars.

This is more important than you think, gentlemen. You have political insight, religious thinking, education, justice, anything important in the field of society only when and as long as three generations are taken care of. Anything in your way of thinking is like a club, like a fra- -- like an association, like a

society for the cruelty against animals -- or against the cruelty for animals. I don't know, it's such a difficult name. That is, gentlemen, societies are not good examples of politics. A -- anything that can survive the interest and the different spirit of three generations is a dignified subject matter for human thought. Anything more short-lived is second-rate. It isn't bad in itself. But it approaches the transient, the playlike. It isn't good enough.

You have, when you marry, to take in -- consideration the -- your in-laws. That's why you mustn't elope with your girl. And you have to take into the -- consideration that you probably will -- want to have children. The problem is not solved by simply saying, "A marries B." They can elope. They can sleep together. They can embrace. They can love each other. But they cannot get married, because marriage includes the previous generation and the next generation, and the lovers stand in between. Before, it isn't marriage. Just can be anything. And you may call it "marriage." And you may even get a divorce in Reno, but you just haven't been married, because marriage is not attained by people who only think of their own moment of time. Marriage can only be had and executed by people who, just as a soldier, find themselves in the middle of two other generations.

So gentlemen, this I wanted to bring out. In serious time, thinking begins with three generations. In serious time, past, present, and future are unfolding and balancing each other. In serious time, the present is the product of the encroachment of the future and the past on our same soul, and mind, and person. And in serious life, the end precedes the beginning. That's why there had to be an Old Testament ending, before there could be a New Testament.

Thank you.