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

...I tried to show you that the line was such that in Parmenides, there is already anticipation of two solutions: the soul alone, that's Epicurus; and the soul, so to speak, eagles the world; and the second, the Stoic {wanted} this world as one soul. That's to the Stoa. That's a cosmopolitan solution, and that is the peace-for-yourself solution. The hill -- go, take to the hills, so to speak.

It's eternal, gentlemen. You will all -- at times you will all be Epicureans in the deeper sen- -- good sense. And in the other, you will be Stoics. That is, gentlemen, these two philosophies are constant moods. And perhaps the deepest thing you should know about the history of philosophy is that it does display in its course your and my mental moods. They are not the truth of the matter. But they are great auxiliaries, means for your and my mental survival not to go insane in times of -- of doubt, in times of despair, in times of lying low, in times of waiting. Philosophy, gentlemen, is not a luxury. Everybody has a philosophy. But philosophy is much more a companion of life than an interpretation of life that holds water. You have to shift. I suppose any -- man who lives today, from now on will have several philosophies at his disposal. Because his despair will come from various directions. Sometimes he will -- what does a poor Hungarian do today? He needs some philosophy at this moment that hasn't to be valid forever. But it must carry him through the day, so that he just can still speak, gentlemen.

You watch, gentlemen, the end of a thousand years of the history of Hungary. Hungary was founded in 1002, with the baptism of St. Stephen. And -- Mr. Mindszenty -- Cardinal Mindszenty -- Mindszenty, by going to the American legation, ended the history of the crown of St. Stephen. And this is a very cruel millennium. We open -- it opens up, you see, end of the march of nations, gentlemen. There will be no nations in the fu- -- there will only be world powers. That has been in the making. I have prophes- -- seen this -- this is has -- could be seen coming. You see, America delays this. You are still all for small nations. You are even for -- for Egypt, which is not a nation. But you think everywhere there exist nations. It's just an -- an absolute, atrocious idea. Only in America you don't believe it. You have wiped out all the American nations. There you have no feeling. But in Europe, you assume the nations -- that's all nations. Well, they are nations. But gentlemen, the Christian nations of the -- of the Occident, they were nations because they were parts of the Church. They were all church-nations. There can only be nations with a spirit of their own. The nations of Mos- -- the Moslem world just doesn't ha- -- don't have that. That's why they are no nations. Syria is the only exception in the Arab world, because it has Christians.

The reason for this is, gentlemen, that in the history of the Church, the nations became articulate as members of their councils. And the -- the Church used to vote on its last councils by nations. And these nations therefore got representatives -- from big universities. And the university of -- is essential to a nation. Paris is the greatest nation of Europe, because it has the oldest university, Paris.

So gentlemen, perhaps you take this at this moment, it's a very tragic, and very solemn moment and just -- a European like myself, we can- -- one cannot sleep. One just lies sleepless every night over this fate of Hungary. And m- -- all my news from Europe are to the same extent. The people of Europe are sleepless, because the whole history of Europe draws to an end at this moment. And America just can't do anything, I mean. It just -- it's a -- well. So the -- the mourning is -- goes very deep.

But perhaps you -- for your illumination, gentlemen, in passing I may say this, because it has to do with our Greek tradition and with the history of philosophy: a nation in Europe has been, since the year 1000, a body of people who have a spiritual center. It's not a group of people who speak Apache or Sioux. You -- in your terminology, just as you think that an individual is a philosopher, and -- so you break down the barrier between a real philosopher in his own right who speaks to remedy some foggish situation in his generation, you see, and the people who read books on philosophy and have their own opinions on something, since you always mistake the -- this and say that every American has a philosophy, instead of saying that he uses a philosophy, that he, you see, chooses a philosophy, but he hasn't made it--so in the same sense, you think anywhere, in Libya, or in the desert, there live nations. That is not true, gentlemen. A nation is a -- a unit of man plus a spiritual center, which contributes something to the -- common belief of mankind.

Any university is such a center, or should be. At least in Europe it was. Paris, or Salamanca, or Sa- -- Naples, or Salerno. Those of you -- who has taken Philosophy 10 with me? Well, you know that this has been developed there at some length without stressing much the -- the result for the nations that participated. But -- that is the trouble with India. And that's the trouble with China. The -- they are not nations in the European sense. They are something quite different. They're imitating now, the English, I mean. India has no such spiritual center. And it's still to se- -- to be seen how it -- how it will get one. It is very hard-put. It can hate the English, but that's not a go- -- a sufficient basis, you know, the hatred of the others.

You assume that India is such a unit. It is not. That's one thing that is certain. And Mr. Nehru had to shoot, just as -- I see, as the Russian now shoot in

Hungary, you are -- you just don't like to see these things happen, but they were in the papers, even. He just had to shoot. And he'll have to shoot much more in India. You are not at the end of the bloodshed there, because he's of course not the real ruler of India. How do you think--325 million people--he's an accident. Very passing accident, Mr. Nehru, Mr. {Mennon}, and all these sheiks. But in your eyes, you don't understand that, you see, you -- because you think a nation is a collection of people who vote for a selectman.

That would be no contribution to humanity. Without the Declaration of Independence, America wouldn't amount to anything, and without the churches here, you see. Would be a bunch of people, but this wouldn't be the biggest nation in the world of -- as of today. You have to contribute something to the common faith of mankind. That's why, if you div- -- separate Church and state, that doesn't mean that you can be a nation without a church, you see. It is -- they are separate. But you only see now today the Congress. Gentlemen, the Congress is a very barbarous bunch of fellows. Well, I have seen five senators competing with five quiz kids on -- on television. No, not on television, on -- on the radio, because I haven't seen that, television. That was before the days of television -- 10 years ago. Five senators.

Well, dyspeptic ge- -- old gentlemen. They -- this is not the nicest -- the cultural aspect of America -- our government, gentlemen, but what is going on in every American home, the good life that's led here. And that doesn't come from the state, you see. It comes from quite other resources. That isn't nourished by the government, but it nurses the government. We nourish the government, and -- government doesn't nourish us -- nourish us. How do we do it? Well, from resources that make us into civilized people, you see. And therefore the -- I think it is important for you to notice that the Hungarians always knew this. -- The -- the -- their pride and -- was the national museum and the university in Budapest. They would show this to everybody. I have lectured in Budapest as a professor. And I was very much impressed with this li- -- when that was destroyed now, the national museum of Budapest, I knew that was the bullet into the heart of the nation.

So gentlemen, the nation has received this power from the Greeks, because the Platonic tradition, that the good city has to discuss with the intellectuals from all over the world its own affairs, this international forum within a national boundary -- territory, you see, which you have in Harvard, and which you have in Yale, which you take for granted, you see, but which is very artificial, and which -- as you know, Mr. McLloyd -- -Leod in -- in -- in the state department and Mr. McCarthy in the Senate nearly destroyed if they could, you see.

This international discussion withou- -- -in a nation is a part of the national life. That means that the nation has a window into the world of the mind open, you see. And this mind is not of the city, of the polis, of the nation, you see, but is admitted into the city, as a ferment and as a correcting thorn in the flesh. And this is what the Greeks have imparted to the rest of mankind, that you cannot be a nation, gentlemen, without receiving into you an article -- as an article of faith that there must be a platform in the nation, in which the nation is in a conversation with the other nations. You must always see that this is not natural. The Russians don't have it. You see, you -- and they crush the -- Hungarians for this very reason at this moment, that they think they can have -- without your { } -- or your -- what is it?

(Just chewing gum.)

Two years old? Well, has nobody a piece of sugar for the man?

So to come back. Why is it so important, gentlemen? On this road from Parmenides to Epicurus and the Stoa, the Greeks outgrew the -- their own nation, their own polis. And their eternal contribution is that they have now been admitted in the form of colleges, in the form of books, in the form of encyclopedias, which wouldn't have to exist, gentlemen. You must always forget that at this moment in the year 2000 of our era, they tend to disappear.

I am -- have cooperated at an American People's Encyclopedia at -- coming out in Chicago, gentlemen, in which the Catholic readers are so anxiously -- catered to by the editors that abortion and all such things, or homosexuality, or some -- these catchwords couldn't appear in this encyclopedia. My own articles have been dissected and -- and -- and revamped. Anything disagreeable to any reader cannot be printed in this People's American Encyclopedia. So of course, it cannot contain the truth. Because in America, there are 160 million people -- potential readers whom this man wan- -- wanted to catch, you see. He cannot -- if he pays attention to everybody's -- crackpot's ideology and prejudice. But he tries to. This is a remarkable editor. He lives in Chicago. So they do that there. And of course the truth is abolished. If you li- -- leave the Encyclopaedia Britannica for a second -- another edition in Chicago, you won't hear the truth anymore. It is already deteriorating in this new edition. Don't buy it, please. It's a very poor encyclopedia, because in Chicago there are so many commercial pressures on. You see, this group will not buy it. And this group will not buy it. And you -- then you cannot print it.

There perhaps you see the greatness of philosophy, gentlemen. Philosophy is a challenge to the local prejudice, isn't it? And it sells its truth regardless of the trend.

Did I tell you my experience with a dean of a great university? Mrs. Huessy was having dinner, and myself, with this m- -- gentleman in another house. And he said, "I don't understand your husband at all. What he's doing is against the trend."

And he said -- she said, "Yes. That's why he is doing it."

And he was at a loss. He had never heard of such a fool. Well, that's my business, gentlemen. I am a philosopher. So if I am not against the trend, I sin. I am a criminal. That's what I -- what I have taken an oath of -- as a doctor for, to tell the truth against the trend. It's not interesting to be with the trend, gentlemen. That's -- you see. Didn't I tell you, I mean, that I was statistically unimportant? That's the business of philosophy, gentlemen, to be statistically unimportant, because otherwise, the statistically important ones would have no future, because they would then live from one trend to the next. And the trend would be not of their own making, but they would of course always just be-trend it.

In other words, you would live -- if you go by the trend, you live by accident. You become not master of your destiny. And this old word which today is quoted, but never acted upon, "You are the captain of your soul," means exactly this attempt to be free from the trend. To win against the trend. You have to know the trend, sure. But you have to laugh at it. And you have -- you may argue -- have to bring yourself into posi- -- in a position so that you can survive it.

(Must the trend always be wrong, Sir?)

No, but as a trend, it is wrong. If you only do it because it is a trend, this is nonsense. You must have made the trend. If it is your trend, of course. Then you can triumph. You see. Oh no, nothing is good or evil. Thinking makes it so. You know that. But it is -- I mean, what do you say about an eastern wind? I mean, it is neither good nor evil, you see. So -- you won't go against the eastern wind. But you will also no -- not -- also not go with the eastern wind. It's -- you tack. You understand? It's not you. You cannot -- say that, you see, as here in this country, where everybody feels that he must be part of the wind -- of the -- of this eastern wind.

Or at least feign that he is. I mean, I think most people are so incredibly adroit that they -- you see, they go to church because the Mis- -- of Mr. McCarthy, and then they stop going to church when Mr. McCarthy has no power. That's what happened in this -- and this whole thing is called a religious revival. You have forgotten this, perhaps. But it's only four years old. People suddenly got religion. At least on Sunday. Ja?

(Sir, if you generally go -- continually go against the trend, why are you not forming a trend of your own? In other words, aren't you --)

No, no, Sir. No, Sir. I -- my dear man, you know this very well. The difference between a -- hybrid corn and weeds. The corn is meant to grow one day. But it doesn't grow as a trend. It grows by a slow process of weeding. The weed would be the trend. I mean, any cultivated plant -- of course it has to grow and also respect the season. It needs sunshine, rain, et cetera, Sir. But you will never con- -- confuse wheat and -- and weed.

(Well, the thing is, and what I was thinking -- if you make it a habit of going against the trend, don't -- I mean, you do generally make a habit when -- { }, well I must go against the trend.)

No. Oh no. Well, that's -- would be a negation that would make you dependent on the trend. Oh, heavens! Oh no, my dear man. Certainly you can't misinterpret me this way, you see. I didn't -- you have to -- there are deeper resources for knowing your direction, you see. But any mere trend is destructive for the community. That's obvious. That's why the country was very wise, and had a -- has now a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, you see. I think that's an attempt of the Americans to get out of this trend business, because no great republic can live -- you see, the more foreign policy we have, the less we can afford to be swayed in one or the other direction, obviously. It is impossible.

It's a very -- you see, that is called "conservatism." In this country there has never been conservatism in the -- mind -- there couldn't be. And the problem, as you know, the problem is, there have some voices in the last 10 years trying to establish an American conservatism. But I have -- has anybody read this book by a gentleman called Kirk? Who has read this? Is it popular? Well, poor man. He tried to -- be the -- the standard-bearer of a new conservative party in the United States, and you haven't even heard of the man. Well, gentlemen, you are so reactionary, you don't have to.

And -- this is a conservative country in a way, but the main essence I wanted to say about conservatism as a definition is, that it tries to cap the trends so that they cannot go out of hand, you see. Whereas the left people are inclined to let the trend, you see, rule them. They are for the new, they are for the news, they are for the -- progress. And I think this is the real difference. The reactionary would be a man who just stops progress. That's not interesting, you see -- always only a few. But the conservative already sees the next and the next trend, you see. And therefore says, "Not one -- or any one of these trends must ride the crest of the wave totally."

I think it's a very good definition of conservatism, if you do not see left and right as opposites, as you think, like a tug-of-war, one saying, "Go forward," and the other saying "Go backward." That's not the problem of a conservative party in England, for example, or of Disraeli, the -- who was a real, great conservative, you see. But the problem of the conservative is that he can--because he is his father's son, and because he remembers his grandfather gladly--he can see that what is of the day, you see, is not of the generation; and what is of the generation is not of the century, because these little crisscross of trends, you see, per diem, and per annum, and per generation, they -- they cross each other aus -- out. And if you go totally in -- in the zig-zag, you see, of the trend, you waste an enormous amount, you see. You have to -- to burn, and you destroy what you have to rebuild the next time. And as Robert Frost said, "I couldn't afford to be a revolutionary in my youth, because then I would have had to be a reactionary in my old age, and I was afraid of -- that that -- would -- will happen," you see. You understand. So that is why Robert Frost is a conservative, you see. That is, he wants to conserve the continuity, despite the trend.

These are after all important things, because you can see under what immense hazards the element of free criticism, the element of philosophy, this element of the autonomy of second impressions, of criticism, had to be implanted into every city, and that at this moment, we feel -- and that's I think the greatest danger we face today, and it isn't dissolved at all -- resolved at all, yet, that the Russians have declared they are a philosophical government, their government has a philosophy, therefore nobody else can have a philosophy, because they have the right philosophy, you see. So in Russia, you have pure Platonism, pure Parmenides, ruling. It's a philosophical government. Its whole raison d'etre is philosophy, but if you make philosophy the basis of the government, instead of the basis of the school, or the academy, or the philosophy criticizing the state, you get tyranny. You get a terrible state. You must never forget that Bolshevism is a philosophy. And we cannot shun the responsibility for it. It's Platonism. The Russians are Platonists in a certain -- to a great extent. All that tyranny can be derived at by reading Plato's Republic. I would forbid the reading of Plato's Republic for the next hundred years, lest we lose our democracy, because Plato justifies every measure of violence against disobedient citizens in no uncertain terms.

Fortunately the philosopher, you see, because Plato says, "If the philosophers get kings -- become kings, you see, then everything is fine, you see. Well, everything is wonderful then for his philosophy, but everything is terrible for the man who has to live by it, and doesn't agree. Because the one philosophy which is the mold of the mind governs, you see, then all the other molds of the mind are just excluded.

This point is -- as important. There are two things that I wanted to start

with then today. One is that the Greek element of philosophy has been -- had to be added to the Christian nations. They had to be vaccinated or -- ja, with it, equipped with this thought in order to become a civilized nation. And there is an absolute def- -- defined term to a nation, gentlemen, which you always omit in this country. And that's why you cannot deal with these problems of -- of the Arab states, or the problems of Africa, or the problems of South America. You see, Bolivia and Paraguay are not nations. that is utter nonsense. They may be governments, and certainly mis-governments, but they are accidents, yet. They are not necessary to the human race. They have not proved it, because nothing happens there in the conversation between ultimate truth and { }. They are not -- they are not part and parcel of the whole group that moves forward in a common struggle. And as long as they aren't, they must be conquered. They must be ruled. They must be determined by others. Your idea of selfdetermination stems from groups, you see, like the 13 colonies who have not { } security, gentlemen. That's why a small handful of gentlemen in this country makes America into something different from the five nations of the Indians. You can sink down to this very soon. Just overnight, you can. And you don't know the { }, gentlemen. You think it is granted to you that you are in the { } of civilization. Gentlemen, that's not true. In the last 10 years, America has been great -- in great danger that this would not be true any longer. You can become { }. You can excise -- castrate your mind, and you can destroy the window in which you -- through which you converse with the rest of the world. If you have not this decent respect for the opinions of mankind, as in the Declaration of Independence, this country is just as powerful as any other. In itself, a parochial group does not deserve to be spared conquest.

You must understand that the world is made only for those people who belong to the whole of mankind, the human race. They must do something about it. Just are speaking, what you call "English" in Chicago through the nose, you do not -- are not citizens of the world. That's just a group language, gentlemen. That's -- that's parochial. And any group gentlemen, that separates itself from the tree of the whole human race has to be wiped out. It has been wiped out. that's the story of mankind. You do not think that the aborigines in Australia are -- can live on. They just { }. { } you see, the Easter Island there, and here what's -- what about the { } division. It's not accidental, gentlemen. These people could not find any translating process by which they revamp their five nations { } of the future of human society, you see. That's very difficult, but when I -- the life of mankind, gentlemen, isn't as happy-go-lucky as you think. Please look at the tragedy of the red Indians in this country, and look at the Incas, and look at the -- at the -- at the Aztecs, and Montezuma. And now look at Hungary, gentlemen. The danger at every moment is tremendous. That whole -- whole parts of the human race are wiped out. Well, one of the ways of preserving the human race --

I won't say it's the only one -- has been this international power of philosophy. It's only in addition, as the big word "international" shows you, to the life of the nation that you need this, you see. "Inter-national" after all is only something that is second. You never think that international powers can take the place of national powers. I know that, you see. But a civilization is a nation that has international processes into its own education, for example.

If you have a history book in the United States which is pure propaganda against Russia, you will admit that you have -- are beginning to cease to be ed- -- a civilization, you understand? Because in this history book, you cannot afford also -- the Russians would not interfere although the Russians would not interfere. You can, but you may not.

So gentlemen, philosophy tries to inculcate into the educators and the rulers of any polis of any -- that is, of any political unit -- I must introduce this word. As you understand, it means just as well the United States as it means Athens, or Sparta, or Rome. The philosopher introduces into the polis a standard of truthfulness. And therefore insists that many po- -- political acts can be done, but they may not be done. You see? And the important acts which cannot be done, which a philosopher intrudes, so to peak, inculcates are of course those which do harm to other { }. You see. Because, as you know, the priests of any religion in your own country cannot resist that temptation. All people preach to those who are in church. And those who happen to be absent or belong to another church are never dealt with fairly. But if the historian, you see, knows what the truth is, then he will not write a textbook in a school which could be introduced -- gladly, you see, but may not be introduced for the { } history. Some of the textbooks used in our schools, gentlemen, are certainly not good. But they are recommended by Mr. McCarthy.

In every minute, gentlemen, this process happens. You think of course there's progress, and these things cannot happen to us. Gentlemen, they have happened -- in the last five years, there has been a considerable re- -- recession in -- in truthfulness, in veracity in our textbooks. That is, certain things have -- certain things have been said a little less, a little less, and other things have been said a little more loudly, et cetera. For example, I have always puzzled with the tra- -- tradition in this country about the 300,000 loyalists which left this country. They were all the good citizens liv- -- living in America at that time in 1776. Now you know what happened to the president of Columbia University at that time? Who is from New York? How was Columbia called at that time?

({ }.)


({ }.)

And what happened to the president? Do you know? Well, he had to jump out of the window and run for his life. And he went to Canada. It would be just the same as if -- well, if President Conant or President Dickey -- if he, in such a crisis, you see, didn't happen to him. You can hardly imagine, because you seem that you [people will always be on the right side, because you are such conformists today. But then, you see, all the good people were on the wrong side. All the Dickeys. Yes. And you know, we lost a president of Dartmouth College -- when did we last lose our last president for a political affair?

(Civil War.)

Who was he? Nathaniel Wood Lord. Why? Because he was for slavery. Proved it from the Bible. Oh ja.

I feel the textbooks should be full of these examples, to show how difficult life is, you see, how great -- grave the decisions are. If you live on the -- through the 4th of July all your life without hearing that 300,000 of the wealthiest, best, and most important citizens had to leave this country, lost all their fortunes, their houses were broken -- burned. Their belongings were destroyed. If you never see this plastically see this happen, how do you know what the price of a revolution is? How can you esteem what the founders of this country ever did? And How can you ever get out of your own softness? Why is America so soft? Because of the schoolbooks. Because of the little schoolhouse. Because of the sweetness and light in these houses. With some spanking, you would know how hard it is to live. But you never are spanked.

A friend of mine who went to England after the war -- she was a German. The girl and a daughter -- the granddaughter of a famous scientist -- they came to a Quaker college, Woodbrooke. And she was very well received. And one day, however, it was in 1920, only two years after Versailles and after the First World War, and so people were still quite exasperated in many respects, and so people pounded on the Germans. And she got very mad. And when one of these sweetness-and-light girls in this -- from this Quaker college said something nasty about Germany, she slapped her in the face. Silence. Quaker college, I'd never heard before. No resistance. So she locked herself into her room for three days and shoved some tea into it. And after three days, Mrs. -- Miss Judge, that's a famous Quaker family, asked her -- the principal asked her to come down and -- tears in her eyes, Miss Judge said, "Now, my dear Miss Henning, what are you going to do? This has never happened in Woodbroke, and I'm terribly sorry. And what do you say?"

"Well," Miss Henning said, it was very simple. "Miss Judge, have you ever felt like slapping anybody in the face?"

And Miss Judge said, "No."

And Miss Henning said, "That's the whole story."

That's the whole story. Story ends. Ja. Ja. Exactly. Wrong education.

(I went to a boarding school --)


(I said, I went to a boarding school and --)

Ja? Where? But you see my point.

(Yeah. I see your point.)

Well, the 300,000 loyalists are people who -- who, you see, represent the roughness, the toughness of real life, of passionate life, you see, because the people slapped these people in the face. They did, indeed. And that's the price for the revolution. And it's the price for any revolution, gentlemen. And that you can found states without war or bloodshed is nonsense. And that is probably now what is destroying Israeli, if Mr. Eisenhower gets through his made proposal that -- well, it is mad. The Americans are just as cruel with their morality as the Russians. In other ways. I may insist -- I'm gravely concerned with this, gentlemen. States cannot -- have never been founded with rosewater. With -- they cannot. It's an act of violence, that others wake up and admit that they are states. I'm sorry, but the pope -- Pius II, a pope after all, wrote in 1464 the great sentence, "Now the truth remains, that never has a state been founded, nor shall he -- it be founded without war." That's a pope's statement. And he knew what the world was like. And he said it when he convened the princes of the Western world against the Turks. It was after the fall of Byzantium, of Constantinople to the Turks. And he said, "You are all pacifists now, gentlemen, but if you want to save the Western world, don't have illusions about the basis of nations, about national life." This illusion that you can send a lawyer -- a corporation lawyer to draw up a contract, and now have a Gaza -- the Gaza strip or the desert or something, as the frontier, that's all nonsense. You have to be there. And you have to take a beating. And you don't like to hear this, most of you, because you have dreams about grandeur without grandeur. Of peace without war. It doesn't exist. Peace and war are mutually relative terms, gentlemen. Peace is senseless without war., And war is senseless without peace. I

grant you that. If you fight a war in order to have this problem of this war always end in a peace.

The Americans have never given up territory conquered in war.

Now philosophy, gentlemen, is therefore the disagreeable truth, if it is anything. The disagreeable truth. That can be -- disagreeable in various respects. You can say the earth turn around the sun. That was disagreeable to the people of the days of Copernicus, you see. that is, you can change the local aspect, the -- the -- space aspect of the universe, or you can change the judgment of the times over its own goodness. It can be an ethical judgement, it can be a logical judgment, it can be a physical judgment which you disprove as not valid, although it is parochially felt.

So there is an eternal, gentlemen, fight against the trends in society, in religion, and in the natural science of his day. And that's why I insist, gentlemen, that there cannot be common sense philosophers. One of the most frequent -- how old -- is called this? -- reverses, I would say, of the definitions of philosophy at this moment rampant in America. There are even some books, they are called Common Sense Philosophy. Gentlemen, philosophers have come into the world against common sense, because common sense is the philosophy of yesterday, you see. What you call "common sense" is the inherited philosophy, you see. But it was common sense of 1600 to say the sun rose. And it was against the common sense that -- Kepler said that it didn't, or Galilei.

Gentlemen, your common sense is the common sense created into you by historical tradition. Every sense that anything makes to you is common sense, because you have inherited it. But don't forget that all your values have been created by philosophers, that is, people who have stood on their head and said what the common sense was of their days was, was not good enough.

As long as you think 160 million Americans can philosophize, or are born philosophers, or all men are equal with regard to philosophy, I'm very sorry for you, gentlemen. You haven't looked through this constant fight between common sense and abstruseness. And what is abstruse to you today is common sense tomorrow. But it can only be common sense tomorrow if it appears at one moment as abstruse. It isn't so very difficult to understand this, gentlemen, that -- can you? -- that philosophers therefore must remain in the minority, that they must not become kings.

And what I'm doing today is to recapitulate now the story of Parmenides, and the Sophists, and Socrates, with regard to the attempt which we find in Plato and in Aristotle to connect the nation, the polis, be governed by the philosopher.

That is Plato's dream, as you know. And you always read in the textbooks that "unfortunately, it was aborted." It's very fortunate that it was aborted. Philosophy is an additional function that is needed. Don't misunderstand me. But it's so difficult for you to understand, that it must never lead to the shortcut that the philosopher becomes king. Then you get the Bolv- Bolshevik government. Mr. Lenin was never anything but -- you see, but a parochial man. He was an international philosopher, and therefore he was so cruel, so brutal. No resistance. Because if you have not philosophy as a second order in which your mind is trained, then you use this mind to overrule all the facts of life, all the rights of other individuals, you see, all the given conditions of con- -- community, you see. You -- you just ride roughshod with your mind.

And since we have philosophical government, gentlemen -- we -- we have today to divide again philosophy and government, and that's why I feel very strongly on this business of Platonism in -- in -- which is rampant in our colleges -- that's -- can't go on, gentlemen, because Plato proclaims that philosophers should -- should be kings. Now it would be very nice for me if this was true, gentlemen. I would feel aggrandized. My whole class would go up. But it is not so.

Just as there is a division between Church and state, gentlemen, there has to be interpolation--how shall one say? I think that's the best word--interpolation of two time phases between philosophy and the nation. Philosophy is the educational ferment of the national life. It is anticipatory of change. But it is not able to rule itself. It must be sifted through all kind of -- of very difficult processes until it has conquered the minds of men. Otherwise there will be bloodshed. Otherwise there must be barricades, you see. Otherwise there -- roll tanks and destroy Budapest. You see, that comes all -- what's the good conscience of these ideologies, you see? What does this Mr. -- this tyrant proclaim, Mr. {Zublov}, and Mr. K d r, and all -- all these people whom -- whom the -- one doesn't know why the sun shines upon them. How can they kill all these people? Because they say, "There must be a communistic state." Now what is a communistic state? It's a state sold to a philosophy of history, you see, to economic materialism, historical materialism. However you call it. Economic -- historical. And therefore that's the only justification. Who does not think--not believe--but who does not think as we, you see, deserves to be killed, and deserves to be -- not be allowed to send his -- his children to a higher school, as { }, as you know. If you are not a Communist, you have no right that your child should get an education, you see.

All this follows through -- by the nature of -- of philosophy if you put philosophy into the government of a country. This is -- pardon me?

(Don't you think that a democratic government is also based on a philos-


Ja, but the self-denying ordinance of a democracy -- democratic government is that the ruler must be an average man, and not a philosopher. It's -- a difference, you see, between the American democracy, or Swiss democracy on one side and these -- Bolshevik government. The party in -- in -- Russia is exclusively known for the strictness of its party line. You see, that is the reason why a man is in power there. Here the reason is, you see, that the -- even the party with some platform has to look for a popular man who is not sold to the party line at all: Woodrow Wilson wasn't. Roosevelt wasn't, you see, but who -- the party machine in this country cannot nominate a machine man for the president of the United States, you see. Because the people wouldn't vote for him. It has to be a free man, you see, who is not subservient to any such formal statement o- -- even of the party. And the party is already a watered-down philosophy, isn't it? -- and contains innumerable contradictions.

So the Democratic Party and Republican Party, they really have not a homogeneous philosophy, you see. It's a hodgepodge of compromises, you see, of concessions to this group and the other group, et cetera, and attempt to -- to put this compromise in such a frame that it looks as though it had any logic in it. You see. And then comes the party leader, the modern Republican, and says, "Sorry, but the whole platform is not for me," and he's elected. Isn't that true?

So you see the freedom of the president of the -- in the United States is a -- is a very real thing, that he is not fettered by a -- what a -- we would call a real philosophy. He is fettered of course by promises he makes, you see, by situations he faces. You understand. It is understood how we'll cope with certain situations. But that's not philosophy in the abstract.

If he was a -- sold for -- to -- to any maxim like eugenics, or mercy-killing, I wouldn't vote for him. Heaven -- Heaven forbid that we ever get a vegetarian president! But you understand. And it -- the gravest mistake in the history of the United States was the Prohibition issue, wasn't it? Why? Because that is a philosophical decision. There you can see, you see, what happens when women go to college.


(I don't understand the distinction you make, Sir, between on the one hand, the Russians crushing the Hungarians from a philosophical point of view, and the point of view that we would be justified in conquering Uruguayans or the Ecuadorians because they are not in a real sense a nation.)

I haven't said that we should conquer them. But I doubt that they can govern themselves. Tin governs Bolivia, and that's a very poor government, you know. I assure you. The -- the speculative dependency of these poor countries, you see, on some economic hazard is -- is very tragic. I think the history of Paraguay is the most tragic history of any country in the world. Have you ever read it? I recommend it to you. It is unbelievable. The history of Paraguay is an example of what the -- usurpation of state rights by a territory that is not able to -- to claim it. What then happens? It's -- it's -- who has been to South America? Where have you been?


That's not far enough south. I -- unfortunately I have never gone to Paraguay. I have friends who settled in Paraguay -- the famous Hutterites, the -- that are pacifists. They came here first from Germany. They were friends of mine in Germany. And then they went to Paraguay when here the Second World War made it plausible that they would have to take up arms here. Very good people. And -- also the consul in Paraguay is a friend of mine. And so at least I have some direct connection with the -- but I have also studied the history. You know, the -- at one time there were perhaps two dozen males in Paraguay left. The rest were women and children. They had all killed each other off. In the -- 1846.

This history of Paraguay is -- is really something you ought to study, gentlemen, if you want to be cured from your incredible optimism. You see, you are all -- you all on the one-hand side think you are -- cannot be taken in. On the other hand, you all believe in words, in mere words. Bec- -- if somebody calls himself a nation, you believe it. If Paraguay says, "I am an independent republic," you bow and say, "Well, then it must be so." If Nasser says he's the legal government of Egypt, you accept it. And you will even have -- we haven't broken up diplomatic relations with Hungary. Mr. K d r, this bl- -- butcher, you see, this provincial governor of a Russian province, will now pose as an independent government. I'm sure he will. And you accept and say from now on, you will -- you will -- and we will play even in -- in -- in Melbourne with these rascals or -- in the Olympics, because it would be bad -- bad for the -- why doesn't the American Olympic team leave Melbourne right away? No, that would spoil the game.

But you are word realists. That is, to you, a name, if it is not -- is -- is real. The word "nation," self-determination of nations. Instead of asking, "Is this a nation?" That's the o- -- main question. "Who is a nation?" you should ask. You see. Then -- that's why I -- threw out my definition. You can only grant rights of nations to people who belong to a -- some commonwealth of nations, you see. But if you -- if you take in Liberia, as we did in 18- -- when it -- was it founded,

Liberia? With this rotund Mr. Tubman. Has a wonderful name, you know. I always think of a tub. He's president of Liberia -- or ex-president of Liberia, you see. They have slaves, these Negroes in Liberia, you see. They had -- and they -- the Americans would- -- didn't even want to s- -- look into the matter, you see, how these -- these American Negroes exploited the African Negroes, worse than any colony. But you say, "Liberia is a free republic," but the good treatment of the natives by the English administration, that doesn't count for noth- -- anything. That's colonialism. You see. But be quiet, because the people who govern Liberia and abuse it are Neg- -- are black. Tyrants they are. Horrid. We have done it. We have founded this state. And there are two classes. One is the American Negro in Liberia, and the others are the colo- -- colonials. But nobody is allowed to mention this. In every -- Ameri- -- European geographical magazine, you can see that the worst part of -- of Africa is Liberia. But here it mustn't be said, because how can it? It's all wonderful, you see. It's an "independent nation." It's the worst part of Africa. The Belgian Congo is Heaven against it. But if it comes to an issue, you will vote for Liberia and against Belgian Congo. One is a colony, and the other is a free country. God help you.

When -- when will you wake up to -- to -- to know what a nation is, and what a government can be, and what it is not? It's all just words.

And therefore I think the definition of a nation--I have given this in a work called the Autobiography of Western Man--it's very important, gentlemen. What has been sanctified in the law of nations, and in the treatment of nations as a nation is a part of the history of the church, of Christianity. And the -- it is very fashionable today to dismiss missions, to dismiss Christianity, and to dismiss Church as obsolete. I warn you. In politics it's still a very important practice to ask if this country has been -- any country on the globe -- has been educated by the freedom which only comes when you separate Church and state. Because only in this separation, which has been produced by philosophy, you see, can you have -- speak of a civilization. As soon as Mr. Nasser is at the same time the religious leader of his people, you get an impossible situation. You can't cope with this man. He's a fanatic. The -- the religious leader of -- of the Moslem world has said to a friend of mine that every Israelite -- I think I told you this, you see -- child and baby in mother's womb has to be murdered. He says this now for seven years to everybody who wants to visit him, day after day. Why isn't this printed in great letters here? That's a declaration much more than war, but of -- of -- of destruction. And that goes on day after day. Wie? Did I tell you this before?

(No. Abdel Nasser is not the religious leader of the Arab people -- not by a long shot.)

Well, the -- he has tried now to inherit this. Oh, yes. You don't know this, but the -- even the Vatican has made a pact with him on mutual toleration against bad -- wicked Communism. Six years ago, that was very unfortunate. The pope -- and Mr. -- and then Farouk entered into such a { }. And Nasser has inherited it. You read his proclamations; his whole appeal is to the Moslem world.

So in -- you may say he is not qualified by the tradition of Moslem, which has never recognized this, you see. But his language is -- he -- he has no other, since he has no legal basis for his government, you see. All illegal governments must make some spiritual claim, you see. They have to have some basis, you see. And Nasser has absolutely no right to govern, except a coup. I mean, a coup d'‚tat. I mean, he just went there and dispossessed the king and said, "Now, I rule." Then he dispossessed the first prime minister, whom he nominated and his -- you see, Mr. Naguib, to whom Mr. Dulles gave a silver pistol, as you know, as a present -- as an invitation to shoot.

Well, I really -- this is, of course, a quandary, gentlemen, of our -- great -- of our times. A philosophical quandary, gentlemen, of a definition of a state, of a modern state, a modern polis, a modern nation. And you have to distinguish between statehood, that is, some political concern like -- where shall we turn? -- like Panama, or Guatemala, and a nation. I think even you would doubt for a minute if I said, "Is there a Panama nation?" Of course, there isn't. You see. There isn't. There is a state. It is -- is -- it is a vassal state of the United States. That's all that is. That's not so little. But it is nonsense to say that the Panamese form a nation, because some -- some hirelings from America set up their government when we needed it. It's an artificial thing, isn't it? It -- it is not a nation, gentlemen.

If you bring yourself, which is nearly impossible, it seems to me, for -- in your mental processes, to say, "Panama is not a nation," you have advanced to the necessary degree to understand the function of philosophy, because it has pure- -- told you that you cannot call everything a "nation" what you please to call a nation. What you want to call a nation, that you have to give it a certain minimum of reality, you see.

Now in the history of the human race, gentlemen, the nations of the Western world became nations, threw off the yoke of pope and emperor, when they implanted into the heart of their own territory an institution of free criticism, an international institution. And that is called, gentlemen, the institutions of higher learning. The word "higher" implies today what the -- Greeks called -- meint- -- first by philosophy and later by the academy, and later by the -- these -- these scho- -- eranoi, this eranos, this group of lovers. Gentlemen, the word

"higher" means sovereign. And a school of higher learning is sovereign with regard to the laws of the state in which it roams. It can criticize them. And therefore, a state, plus an institution of higher learning--that's perhaps the simplest definition--you see, which it tolerates not only, but which it recognizes as necessary to its own improvement. Such an institution is a nation. That's that minimum of separation of Church and state, you see, of separation of reverence and criticism, without which you can -- don't have to have great respect for the boundaries of, which you dispose of.

Now the Americans will be challenged to dispose of Trieste not only, but of the Polish issue, of the German issue, of A- -- poor -- everything comes -- is brought to the Americans, if you have no criteria to judge these issues, if you do not at least understand the dis- -- dis- -- distinction between a group -- batch of people who live in a -- in a suburb of the world, like Alexandria or Cairo, and a nation. And a nation must have an institution of higher learning to criticize its own laws. Before, it doesn't participate in the community of nations. And that's much more important, in the long run, gentlemen, than the -- having embassies. You can imitate all these things, you see. You can put Mr. Tubman, president of Liberia, into a tuxedo, you see, and -- and then say, "He's president of Liberia."

But that's your own illusion, gentlemen. And it will be to our own disadvantage if you are hoaxed, coaxed into these errors by simply the usage of words.

Now, why do I say all these things, gentlemen? I say it in preparation to the tremendous function of Greek philosophy in forcing the individual city, in forcing the individual city to criticize its terms, you see, to define its terms. You say always, "Define the terms." Now that's a philosophical victory over the city, you see. In -- in -- when you are one of ours, when you are just a member of the parochial community, you do -- never -- have to define your terms, because you speak as everybody else does, you see. There's no necessity of defining your terms. The -- term, "Define your terms," in other words is the way by which the city has lost her sovereign jurisdiction to some higher Areopagus, judicial court, but in front of which it has -- to justify itself.

And gentlemen, don't forget that this decent respect for the opinion of mankind is a strictly philosophical expression. The United States, when they were ge- -- were born, were born as a part of a world in which a conversation goes on between the minds, you see. And you cannot set up -- up house. A son cannot set up house if he denies that he will be one house in the community, and therefore take over the orders of his father's house, in a -- to a certain extent into his house. You cannot claim, without recognizing other people's precedent. Marriage is impossible, gentlemen, if you do not accept for yourself the obliga-

tions to do likewise, to set up house. And a nation cannot set up -- up house if it doesn't accept to do likewise.

You know the problem of Spain. Protestants cannot live in Spain. That's for our notions impossible. You cannot leave the Catholic Church in Spain. There's the border, and that's why Spain to a certain extent is not a civilized nation. It isn't. It is fo- -- a fossil. It's purely accidental. Everybody there is a Roman Catholic. I would say, therefore nobody is a Christian. Because you cannot only be a Christian if there is a possibility of being not a Christian.

In New York, they called a school {Steppinat} School. Have you heard of this? Who knows the {Steppinat} School in New York? Well, I just talked to a man from Croatia, whose mother was forced by Mr. {Steppinat's} archbishop of Zagreb to become a Roman Catholic by violence. He was here. She was left alone there, the old woman. And they said to her that she would have to migrate on foot, 500 miles to Serbia, unless she became -- she was a Greek Catholic, you see, she was a good Christian -- a Roman Catholic. And she was one of thousands and thousands.

Now the -- Americans are so stupid that this bloody, great inquisitioner, who should be burned at stake himself, this Mr. {Steppinat}, is worshiped as a saint in New York City. Well, that's the electorate in New York. These are the voters of New York, the most unenlightened group I have ever known.

{Steppinat} is a saint in New York. A man who forces people -- now for New York, that means something. I mean, that's the issue of issues in New York, that religions should be free, isn't it? Even Mr. Sell- -- Spellman has to admit it. Comes hard to him. This is a scandal, gentlemen, and nobody has protested in this country. But I have a friend whose mother has been forced to change her religion, and a school in New York is ch- -- is called after this tyrant.

So wake up to the fact, gentlemen, that we are very backward, gentlemen, that philosophy does not play the necessary role at this moment in America. But you take everything just at face value as a journalist does. And journalism, gentlemen, is the curse of this country. All the news are wrong. They are -- they are all right and wrong, but they are not true, because the -- the words are all -- the Hungarians are called "in-" -- "rebels" and "insurgents" in this country. Can you -- can you imagine what harm has been done by this simple use of -- in The New York Times of the word "rebels" for the Hungarian people? How can we call them "rebels"? Against whom are they rebels? Against the Russians. Is this rebellion? That's a simple --.

There, you see, if you don't define your terms, gentlemen, if you have no

philosophy, the city is lost. And poor Hungary. I think you might have gotten the Americans to do something if the telegrams hadn't been all slanted and all for a fortnight now only said that rebels were insurging in the streets of Budapest. It was a legitimate government of Mr. Nagy and {Tilde} who's fighting. And you call these people "rebels." And that goes on here, and nobody says anything. Everybody eats up these -- these drugs, these -- these venom -- this venom and this poison, because you are just -- not -- these newspaper people do -- can do with you what they please. What comes first into their ink stand, it's done.

You -- just -- the Europeans have never done this. There is not -- you see the demonstrations in Paris, and the de- -- wreckage of the Communist headquarters in Paris today in the papers. I get the -- my news of course from my homeland, from Germany, and I get it from Switzerland. And I get it from England, by the way, by -- accidentally, too. All Europe is in an uproar. But of course, these people are saying there -- never mentioning that these people are rebels. They are the legitimate citizens of Hungary and the legitimate government.


(Well, { } these people { }.)


(What would you call these people they call "rebels" now? { }.)

Exactly. Would be a much better word. Of the citizen army, I mean. I mean, whatever you -- you cannot call them rebels, because you have brought up the people here, you see, they are such conformists now. Rebels -- sheesh. "Unfortunately we can't do anything, because the legitimate government is putting down a rebellion." Wie? That's within the international law. Don't you see the difference? As soon as you call them "rebellions," we have no ways of saying to the Russians, "Stop it." A -- rebellion has to be crushed, any rebellion.

(What about "revolutionary?")

It's not a revolution. It's not a revolution. If you throw out -- an invading army, that's not a revolution.

(Well, when you have the original government { } these people { } and now being put down { }.)

Now, that's of course a very involved and very long story, because we allowed, of course, against Churchill's will, we -- we sacrificed the whole east of Europe. I mean, if we were -- had remained in Prague, all this couldn't happen. I mean, the Americans are -- after all, have done this all. We were in Prague. We had conquered Prague, as you may know, and we -- and with Prague -- "Who ha-" -- "He who has Prague has Europe" is an old saying, which unfortunately no American schoolchild ever learned. And since the Russians have Prague, they have Europe. And we have done this against the warnings of everybody on the continent of Europe, you see.

I have a friend who -- who went to -- from Germany, Count Moltke, who went to -- '44 to Constantinople, at the risk of his life, which was then in the German orbit, trying to -- to see Americans to tell them that there was still a chance to keep the Russians out of Europe if Germany could -- if they only would land there in -- in the East. And then they could own the whole of Europe. Of course, he wouldn't get through. The hatred was far too much to listen to such an argument. A -- a memorandum was at -- brought out only a very short time ago to this count- -- into this country now. Nobody -- the -- the -- the FBI simply didn't -- the agents of the -- Mr. Allen Dulles didn't think fit even to communicate with such a reasonable proposal. So we -- it's all our own making, gentlemen. Hungary would of course be in our camp to this day. And perhaps not Warschau, that is hard to say. But certainly there would be no Eastern zone of Germany, if we had just done what our military power demanded us to do. We -- you -- you know this, of course, that we -- our troops were in Prague.

So "Who has Prague has also Budapest," that's -- that's the real thing. That's why you asked me about the legal government, you see. It's an -- after all occupation army. Never forget this, you see. And everything that goes in under an occupation is of course not legal, you see. It's just there, it's de facto, it's called -- such a thing is called, you see. It's a thing in -- of fact, but not of law. You can understand.

Now all the government there derive their -- their -- their power therefore from this military occupation, which was a joint occupation, after all, of Americans and Russians. And in -- whether -- how we divided it is another matter. But that's how it was done. So this joint occupation of Europe by the victors, America and -- and Russia, broke down. And I -- read it three weeks ago when it showed that our {plein pouvoir}, our decision to let the Russians do as they please in the East of Europe came to an end, because the people of Hungary wouldn't stand it. And th- -- so they set up a government, which was recognized by the Russians, as you know -- it was, you see. They dealt with Mr. Nagy as a legal government. At that moment, I think you had the first postwar govern-

ment of Hungary in its own right. You see. That was -- it was felt. It was the awakening, just as Eden's and -- and -- and {Alphons} or {Mali's} own step in Suez was the awakening of Western Europe from the -- from the servitude to the United States. So in the East, Poland, and Hungary, and Tito, I mean, woke up and said, "We are still -- after all, we have some life of our own, what -- " you see.

And therefore I feel this is the legal government. And then for reasons which I cannot di- -- distinguish or dis- -- I mean, cannot tell you, and probably nobody knows, the Russians suddenly veered in the opposite direction and said, "That's too dangerous for us," you see. "That sets an example which we cannot possibly tolerate," and -- and they have made no bones, that this new government is of their making, you see.

Now, you can of course claim that they still have the rights of -- an occupation -- army of occupation, but they don't claim that. That's the interesting thing. Yet, I would say, "Well, the victors," you see, "it's the same situation in '45." But for- -- strangely enough, the Russians -- these new Hungarian tyrants, as Mr. K d r, as far as I can make out, does not claim that this comes all from the Russian occupation in the war, you see. So he has given up the only possible logic which would make his government into an understandable government, you see. And he makes no bones that he is simply there at the behest of the Russians as a Communistic government. So that's a civilian ideology. That's a peacetime ideology, you see, Communism. That has nothing to do with conquest.

Now, strangely enough you will say I'm a -- strange fellow. I think that in a war, a victor is entitled to set up a government. There is -- I don't think that -- that's the essence of -- of war, that leads to such things. Whereas, I hate to see a philosopher set up a government because he's a Communist. You see the difference?

So I think the -- the Communistic government which now says it is there because Russia cannot tolerate a non-Communistic state, is infinitely more cruel than the reason that "I have been provoked by Hitler," as he certainly was, you see, "and I have invaded his satellites and I have set up a -- a government in Hungary in order to -- to satisfy my victory -- to fit my victory." This I think would lead to a better treatment of Hungary, you know, mere occupation, than the harsh brutality of a -- of a philosophy of government. See the difference? But the strange thing is that this is claimed by the Russians, and by the -- the new -- these -- and their henchmen in Hungary, that they have to be there because they have to have Communism. No military security ado- -- adduced, you see. Just -- just Communism. And that -- that's why I warn you: a philosopher as king is the worst man you can have.

(Did you say that K d r is { } to Hungary?)


(Mr. K d r is a traitor to Hungary?)

Oh, my dear man. You don't know how I feel about this word. They just published three days ago in Germany two letters -- open letters of mine about this term "treason." I still haven't heard of the reaction, but it's quite a document. You know, treason has occupied my own mind for the last 35 years very deeply. And -- since 1918 -- how long is this? -- it's nearly 40 years, isn't it? And so there is at -- at this moment in Germany are two little volumes in circulation and have been sold out like hot potatoes on treason. And they have lumped together all people, you see, who have ever been suspected of treason in the last 30 years, which is quite a number, in all countries of Europe. And Ezra Pound is in it, too, for example, you see.

And so the issue which you raise is a -- is a tremendous issue. When is the loyalty, you see, of an existing order exhausted -- to an existing order, you see, exhausted? Mr. K d r was in- -- was formed in Moscow. Now the one thing the Ignat- -- Ignatius Loyola school of -- secular Jesuitism in Moscow does is that -- the first doctrine is that nations are there to be used as tools, that you must have yourself complete indifference to any national issue. Therefore they take Hungarians under one condition: that they cease to be Hungarians. They take Germans -- same, Americans, you see, under one condition: that they rise above the nation, because they say -- and I think that's very logical, and I think you can't blame them -- "We are a world revolution. The condition of our victory is that our staff, the Communists, are totally indifferent to nations."

And that is such an urgent matter for the Communists, because in 1914, gentlemen, all socialist parties, all Marxian parties on the continent of Europe voted, including Mr. Kerenski, for the national war. Mr. JaurŠs, the one French leader who was against the war, was shot dead the -- on the eve of the outbreak of the war. The German Social Democrats, who were violently anti-militarist, voted for the credits for the war. The English Labour Party, of course, did. The -- Italian socialists did. That is, in all Europe, the socialist parties proved their patriotism, you see, and went with the existing order. The -- Lenin, and the socalled "Group of Zimmerwald," in Switzerland, that -- was a small group of 12 international Communists said, "Therefore the Second International has betrayed the workers. The workers are against war for capitalistic, nationalistic reasons. Therefore"--that was in 1916--"we have to get together and found a Third International. And the Third International is based on one, and one onl- -- sole item as against the Second, you see, that not one of us must be interested in


Therefore, when Mr. K d r goes to Moscow, it means that he ceases to be an Hungarian, but becomes qualified to govern Hungarians, you see, from the viewpoint of the Third International. That's -- therefore you can hardly ask me, "Is he a traitor?" when you -- the question is "When did he become one?"

(He's a philosopher.)


(He's a philosopher.)

Ja. Exactly. Exactly. You understand. He doesn't become a -- traitor now, you see. But if you -- and that's I think why we are right to say a member of the Communist Party plots the downfall of the American government. It really does. Or it is not a Communis- -- a member of the Communist Party. You see, it's begging the question, what you are asking me. If you are a real Communist, not a run-of-the-mill Communist, but a trained Communist, the first thing is, you see, that you are circumcised and that the term "nation" will find no echo any longer in your heart. Can you see this?


No, who asked the question?

(I did.)

Oh, you did. I thought your sec- -- the man in front of --.

(He's also not a member of Mr. Nagy's government. { } government.)

K d r wasn't. No. So he was not in this government. He was before. {Gero} and K d r were the Moscow-instructed people, and -- as far as I know. I will not quibble. Do you think K d r was in his government?

(I think he was. { } was the party secretary or something like that.)

Well, I don't know the details -- you, of course. Did you know that in Amer- -- in -- in -- in the Russian system, the janitor of the embassy is always more important than the ambassador, because he's the man who spies on the emb- -- ambassador. It's true.

So a -- I don't know the details of their -- of their order. But if -- if -- if Mr. Nagy had to keep K d r -- it showed -- the weakness of -- probably that he felt otherwise the Russians would have -- would march in. He probably had him as a -- as a safety valve, don't you think? But then he was overthrown by K d r, obviously.

Well, gentlemen, I have tried to show you -- to tell you or to warn you that this history of philosophy has to deal with the very practical issue: the -- the globe is peopled today by states who are civilized in as far as their civilization -- what we call "civilization" comes from "city." Never forget that, you see. From the ancient city of the Greeks, polis. "City" is the translation of "polis." Most people -- you -- you -- you squander this term "civilization." It's something rather simple. A group of civilized people is a people who have made special arrangements, that they s- -- talk of the town shall contain an element of international conversation. You see, of inter-town conversation, in a serious way, not -- not gossiping, not talk, not news. But so that the viewpoints of the rest of the world are heard in the education of the citizens. You understand? And it is -- always can be lost every minute, this qualification. And it has to be restored all the time by philosophers who -- who are beheaded for this purpose, usually, or as Socrates have to drink the -- the cup of hemlock.

Don't believe that you will be spared, gentlemen. You will either poison or be poisoned. Nobody can be impartial in this game of civil- -- civilization, gentlemen. Don't think that at the end of your life you can say, "I did nothing bad and nothing wrong." You'll either have helped this international conversation to continue or to be bettered, and improved, and sharpened, or to have it less effective and go parochial.

And nobody is neutral in this. With every decision -- to which school you send your children, how much money you give to the schoolteacher, you decide these issues. Because the way you treat your schoolteachers, these poor people of course have to dance at your whistle, at your whim. I mean, there is no independence of the schools in this country. The school boards rule them from their prejudices. And there are no institutions of higher learning that are really free. A man like Mr. Oppenheimer could be excluded from the councils of this nation just like that, by whim of the president. Our president doesn't see philosophers. He sees presidents of Coca-Cola companies. He doesn't speak to any man of weight, of insight, of wisdom, of independent judgment, of international judgment. He wa- -- doesn't want to. He doesn't read books, he doesn't read papers. So he is very much immunized, of course. And if I had had a free ballot--of course, I couldn't do it--I would have voted for Sherman Adams.

Thank you.