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

...theological seminar. And it was war in the army. And our situation that, without encompassing the war into our thinking, the thinking of the civilian in this country was sterile and perfectly nonsensical -- especially the pacifists of this country -- but all -- the economic thinking, too, explaining the peacetime life without the relation to the fact that we are -- peace is always between two wars, makes no sense. You remember that the last meeting, we -- helped us to understand this a little better by the serving-up, the rising of the navy -- the American navy as a world function, as a world instrument, and you remember how we -- I laid great -- who's this? You are the Admiral of the Fleet, it seems. And I want you -- now I want to forget that beginning with John Paul -- what is it? Paul Jones, this robber admiral -- pirate admiral -- who is -- what's his name? John Paul Jones, isn't it?

(That's probably right, yes.)

To -- up to Admiral King, there is a constant, wider scope of the American navy, and I told you it is not an accident that the greatest living historian of America, Samuel Eliot Morison, has written the story of Christoph Columbus, and now has written the story of the American navy in the Second World War, and in between has written the story of the 19th century in terms of scientific and economic achievement, and the history of the 17th century in terms of the religious achievement. So I want you once more to understand that American history -- all history here is, hang -- hung up -- we may make these vier -- four periods for the life of -- this is the man's name: S. E. Morison -- no, it's two "r"s, Morrison. Discovery, religion, economics, navy. Now, the -- the life work of this his- -- historian, of this re-thinker of American history, the foremost American historian of our time, and he's president -- of course, has been president last year of the American Historical Association -- and a -- in itself reflects exactly what I tried to show you all this time, that the history of the American mind has passed through these phases and that you, gentlemen, are so obsolete, so totally obsolete in this Dartmouth College, because except for the reserve officer training, and for your attempt of dodging the draft, or entering the army as officers already, you are not able to think war. You are unable to think war, and the people of this country will not listen to you, because you are only covering one-half of the real world in which these poor people at the filling station, and in the fields and the factory have to live in. Therefore they elect President Eisenhower better as president than any civilian, and they will not, in the future, listen to the simple businessman -- that's why McCarthy has this following -- or to a the professor in a college who is reading lyrical -- lyrics, and poetry, and -- and otherwise is for a higher standard of living, but he cannot explain for the world -- life of him why a

man has to die in Korea.

What does -- what are -- is you -- are you helped, and one-half of your life is -- go liv- -- lived on the installment plan for television, and the other half of your life consists of being maimed and losing two legs in Korea. You want to know why you have to lose the two legs, and you don't wish to know why you can buy television on the installment plan. But that's at this moment the mentality of the educated people in this -- in this country: that you go to college in order to have a picture of the world which is only one-half of reality. And the other half you don't wish to see. It's disagreeable. "Oh, if the Russians weren't so bad, we wouldn't have to do this." You won't see night. You won't see evil. We have chased out the -- the night out of our thinking, because we have floodlights, and electric lights, that there are stars in the sky -- that's to you something astronomical. But gentlemen, that's nothing astronomical. That's something existential. It means that half of our lives at sleep -- and at night, you see, we have to move by other instruments of life than seeing. We have to live in the dark. This is a very important that you are -- must be clear that half of your life we are in the dark, and that no -- any attempt to see God is blasphemous. But you buy Look and you buy Life, and you buy Illustrated magazine, you have television, you go to the movies, and you actually believe that life can be seen. Death can be seen, and daytime, we only see dead things. But at night, the love begets the procre- -- the new creation. That's -- part of the night.

It's -- you don't believe this. You don't believe in the -- in the acceptance of the double ring of life, which consists of an alternation between faith and knowledge, between darkness and daylight, between war and peace. You think that if you think peace -- as all the American philosophies of the last 150 years, beginning with Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Cooper have done, or Franklin -- then war is left as evil and wicked at the outside, and man is so kind and so sweet, that there is -- war is an -- an addition to the program of living, which comes as an exception. You don't see the war in your limbs, which any -- the sex already commands. Isn't there war in your body, which at the one time wants you to remain an innocent child, your parents' child; and on the other goes out and makes war against the other sex and tries to conquer? That's war. But this -- mustn't be mentioned in good society. When I mentioned it at Union, they -- they -- they -- there were some girls from Barnard who began to -- to laugh. Then I became very serious, and said, why did they laugh? I was talking about their own greatest secret, and if they weren't able to redeem a man from his war -- the war in his limbs, they wouldn't -- didn't deserve to be -- to be girls, or to be women. Then they became quite serious. They saw that I -- that I -- was the only man who could help them to explain monogamy, why a man who had found peace in such a woman's love didn't have to run after other wo- -- chase other women any more. But if it isn't making peace after war, then marriage is non-

sense, if it is just the pleasure, to have fun, as the people in this country say, "We must get married to have fun." Well, that doesn't last long, gentlemen.

But this is the situation in this country: we have no decent tradition for war, except in the history of the armed forces. Read General Sherman's memoires. That's one of the greatest books an American has written, his two volumes -- reminiscences as a soldier, with his march through Georgia, and his experiences with the American civilian mind, which is very pathetic. And -- and read Mahan, and read {Symmes}, and read Homer Lea. Who is reporting on Homer Lea? Are you ready?

(Right now? No, Sir.)

Why not?

(Well, this { }.)

You have -- should have been ready a week ago.

(I didn't realize that, Sir.)


(I wasn't, and I'm not yet. But I will be next class period.)

This will be a century of wars, gentlemen. Not that we have to fight them. Quite the contrary. This is the first -- as we have solved the problem of production, and productivity, of machinery. That hasn't to be invented, and you can improve on your machinery. It's not very exciting now. Though the last -- next centuries will be engaged in the redemption of war. And for this you have first to annex it into your thinking. Only good soldiers will be able to do anything in this matter. Anybody who says, "Even -- the war is bad," is not fit for the kingdom of Heaven, gentlemen. The Lord had to sit with the -- with the sinners before He could redeem them. He didn't sit in judgment over them. And that's the attitude in America, and that's why America is now the most bellicose country in the world, as you know. Even the peaceful messages from Russia are not published in the New York Times, in this great hypocrite -- this greatest organs of American cheapness and -- and stupidity with regard to real life. Not a mouse is born in the Ameri- -- New York literary magazine. It's all sterile. And we gave an honorary degree to the man who heads it. Ja?

(Sir, we've heard you lecture now about war in various classes so far, but you always refer to it negatively. You've said that what we have not done in our

understanding of war, but you haven't -- we haven't really been very demonstrative about the topic of war, yet. And I was wondering if you could throw a little more light on it positively rather than by contrast of peace. What is the importance of war? I don't understand what place it has for you, although I can imagine -- I can't -- I {won't come} { }.)

A bit { }. Then bring it up { } very soon.

Keep these four in mind here, will you? Because of course these four generations in one man's mind will have -- have something to do with this. {Well}, don't you remember that we spoke of faith in one generation begetting the answer of science in the second generation, but in such a way that the scientists still had inherited this eloquence from the religious adoration and praise of his -- the parent generation? We -- I have tried to show you that the Henry James-William James situation is an eternal one, that we all have to receive speech, and we all have to translate it. You can all ge- -- run away with your own generation my- -- myth -- -'s and science. But the way in which you express this own experience is the heritage of living speech, as you have heard it at the breakfast table in your own family. There is no way out of this great secret, that your -- fact that we speak English, and even you -- if you express your disapproval of all people who spoke English before you, you still have to say it in English. That is, life is not dialectics, but life is dialogue. The listener must have listened before he can answer. You -- I haven't to go over this again. Isn't that -- you remember?

Now, as soon as this relation is forgotten, the sons are not {remembering} -- are just antitheses. This is the son -- the fruitful sons-father relations. In war, it is just -- take the civil war, which is more of a war than the external war. It is fathers -- and sons rebelling against them -- going on the barricades and shooting King George and his generals and his -- his governors up in the Revolutionary War. What { } here, I have the antithesis.

Now, the unfortunate thing is that you don't have to listen to an antithesis, and the thesis has nothing to fear if the antithesis is just talking. The so-called "antithesis," or the so-called "rebels," or the -- the -- the -- the people who really force the issue must be willing to die. If you haven't a cause for which at least one man is willing to die, nothing moves, you see. He's just taken -- arrest by the police and there the thing ends. You can always know that a thing is serious if there is one man at least, usually more, who is willing to die for his cause. Now war is nothing but the expansion of this antithesis into two generations: one generation dying for it, and the grandchildren inheriting the victory. Gentlemen, the -- war means the -- recognition that the flesh cannot inherit, because this fleshly body of the soldier is not inheriting the earth, but is allowing others to

inherit the earth, the children. That is, in other words, in a war, the two-generation problem is changed into a three-generation problem because of the lack of peace between parents and children. Whenever the older order -- that is the old generation, the old order, the status quo, you see -- is upset, then you can -- either have the loving recognition by the sons of the righteousness of the old order, as in the case of William James and his variety of religious experience, for example, and his attempt to write "The Moral Equivalent of War" to do justice to the people doubted -- killed in the Civil War -- his father; or you have the inevitable, as we have it now in the two world wars, that a whole 30 years of man do -- a futile life, are the lost generation, lest the grandchildren have nothing to inherit. And you -- have the pleasure of being the grandchildren, and you have now to ask yourself: how much do you have to sacrifice for your children, how much have also you to be ready to die in Korea or some other disagreeable battlefield, and how much have you not? Most soldiers in this country just die nonsensically. They have no philosophy or religion about this. They just do it. The chaplains are pacifists and leave these people on the battlefield without even the comfort of being good Christian soldiers, and so we live in a terrible moral situation. I mean, the underdog at this moment in the count- -- this country is not the worker, but is the spiritual man and is the soldier, because nobody in this country at home has any recognition of his -- of his -- shrouded mystery, why any country that is so out of hand as this needs war to integrate itself. We -- people do not understand that by the nature of things, every class of man, every generation is at war with all others, and that as your body has to marry, before it is at peace again with its disintegrating limbs, and parts and appetites --. Think of your stomach. There you just want to be lush -- have a luscious life. That wouldn't lead to marriage, because -- if you eat -- want to eat, so to speak, and have a -- have a -- have a complacent life, a convenient life, it is -- you would be left by yourself. You would go out of your parents' home, yes; but then you would have a -- a fine apartment, and a shower room, and all the juices, and all the vitamins the doctor of modern superstition prescribes, and -- and there you would live to yourself. That's one way of solving the problem of your limbs -- making the stomach king. Or making, with all the apparat- -- apparatus in your room, making your curiosity king, your eye. You can have television, you can have radio, you can have phonographs, you have -- can have a collection of musical disks, you can have sculptural -- sculptures and pictures and books on your shelves, and you can become a collector and you can say, "my eyes satisfy me." All the rest is just subordinated. I know such people who actually believe that they make peace in their own life when they suddenly concentrate on this one part of their equipment, the eye. And they -- they call themselves "intellectuals." They -- they don't think that they are sensuous. But they are. A man like Irwin Edman is just nothing but a great sensualist. Typical of our civilization. Ja?

(How can you reconcile your attitude towards war with -- well, I don't

know -- your regard Christ's teaching? That's one --)

Well, I have no attitude towards war, but I have -- the firm belief that God has created the world, and that you and I are not the people to say that part of reality is evil. And I say that you live in this room at this moment on the basis of 6,000 years of war of humanity. And the -- it's ridiculous on you to say that one part of that which has borne and created you and this college is bad and the other is evil. And Christ has never said one word of this. He has said, "I am coming to bring the sword." There will be war. Just read Luke and Mark. You have never read the Bible. You read only the selections for the little red schoolhouse, and your woman schoolteacher, and the little minister, and all these people who see only one little corner the world, because they only want to add some ointment, so to speak, to the -- to the -- some ingredient. They want to be nice, make life nicer. They won't live the true life.

If you condemn all the people who have died in battle, my dear man, you have simply made yourself -- castrated yourself for the kingdom of Heaven. This is today in this country, a castrated, a eunuch Christianity. Mentally, this country wants to live as a capon. This is so terrible. Everybody outside America knows this. That this country is run by the women voters, mentally, who cannot accept war. The Mothers of America. But you are the son of America and Jesus said to his mother, "Stay away. You don't understand that I have to go to the Cross." This is this futility. That's what I'm talking about, Sir. Just your question. How can I -- yes, how can you distort Christ's teaching in such a way?

When you become the Apostle Paul, you may, but not when you marry. Why does the -- can -- can't the Christian priest marry? Why can't the apostle marry? Because then he has no claim -- heredity. Then his life is his own, and he lies it down in his generation and these -- these people, you see, of -- whom you have in mind, they were killed for the faith, because they -- they opened their { }, said, "Death has to be, but then it's better that I die than I make die." That's very true, but you get married and you want to make money, and all this entails war. This is the misunderstanding of Christian teaching, as though you little layman, who wants to have a job, has the right not to see -- to be blind to the fact that your holding a job makes for war, because the fact that you here defend the standard of living in America of course forced the Italians, and the Japanese, and the Germans to go to war, the no -- the have-no nations -- the have-not nations.

If you don't understand that anybody who wants to have a claim, and the land, and the treasures of this earth is making for war, you haven't even learned the ABC of Christianity, {and} of the Bible. You can forego all this, like Jeremiah, and who -- or sacrifice your life like the Apostle Paul, or our Lord, but then you have to know what you're doing. The first thing is that you can't get married.

You can't have children, because it's your duty to defend the old- -- the property of your children in the land. You have -- they can't be kidnapped, and they can't be dep- -- deprived of their -- of their opportunity, and they can't be deprived of their inheritance. And so, it's the whole Biblical story. Judaism is the defense of -- of -- of Palestine. The -- the -- you can't give up this land and say, "I don't care." You have to hold it.

Well, whether this is in the big United States, or Puerto Rico, or Alaska, my dear man, or whether it's the seven seas, on which we now have air stations -- after all, we are an imperialistic -- power of the first order, aren't we, much more than England has ever been, but nobody is allowed to mention this in this country. We are no imperialists. No. It's all lies, one great lie. This is the greatest world power in the world, but at home, the people say, "We are pacifists." At least they don't say the word "pacifists," they are in their minds. And that's the impotency of politics, you see. This is why there is this great mendacity in America, that you -- we say one thing and do the opposite. And everybody loves it. At home, you have to speak one way, and with the world, you speak another way. You prefer it, because you feel impotent. You feel not up to the tremendous mystery of reality. It mustn't be mystery. It must be rational. Now rationalists are only one-half of life. Rational is everything sexless, gentlemen. Rational is everything without death.

Rational is everything without heredity. Rational is -- where no children have to be born and no people die, you can be rational. But as soon as you get into this mystery, that if you do not sacrifice, there is no continuity of history, you get into the story of Adam into the last judgment day.

Your story's all Greek. Your story's all -- all very simple, I mean. Plato and Aristotle, they left the city of Athens and lived happily ever after in a college and taught what they pleased. But the result was that the first disciple of these men was Alexander the Great, and he united the Eur- -- world of which these people always had {taught men theory}. And how did he do it? By war. And you -- nobody can -- can take from Plato and Aristotle the responsibility that they created Alexander the Great. And I'm on the side of Alexander the Great, and I think he did a good job. And how did he do it? Because his Macedonians were still people who hadn't gone to school, and hadn't gone to college. And they were not these cheap Athenians and Corinthians, who talked and talked and talked, and -- and debated, and discussed, and had doubts about reasonable reason, or irreasonable -- what, I don't know -- what you read in the Platonic dialogues. But these Macedonian boys said, "When my -- Alexander the Great wants to unite the universe, let's do it. It seems to me a good idea." And they died for it. And he sacrificed his best friends in the process, as you know. One -- he got drunk and his best general was murdered. Life is very tragic. And when Hamlet had to set

the world at -- aright again, he had to give his -- up his own life, and his mother died in the process, and Laertes died in the process and Ophelia went insane. And do you think you can have it cheaper? You cannot. But as -- that's the -- all forbidden in this country. You read Hamlet. Do you ever learn anything from Hamlet? No. Never. It's just a nice story. But you would behave quite differently.

I -- this is -- this is so terrible. You do not equate your real existence with this -- what Mahan says, you see, "There is no self-made man in the kingdom of Heaven." You remember? Who said -- who -- you remember. But that means that I find myself in a hereditary situ- -- I have to defend my patrimony, you see, and I have to acquire, you see, a new heredity, and there I go to pieces in between, you see. I'm shot dead.

Now, it is very difficult, gentlemen, to understand this -- sacri- -- the tragedy of life. I may say you can -- we cannot understand it, but we can stand under it. And it would be much nicer if you would stop to try to understand everything, and would just be -- coy enough and chaste enough to stand under it. That is, that is the cross of life which is -- has -- the Lord has imposed on us. He has -- have demanded from mothers to lose their beauty and their youthfulness by giving life to children. Every woman has to do that, the travail. And man is made into a mother-like creature, in -- when he gives life to -- the order of things or defend the old order of things as a soldier. I'm quite sure, gentlemen, that's the relation of the body and the spirit. The -- the mothers realize the spiritual -- spirit of God in having the courage to lose themselves in the birth of their children, which means that they are no longer girls to dance with, but they are mothers. And the more they are mothers, the more inevitably they take a second seat. They have sacrificed their first generation to the glory of their children.

(Sir, in "The Moral Equivalent of War," James says that -- he takes a different -- there will be a moral equivalent of war. He doesn't -- he doesn't ever refer to exactly what this is, and what {substance it will take}. Do you think this {-- he's excluding} himself? I mean -- I mean, if it -- if it -- according to what you said, you would think that war was not only necessary from a -- causation way; it was also necessary normative-wise, that it's an integral part of the individual ...)

Well, you see, I believe there is no moral equivalent of -- but an equivalent of war. The word "moral" is the eggshell of poor William James, you see, by which he tried to defend his -- his rational generation. I think it's real life -- I mean, to give birth to a child is not a moral act. It's equally not an immoral act. It just isn't applicable to speak of a life process as moral or immoral. That's why I feel I can't answer you so directly. We must first agree on a little more. I'm fully aware of -- of -- of your -- your question's perfectly legitimate, but not at this moment. Because otherwise you bring up William James' own generation with

all their limitations, you see, because they felt that if it hadn't been -- wasn't moral, they couldn't accept it, you see.

I want after all to lead you into something where you can see that life -- the life -- the history of the human race has, for the peaceful islands of existence, codes of behavior, you see. You know that you do not steal here this overcoat in this room, you see. That's, so to speak, codified. But that to speak of life and death in terms of ethic is just absolutely funny. And that's what all the children of this country do, and that's why they are so funny. I mean, you aren't good at politics, and you aren't bad at politics, but you are alive in politics, or you're dead. I mean, you -- we are, as you know in this country, when you come to politics, everything is defended in the status quo. We are not able to foresee a future of South America in which these 21 states are united -- unified, or even two of them. Or even Paraguay and Bolivia. Therefore we are the enemies of life in South America. That's what they resent, because it's unnatural that there should be 21 states. But we, you see, because we are legal- -- legalistic, we think there are 21 states. And how long are they? They are just a hundred years there. What does this in history, you see?

So quite wrongly do you embark on the assumption that it is better to have 21 states in South America than when Mr. Peron says to have one. We should have a better imagination and outrun Mr. Peron. But we certainly should admit that in the long run, 21 states in Europe and 21 states in South America are obsolescent, I mean, are nonen- -- you see, are nonsense. Just -- and -- and our future with Canada. Charles Lindbergh said in 1934 that we shouldn't -- or 1937, I think it was, when he came back from Europe -- that he said the -- the British Empire was dead as a dodo and we should now take over Australia, and New Zealand, and Canada, which -- we are doing it now, you see, but at that time, he was stoned because he said it. But we have just having -- had -- had now -- just a defense treaty with Australia and New Zealand, and nobody says that this is the annexation of the British Empire. What else is it? It mustn't be said, that we are now the imperialists. We have -- are called -- we are now the British Empire, for all practical purposes. Mr. Eisenhower went to Canada, do you think for a joke? He went to make sure that north of the 54th degree of latitude the hydrogen bomb couldn't be flown in. That is, he -- he made sure that this is one now -- from now on, for all practical political purposes, one country. You may go on and read the American Constitution and repeat on it by heart, but that is no longer the Constitution under which you and I enjoy life and -- and liberty. Obviously it's a constitution by which it is quite sure that -- that the -- from -- neither from Australia and New Zealand, and Hawaii, nor from Canada an enemy can reach our own frontiers. Now, in older times, one calls this an "empire." But we are too coy, and we say that we -- our frontier is at the 54th degree of latitude. Not a word of truth in this.

But you want it so. The group in this country, gentlemen, that will understand this tragedy of mankind is understanding that man as a mortal being eats up the -- out the bowels of peace, and that war always comes when the sacrifices made for -- are -- in the former war are forgotten. That will be the rulers. And I'm afraid it looks as though we enter a time when only naval men, and air men, and army men will have something to say, because although they do not understand it, they instinctively are trained at least to encompass it into their thinking. And that's the great danger of this country and of its democracy, because you have made yourself stupid. You have made yourself insipid, by talking to your girl not about heroes, and -- and battlefields, and -- and victories. But you talk about the next refrigerator. And as long as you talk about the standard of living to your girl, you are just a slave, a slave who is sold down the river in the next war, or in armaments race, or in what-not, because you are not responsible for the full picture. And the mi- -- human mind is only -- obviously, you can understand this -- potent, when he accepts the universe.

There was a lady in the farmou- -- famous transcendentalist movement in Concord. Her name was Margaret Fuller. You may have heard her name -- who has heard her name? Only one. Margaret Fuller? She married then later an Italian, and so she was then more or less in a little disgrace. But she was a great friend of Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and who are the other -- transcendentalists. Alcott. You have heard these names?

(I think so.)

Well, she's an important person. And she said one day with great rapture, "I accept the universe."

And then Emerson said, "She had better," you see.

And I can only recommend the wisdom of both these people to you. You have not accepted the universe, because you do not admit that you owe your existence to war and peace. You say you owe it to peace. It's not true. You owe it to the people who died in battle. This is -- don't under- -- don't misunderstand me. I do not say that I understand this better than you, you see. Just as little as I understand why God created billions and billions of stars. No astronomer can tell us this. They only can describe how these stars move. But do you think that any astronomer can introduce you into the great secret that there is night, that there are stars? Not the slightest { } and what a waste. Gentlemen, what a waste. Two billion people on earth, and -- and 20 billion stars. It seems such a waste. Why has God the Almighty poured out this quantity which we can never, so to speak, really understand and organize it in our mind? Our mind's just not up to this and it's bigger than we can understand. But obviously with this big-

ness, He wants to suggest something.

And anybody who begins to understand that night and Heaven are talking -- talking, demanding obedience, is on the way also to understanding that this little something of us, since it is mortal, sometimes can -- may conce- -- take his life in such a way that it concentrates in a short life of 20 years or 30 years more meaning than in a long life of 70 and 80 years, and 90 years. And therefore that the soldier in a battlefield, who gives 40 and 50 years of his youth -- of his vitality to his country is doing a better job of -- of fertilizing the soul of his nation, just as a mother who dies in a -- in childbed and gives birth to a child is more blessed than a proud spinster who says that is a sin to have sexual intercourse, and therefore never has a child -- baby from cowardice. And she's -- a spinster may become a hundred years old. She has still missed her vocation, but the mother has not. And what do you say of a young mother who dies in 20 -- at 20 in childbed? Should she've said, "It's too dangerous. I won't have children"? That's what you say when you say it is bad to be a soldier.

You -- we don't know. This is a mysterious thing, gentlemen. Here I am alive, I am talking to you about all this. And I have been spared. All my friends are dead long ago. I think the -- the only thing a decent can then do is to treat his life as already forfeited, and to lead it as though it didn't matter now whether he lived or not. And I think you will find, gentlemen, that this is your duty, that at a certain time in life, you have just to have the guts to say, "I have now to act. May the chips fay- -- fall where they may." What does this mean? That you are indifferent to the question of life and death. You cannot be after 30, gentlemen, a good citizen if there is no occasion where you say, "It doesn't matter. They may take my life. They may arrest me. They may starve me. They may take my reputation. They may exile me." Do you think any statesman can -- could be a -- rule a nation if he is not willing to be impeached? That's the -- the -- the phra- -- the risk of the -- of the business. The only risk you understand is bankruptcy, financially, gentlemen. There are many other bankruptcies. I have been bankrupt in my life in the eyes of my friends -- or my foes even more so -- 20 times, because I have been completely indifferent. And I would be ashamed of myself -- I have been a soldier six years now. I -- I reported to the infantry in 1917, when this was certain death, after 13 -- 30 -- the three years of butchery. And so I really know what I'm talking about. Now, I am not dead. But I would be ashamed of myself if I would now say, "This is wonderful not to be dead." I'm very doubtful about this, gentlemen. To have to teach you in this college is just as much a punishment as to lie in the grave.

Life is not in its -- my life is only meaningful if it is reproductive of life. This you can take down, gentlemen. That's a very simple formula. A -- a mother -- a woman who is unwilling to enter the chain of generations by giving life to

new children is on the way -- in great danger of becoming a harlot, or she must become a nun and serve a higher course of -- a still greater sacrifice where your faith says, "I don't have to see in the flesh children born from mothers," but I can create out of the spirit new souls," which really the Church does, if it does its duty. Priests do this, and nuns, and monks have -- do it over the centuries. You and I wouldn't be alive today in our hearts. You wouldn't look as blank as you are if there hadn't been a Francis of Assisi, or there hadn't been St. Jerome, or there hadn't been -- the Benedictines -- monks, you see, with all their singing, century after century, keep our souls alive. If you sing any hymn in any Protestant Church today, it comes right from the monasteries, who through 500 years -- you remember St. Patrick and all these people -- sang -- sang the Psalms, and gave praise to the Lord. Do you think you would even know what it means to give praise to the Lord, if these monks hadn't be- -- lived in spiritual fruitfulness and sacrificed their family, their children, their offspring, their progeny and had lived as though they were already dead? Because their only idea was to give life to you? And -- but you say all this sacrifice was for nothing. You really believe that a man who gets money from the Ford Foundation and from Dartmouth College by itself is able to tell you the truth. Gentlemen, without sacrifices, nobody is able to know the truth. But if this man has fought in the war, and you know that he is able to stand it or has withstood the dan- -- the powers that be in any other world, you begin to trust him, because a man has proven that the truth is more important to him than the powers that be.

I mean, for -- for thousands of years, Israel was in danger of life when a man said, "I am a Jew." They would take him and burn him at stake. And thereby the faith in the living God has been kept alive. As soon as you take every danger from this -- from this group, the -- and the Israelites are no longer in danger of life another group must take over and you get Jehovah's Witnesses. You get all the Mormons. You get always -- the Quakers. That is, there has to be always a group that is in danger of life when it certifies that it believes in the living God, because otherwise there is no value attached to it. And the latest value to attach to the -- the belief in the -- in the Revelation is obviously that you are willing to lie down your life for it. Otherwise, the -- the truth begins to dwindle. You think that once the truth has been -- has been known -- become known that we all want the truth. This is your great error, gentlemen.

No generation by itself, in its own interest of living, wants to know the truth. They always say, "Oh, it will still carry us." Just as the famous people in the French revolution -- the nobility said, you see, "AprŠs nous, le deluge -- le deluge." After us, the deluge. That's what you think. If you only have a job, if you only have a family, if you only can pay off your mortgage -- after all, that's all you want -- the living God won't work. It's too complicated. What do we know of this? The tradition of the human race, that's all so complicated. Let me

have my peaceful life. So you say, "That's Christian teaching," Sir, you say, "That's Christ's teachings." It is not. Christ came into the world to unify all the generations of man, and so He went out of His own existence, out of His own generation -- He was unknown in the world of His days -- and said, "I want to use the whole vitality of 70 years of my life; the first 30 years just to bring into the world, to give birth to the 12 Apostles. And then I will even confiscate my own life and let them have the impression of my full strength, in my prime, and so these 12 Apostles will be able to multiply -- my faith." But there have to be apostles and there has to be the Lord in every generation. It doesn't help that He died 1953 years ago. That's long ago. It doesn't help at all.

So you always take the teaching of Christ, instead of His sacrifice. And then He says obviously, to the hous- -- to the captain of Capernaum, "It is better to be a soldier than to be a civilian." The best is to be the -- a Christian. But only if you do not compare being the apostle with being a civilian, you see.

There are these three stages. Here you have your job -- hunter, with a refrigerator. And you have the soldier. And you have the martyr. Well, Sir, when I hear in this country the interpretation of Christ's teaching, it is always that the martyr has been replaced by the job-hunter. So he mustn't wear a uniform and mustn't shoot. But it is understood, gentlemen, that the sequence is: this is the primitive man, that's -- we all are. That's -- everybody begins this way. That's the second -- that the existing community asks -- demands the laying-down of your life and death. And that's the third -- the new community, the coming community dies -- demands the laying-down of your life. But let's not talk about not laying down anything, and then be called a "Christian." You cannot have the cake and eat it, too. If you want to be an American, a respectable citizen, become a Senator or a Representative, and be a married man and be a Rotarian, that has nothing to do with Christianity.

And if you think that Christianity is castration, you're quite mistaken. It's creation, the restoration of the creative process. And Jesus said, "Even mothers no longer will -- want to bear child- -- children, so we have to set this great example, that the men can be born -- reborn not by the will of men or by the flesh, but in the spirit." So He -- the Apostles felt that they were born in a virgin birth by -- Christ, and that is the story of the virgin birth dogma: that first the Apostles experienced new birth, and then they { }, Jesus must be born the same way.

So all these debates, which these civilians in this country for the last hundred years have fought out about the virgin birth, is only a cheap way of not seeing that we were dealing on the level of Christianity with life, where it's only the question of re-creating life, of giving birth at all. But you only think of this as an individual affair, of sex, and such nonsense. That has nothing to do with the

problem of Christianity. The problem of Christianity was { } in the Jewish nation, the spirit of the living God no longer could be contained, and could be represented and dwindled, and so they had to be taken out. And so Jesus found this tremendously higher form, that even people already born in a special nation could be spiritually so redeemed that they formed a new na- -- a wider nation of the human race. And therefore the whole -- the whole springing up of this -- but under the condition that nobody could think they were cowards. Nobody could think that they were not for marriage and for fruitfulness. The Apostles did marry, did they not? No, they were married. Peter was married, as you know. This was no -- that was not a -- he -- found himself married, so it wasn't a reason for -- divorce his wife. Paul didn't marry because he was called and it was more important to do this -- this higher order. But the condition is always that every one of these people was absolutely immune against cowardice, and that -- he did- -- didn't -- didn't condemn fighting, or being fought, but he said, "It is my significant role not to fight, but to be fought."

Every time -- each time it boils down just to something, gentlemen, that as soon as our structure is establi- -- you are 30, that's manhood -- your carcass, this skeleton, these bones, these dried -- this flesh of ours, is, after all, obviously mortal. You know already at 30 that at 70, it will all be over. Therefore you cannot fight for your own life in the sense in which you can fight for an hereditary order. It is obvious to the man at 30 that he asks himself this following question: here I am structurized. That is, I have my talents, my interests, my prejudices, I have my family. Well, I'm not going to fight except for my children and my wife. They are -- I'm responsible for them. But I'm really not -- not good enough, so to speak. I'm -- I won't last, anyway. You must see this. There comes in this really pacifist element in all decent men that they will not fight just for their own bare existence. And {generously, they will say} -- let him { }. { } to go to Klondike -- I couldn't go to Klondike. It's just missing in me this element. I must have the gold -- I would just say, let him have it, I mean; I don't care. It's not enough -- for me, I cannot make great fuss. A certain amount, I mean, I may have -- try to have some elbow room. But I will be very much aware as an individual at 30 that for these 40 years on this earth, I cannot ruin 20 other people, so to speak. This is -- don't you think? I mean, this -- nobody -- not -- none of us want -- wants to do this, because we aren't that important, in our mere physical existence. We are -- because death therefore constrains us.

That is, in our lifetime, we can have ethics and a code in such a way that everyone -- can have something and nobody has everything, because nobody deserves this. He can't take it with him, in -- into his grave. And he can only eat once. And all these things were -- would be all so simple if I and you, we were all sobered people of 30 who are aware of their own mortality. But the thing becomes quite different when we are responsible for the progeny, for these people

who have to grow and to find a place for themselves in the future. As soon as this man of 30 thinks of the great deeds of his forefathers, and thinks of the great future for his grandchildren, he is willing to say that the living generation is just good enough to keep the continuity. And as soon as you and I will -- feel sure that it isn't my or your personal interest, we will be very {heroic}. That is, we will understand that our -- we have to be sacrificed in this greater process {from love} for our children -- from love to our ancestors. It's perfectly normal, I think.

We -- and then I said the third, the martyrdom for -- for new heredity, a new way of combining the work only comes in if the mere children of the flesh, you see, and the mere ancestry of -- in my pedigree, or in my nation, prove incoherent as now. Then you get revolutionary problems, because obviously as long as we have kings in England and presidents in France, and -- and -- and so on, that isn't enough integration. So somebody probably will have to, you see, preach a -- a gospel, or live a gospel, I should say, that goes beyond the service inside the nation for children and -- and ancestors.

But the main point is, gentlemen, that this warring generation -- a warrior, gentlemen, is not -- or "soldier" is even better, is not a man who fights for himself. Result is, for example, that no decent soldier hates his enemy. Only civilians do this. It is so -- awkward in this country, where the journal, the -- the newspaper clamor is so great that you allow commentators to speak of "the Japs" or of "the Krauts" and so, despicably. A decent soldier has never done this. I have still to see a man, and I have been six years in a -- in -- in the German army, and that's quite a long time, gentlemen. I've been four and-a-half years at the front, and I have still to see a man who hated a Frenchman or a Russian. That doesn't exist, because, you understand, we just are able to be soldiers, because we are sobered to serve { }.

Now I said 30 in order to shock you out of your somnolence, that this is really a question of ma- -- human maturity. A soldier is antithesi- -- mature in anticipation. He is made mature by his wearing the uniform beyond his selfinterest. As a student, you are egotistical. You want to get a girl. And you want to get a profession. And you want to get an equipment. And you want to write a book. And you want to become famous. You want to make money. I said "30." Now I have to add: a soldier is treated as though he already was aware of this sacrificial attitude at 18. And you -- the uniform -- gives him this, which your physical age wouldn't give you.

And therefore the soldier has no hate. Therefore he is not touched by your Christian warning, these -- that you should love your enemy. Every soldier loves his enemy. He loves him much more than the civilians for which he has to fight -- the reporters, and the nurses, and all the terrible people at home who desert his

cause. I can assure you that we all at the front felt tremendous solidarity with the other armies fighting us, but we had no patience with the people at home. This is the real situation of a normal soldier. Therefore he doesn't come under your jurisdiction, Sir, because he doesn't hate his enemy. He doesn't want to shed blood. He is not a murderer. He's not killing. This is all in a spiritual realm of which you seem to have no idea. He is in the most sacrificial and purest mood. He's a much more purified soul than any man downtown in business, who has to compete and has to use his elbows. The soldier doesn't use his elbows.

(Sir. Do you mean all soldiers here think this way?)

Pardon me?

(Are you thinking that all soldiers think this way, or are you thinking...)

Well, in this country, you see, the barbarism of the -- this -- the Second World War has been so terrible because the Church has deserted the armies. It hasn't preached the honesty of soldiering. That is, the chaplains had no word to these soldiers, and therefore they had no influence. Therefore there has been hatred of the Japanese. I have met two chaplains, gentlemen, and I still think it's the all -- low point of my life's -- spiritual -- experience. Anything that I have met with doesn't amount to such brutality as this story of the two American chaplains in uniform. They were on Saipan. And they took a walk, and they found three naked Japanese corpses. And when they came home, they told me this.

And I said, "Did you bury them?"

And they said, "No."

They had forgotten that to bury a man is the first part -- is an element of the faith of man in the solidarity of humanity. And that -- they were not Christians, these chaplains. But the soldiers who had killed the Japanese were Christians, because that's an honest war. They have -- we do not act for ourselves, but in the service of a cause. But these chaplains, who got this -- these fat salaries, and these good uniforms, and no danger, and who take a walk and look -- stare -- they told me themselves -- at these three naked corpses, they had lost all humanity, let alone Christianity. And this you do not understand. You look at me and say, "Well, what -- { } get excited? That's not important."

Well, I sh- -- tell you, gentlemen. Man -- man's history begins with -- with burial. And if we do not bury people, we have no longer recognized that we are united, despite our fleshly mortality, if you treat these corpses as -- as carcasses of animals. And this was their sacred duty to -- go, either to bury them themselves,

or to get -- look for help and do something about it. But here, I meet with a shrugging of shoulders and people are utterly indifferent to this and say, "This doesn't mean anything after they were dead." { } gentlemen. And the souls of man in this country are absolutely dead to the real issues. These chaplains have in my estimation -- I told them so. One is dearly a friend. He still can't get over it. But we are all weak, I mean. Every man has in his memory something he is ashamed of. Now it's enough for my friend there -- whenever we speak about it, he says, "I am ashamed." And he needs some remission of sins. But as long as you do not feel that man has to be ashamed when he does this, you see, you don't -- not see the whole issue.

(Now, { } you wouldn't say the same thing for a civil war, would you, that you're saying about a war between nations?)

Well, the normal thing, you see, all wars in the Western world are civil wars. It is absolutely no reason to believe that a war between France and Germany has any less of the character of the Civil War than the war between Sou- -- North Carolina and Vermont. That should be...

(I'm not talking about -- excuse me. I should be more specific. I don't mean a war in the West. I'm talking about, for instance, the -- the -- the Chinese, Communist war versus the -- Boers { } personal gain in mind.)

Well, the difficulty with the -- with these new wars, of course is -- I know very well -- is that we have not a common name -- because wherever you can invoke some spiritual power under whom -- whose energy we bow -- it is very bad. Therefore the Chris- -- the -- the Japanese and Chinese, as advers- -- opponents, are very difficult. Although I think people who believe in the Communist revolution still are believing in a spiritual force, very similar to ours. It's a partial -- partial -- a part of the belief of the messianic faith in the West, but that's a long story. But the cruelty is -- is -- is -- I'm very well aware of this, that the cruelty is greater. But all the more, the -- I wouldn't have said that a private soldier should have had to bury the Japanese. Chaplains had to. You see, this is a different thing, because they were -- they were allegedly, of course they're members of -- of the Christian faith. Of course, they weren't. They were just American army chaplains. I mean, the -- they were just -- a job. They had a business. I mean, most -- most ministers I come to know just have a business, when -- his percentage is from the undertaker.

But -- but by -- by constitution, after all, the -- the -- the -- we are, you see, if our industry has come to the West -- to the East, our -- our armies, our ships, our goods, our ideas, and therefore we owe them that which has redeemed all these partial goods, the faith in the hu- -- of the solidarity of the human race.

And therefore cruelty or not cruelty on the other side, you see, or on our side, and hatred not -- in the individual soldier, when a chaplain misses this point, that the whole West has been the dynamic element and has mobilized the -- the East, and doesn't add this in the -- within which all this other alone can make sense, you see, {this unity} -- then they have ceased to be functioning. Then they are just Americans, and as Americans, they have no right to wear the cross, and as Americans they have no right to be outside the fighting. And the -- all the privileges granted to them by our government, you see, are still given under the condition that the Church is a universal institution and not an institution of -- of, you see -- of self-interest. So I -- if I understand you rightly, you wanted to say these rules do not apply in the East, because it's such a -- more cruel warfare.

(Because it's a sel- -- war of -- it's a warfare of self-interest. { }. That's all it is. And this is -- this is the way most people have always characterized civil wars in the { } you were fighting for something -- with something for the {amenable gain} as -- as something which you win as soon as the -- as soon as the war is over.)

Well, if there is a war of plunder, of spoils, that's what you really mind- -- mean to say, of gain -- then there would be always the other side; there is always then one side that def- -- justly defends and the other -- other is a -- that -- is then a different, you see, unrighteous war -- a righteous war.


But I don't think that things are so simple. There obviously are wars in which both sides are right, you see. And then there are wars in which one side is -- is right, you see. But I don't think there is -- can be a war in which both sides are unrighteous, I doubt it. This is -- usually the point isn't made, you see, that there are wars in which both sides are right. And I have the idea that -- that the conflagration between East and West is still to a large extent this, that both sides are right. I have -- our tradition has always been that there's absolutely no reason in a war to find that one side is wrong. This whole idea of the -- that comes just from your courses on ethics. Now, in Germany there is no course on ethics, because we are -- don't judge other people. We always want to know that other people are wicked. Or that you are wicked -- because the Bible says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." This is all nonsense. Why do you have to -- but it seems to be an urge in this country to -- always to know that somebody is wicked and always -- the politicians. If you only would forbid yourselves to say, "That's politics." You are, of course, making necessary the politicians, as you very well know. They are just -- your handmaids. You -- you are too good, and so you have to have the politicians. If you were a little more wicked, you wouldn't have to have a specialist in wickedness. But you are too good. Therefore you have to -- have your poli-

ticians. Anybody whom I meet in this country who says, "Oh, that's just politics," I have hearty contempt for this man. I am -- my heart goes out to the politicians, because they are -- the people who accept the universe. And you are people who don't accept the universe.

I -- I mean, this is very simple. I mean, here you live because other people make politics, then you despise the politicians and you brush your hands and say, "I -- I'm chemical -- sterile, and no bacteria." Just less life, but it isn't better life.

So, I mean, you can apply this to civil war, Sir. You can apply this to politics, which, after all, are a kind of anticipated civil war, of -- you see, of a lessbloody character, all the time, or just character assassination, and such nice things, you see. But that's war, too, obviously. A little war has to be in any peacetime society in order to make the big war unnecessary.

The whole problem, gentlemen, boils down to this question, you will admit: that the combustion motor -- the combustion engine in any one car is better than one big explosion of all the oil you have in one big catastrophe. Now if you can admit in your heart of hearts that you are at war, and that the community is at war, fragmentarily speaking, by bloody feuds or unbloody feuds, you will have less great explosions. That is, the more peacetime somnolence you get -- 70 years of peace -- make it necessary that the next thing is the most cruel and terrible world war. But if you have enough war, day by day, in a small way, then you can forgo the agglomeration, accumulation of war -- incendi- -- war materials, so to speak, for the big busts, where then nothing is left and everything is destroyed at once.

But to say that war is impossible would say that -- that all people die graciously. Now the fear of life makes every one of us hold on too long -- longer than is good to his interests. Every group, every -- take the doctors now with socialized medicine. It's very naive, but very natural. Take yourself with your property, not liking to pay everything in taxes to the government. Everyone is afraid to be destitute, to lose out on his vested interest. You, too. I mean, there is nobody. If -- if Dartmouth College degree no longer helps you in life, you would be very angry with this. And on it goes. That is, gentlemen, the fear drives men always to a point where they defend in some respect something that has deserved to die. And war is inevitable to make up for the difference between the mortality of man and their willingness to accept their mortality. That is, the mortality not of their fleshly life, but I, of course, represent all the laws, the orders, the frontiers, and boundaries, and traditions, the languages, and religions, and denominations -- everything which works through me. And therefore the fear of man overextends the lifespan, the lifespan of many institutions, of

many things. And because it does this, war is the remedy. War is the remedy against our fear to die. And therefore it's an all-human affair. And we are all guilty of it. And you certainly are, at this very moment, because you do not reform this college, but you just...

[Tape interruption]

...aging, and their responsibility. It's a wonderful temptation, I grant you. It's not -- never to get out of school in some form or other, but what does it mean, gentlemen? War is inevitable, has -- because you try to overextend the mortality of any one phase of life. St. Augustine has said, "As many ages and phases, as many deaths must be died." Quod -- very briefly in Latin, very beautiful -- Quod etates tat mortes. As man- -- you understand this? as many -- etates -- as many deaths must be died.

Now you remember that I told you about Cotton Mather's report on Westminster, that America was on the way of becoming the matter of one age, because in every age, the myth of America is, "This is wonderful." They live it out to the bitter end, and no connection with the other ages, no sacrifice for the continuity of the race. Every one age, the Gay Nineties and the Gay Twenties, and the Gay Sixties and the -- I don't know. It's always "gay" in this country, you see, which means "blind." But you always mean that they live it out like Wallis Simpson. She's a good American, but a very bad person, you see. Instead of -- you see, when you marry, you marry. She has married three times. She's a bitch -- because she wants to stay young and repeat the act. That is how to live in one age, you see. Repeat -- repeat and stay young. Any man who has a -- in his senses, you see, does the final act and then he is through with his childhood, then he is through with his boyhood, then he is through with his adolescence. And he doesn't want to repeat it. A whore does. She does it -- {does the} act every day. This lady, this Du- -- Duchess of Windsor is -- is on the way, as you know, to a harlot, and then she wants to be queen at the same time. But to be queen means to have forgone this cheapness of adolescence. And you can say anything of Elizabeth of England, but you cannot say that she is a matter of one age. She has died to her childhood, and she has died to her girlhood, and she has died to her playfulness, and she's all duty, in such a way that we even are terrified. I at least am, you see. But there you can see the difference between a queen and a -- a lady from Baltimore. I think she is from Baltimore, isn't that true? She's not a lady. She's just one of these flappers who never want to grow old. She's just the thing that has made war inevitable in every generation, gentlemen. If you do not understand it -- because she acts, and acts, and acts, I mean, like -- like Barbara Hutton, and all these jet ladies, you see, who have to have six husbands -- seven husbands to assure themselves there is still somebody who likes them and can be tempted by their millions, and -- because they repeat the acts.

All, endless repetition is -- is anti-historical, because the conscience of man says, "Isn't it -- one enough? Must I -- can I repeat? Isn't this asking too much for -- for my -- for my elbow room in society?" Can you understand this? How can a man or a woman use up six or seven husbands, or a man use up six wives, you see? This is a {grave} question.

So gentlemen, wars are inevitable because we fear to die, but corollary: this fear of death is not meaning the fear of physical death. Nobody in this country is really afraid physically to die, but he's terribly afraid of having to give up golf. But he's terribly afraid of having not -- being not reputed an honorable member of the Rotarians or the Free Masons. That is, we want not to die to our honor, to our reputation, to our conveniences, to our physical exercises, to our leisure, to -- all these things that we think are coming to us. We have made always a part of the cosmos, gentle- -- take this word, because it's a good word -- of creation as being an integral part of our way of life. So please, will you understand? The corollary is: life, in humanity and human history does never mean just the physical existence. Life means the way of life. And we are afraid to give up the way of life, to which we think we can lay claim. And as soon as we -- from sheer fear of having to give up a certain way of life, you see -- grow blind, and stupid, and stubborn, the compensation is war, because the war destroys the mortality, and doesn't -- doesn't take -- take cognizance of our fear. And therefore, you see, in a war it is tested. If we are afraid, we will run away. Then there will be no war. We'll surrender. By our very courage, we prove that it hasn't been fear of mortality, but the decent respect for the order created, the deep gratitude to our ancestors, and deep faith in -- in the future of our group.

So that the courage of the soldier is the refutation of the cowardice, so to speak, of the civilian. And that's why it takes courage to win a war. And the victor is the man who is thereby tested and found out not to be the coward, who wants to have this land, or these machines, or these gold mines, for the -- the fear of his mortal flesh, you see. But he wants it because he has a good conscience that this is the way mankind should travel, that he is the functionary of a great office on this earth of progress, of history, and that is -- I -- therefore I believe in God's judgment in history, gentlemen. That -- the amount of hero- -- heroism, and of sacrifice, and of courage is nothing accidental.

When the French ran, in 1940 at the Marne River, as you know, so shamefully, that was a judgment over France. They had all the -- everything: the ammunition, and the generals. The only thing they didn't have was the spirit. And when you -- you have forgotten this, but let me say this -- poor Cotton Mather, he must rest in his grave, till next time -- when the French in 1940 choose between fight and Paris, they said, "Paris must not be destroyed. That's too terrible. The Americans must still be able to be -- come here and be tourists." And so

they choose the armistice most dishonorably, and Paris wasn't destroyed. And everyone who -- seriously minded at that moment knew that the French had given up the ghost. That is, they had chosen stones, and streets, and places, and boulevards, and gardens, and paintings, and sculptures, and monuments, and the Arc de Triomphe, for the real triumph of the human soul over the fear of death. And so they don't exist anymore as a political entity. You can write them off. They just don't exist, because at a certain -- the decisive hour of their life, they chose -- that's all decided now. They -- that doesn't depend on the individual French anymore, you see. That's all over. They died in June 1940 -- I -- I mean this, if you understand it, you know what war is, because they could not go to war.

Now, I don't blame them, but as a structure of political decision, they have ceased to function. It's out, because political decision of a nation, of a government means that at a certain moment, the courage to defend the order wins out over the frailty of the human flesh, of a -- the fear to lose the human order. And if the souls of man do not feel that the order lives here and can therefore be built more beautifully with Paris in ashes, then there is nothing you can do. The -- the thing cracks. And that's why the Germans, whose cities were bombed, are alive. And the French, whose city of Paris was spared, are dead. Not the individual French, you understand. Not the French families, not the French individual groups, the community. All this can exist, but the -- the -- what we call "France," that no longer is an entity. That's why they don't pay taxes, why everybody is rich in France and the government is poor. They have a quarter of the gold we have in Fort Knox, in France. But it is not in the -- in the -- anywhere near the government. It is in the stock -- stockings of the peasant, and of the bourgeoisie. They have the gold. They -- are -- they estimated that there are 8 billion gold francs in France. That's a lot of money, you see. Gold francs, it's more -- you don't have any, and I don't have any, you see. We believe in the government. We believe in paper, you see. We here have credit. We trust our government. The French have all the billions we have in Fort Knox exactly in the same proportion in their own private homes, because they are only afraid, you see, of -- of not holding onto that which is coming to them. So from now on, they will be the -- the object of history and not the subject anymore of history.

So you see the connection, perhaps now? Is this clear? Have I drawn -- if you can only see that wars defend a way of life at the risk of your own life -- a way of life is defended at the risk of your fleshly life -- as soon as your -- the interest in -- your own existence of survival wins out, no war possible. You cannot fight a war if the very existing order -- as there symbolized by Paris, the stones of Paris, which are after all of just one static nature, just there-ness, and have nothing to do with procreation, and nothing to do with new life coming and old life dying, which is just you see, timeless, sta- -- static, being there -- that

at this moment, the war becomes impossible, inept for the French, because the sweet life with the omelette souffl‚ is -- is -- and the red wine is -- is -- is so much better. They really believe in the -- in the five senses. They are a sensuous people. They are not cowards. Don't misunderstand me. In a physical sense, they are very -- it's not true.

If you get a Frenchman outside Paris, in the colonies, for example -- I met a Frenchman in the -- in the Egyptian desert. Were you with us at that time? Wasn't this a great fellow? But he was alone in the desert. There was no Paris, you see, which tempted him. And no good food -- certainly no good food in the -- you remember? And so don't mistake me. You -- you free this Frenchman from his -- from his temptations at home, the beauty of Paris, and he certainly shows a very heroic soul. I remember the -- shall remember always this man as one of the finest specimens of the human race. And I felt very privileged that I ever was able to meet him. Here, Russ Keep was with me. There he was, all by himself, with the -- some natives, far away from any marketplace, and -- and -- and just working as head of an -- on an exploration of a desert temple. But -- when these Frenchmen get together as a group, then they become, you see, dangerous to themselves, because their leisurely way of life, as it is, seems to them not to deserve any -- they cannot think that -- that perhaps part of it is -- is too good.

Thank you. The next time then, we get the -- Homer Lea first, and then the Cotton Mather. And then I will have to say nothing, but I thought I have to make the connection at this moment, you see, but you understand why your belligerent Cotton Mather and modern -- and modern Admiral {Symmes} may have more to do with each other than -- as a modern minister and a Cotton Mather in his days, you see. You understand?


(Have you got a few minutes to spend now...)