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

...you and I live, gentlemen, is a world, as you well know, organized by science and technology. It is not the world of which the old fairy tales speak--with spirits, and demons, and witchcraft, and gremlins. It is a world that is pure, that is purged -- purified from all superstition. When you and I speak today of one world, or if -- when we speak of a world war, we are quite sure that we mean something that is rational, that can -- by reasonable means be explored. We are thinking of a -- world explorers, world explorations, for example, or world discoveries. And it is very difficult for you to realize--I have tried to do this -- right now--that this term "world" then is younger than the world Church. Everything that we -- you and I today are dealing with in the realms of nature, or of the world, or of science or of technology, has in back of it a great training of the human brain and of the human heart. And this training has been done by the Church. The world is later than the Church in the modern sense of rational inquiry. And it is -- helps very much if you just come to think that the planets, for a man like Plato, still were divine. They were deities. For us, they aren't. They are just balls rolling in space.

And therefore I think it is worthwhile to try to define this term "world" a little more carefully so that you aren't led astray and think that the world is the whole of the reality in which we are engaged. As long as you think that you are just worldlings, gentlemen, you are sunk. Because then you are just the products of this world. And we -- I tried to tell you last time that without some withdrawal from the world, without some -- some secret of your own by which you are able to go into the world and change the world, we cease to be humans, and we suddenly cease to be in the mainstream of history. History is a very slow march of--in the Christian era--from man's power to recognize that there is one God, and that the many partial gods of Zeus or Aphrodite are just superstitions. And only after this work of the unification of our faith in one god had proceeded successfully in the first thousand years did we then turn around and s- -- looked into the world of space and said, "Well, what's that? That's just a white spot on the map, let's go there, and let's map it out." So we discover the North Pole or the Sahara Desert. And you are so accustomed to this, that the condition under which we can call today the world "the world" is that we are not frightened by it, that we are not ruled by it, that we can do with it as we please, that the world is below, or beneath our feet, and that we can do with it by experiment und organization what we decide is wise.

So gentlemen, I tried to tell you last time already: world is this what can be organized by the human brain. If you ask what the Church is, it is something quite different. The Church cannot be organized. When people try today to

organize churches, the churches are doomed. They are -- become parts of the world.

I once listened to a sermon of a minister who made this slip. Very poignant to me, that is very customary nowadays. He -- has -- first sing us the hymn, "The Church's One Foundation Is Jesus Christ Our Lord." And afterwards he said very cheerfully, "Today we build the Church." Now if the Church can be just built by us, then it is an organization like anything else, and you can have as many churches as you want. That's not the Church. Anything we can do certainly cannot be the Church. The Church is, as I tried to tell you, the growth of original people outside the an- -- ancient orders of Greece, of Israel, of the empires, and of the tribes. But we said the Church is the Church of the saints, every saint being an original character to be discovered only after -- His death for what He really was.

We can say that the Church is the incorporation of new names, people who can only be qualified when we call them by their own name. Every saint, if he is one, is a man who cannot be confused with anybody else. You cannot mistake St. Paul for St. Peter, and you cannot take -- mistake St. Peter for John. And there is absolutely no way of summarizing these people. You have to name them, love them, every one. And those of you who belong to the older churches know that there is a strange and rather obscure way today of emphasizing this originality of the old Church. That's called the "litany." In the litany, all these many names--beginning with Michael, and Gabriel, and Raphael, over the -- Apostles to the most humble saints--are listed. And one after another is just named in the worship service. And in this way, the old Church has tried to fight -- off the superstition, that the Church consisted of the Vatican, or St. Peter in Rome, or of the white church in Hanover. It consists exclusively in lived lives, in people who didn't exist before they had lived, in our minds. A saint is a man whom you cannot think out. That's quite a simple definition. He ha- -- must have lived before you know that such a bird can come into being.

Every -- subsumption, every logical construction of humanity, for example, as a part of the world, is abortive, because for any psychologist or sociologist, the saints are people who shouldn't have existed, because they are logically not to be concluded. Not -- no syllogism can ever tell you that one of these strange men ever walked this earth.

Well, what I have said of Jesus, that He is incalculable, the- -- is cert- -- to a certain extent true of these saints, too. They are the people who take us by surprise and say, -- we have to say, "I didn't know that this could be lived, or this could..."

[tape interruption]

...Word has become flesh. That is not a mystical or obscure statement, gentlemen. It's a very simple statement, a very -- like statistics, so sober. The Church consists or -- of those people who have made an unmistakable name for themselves outside the world of mere space, who have defied space. Whether they were monks, or whether they were ascetics, or whether they were martyrs, defying the Roman empire and thrown to the lions, they are all people, gentlemen, who in the worldly way of affairs, should not have lived. That's why they are called saints.

Now the step into the world in the second millennium, then, is a world -- is a step from a named universe into that which you call with such a nice term, the "natural world." You think that everything you see is -- can be reduced to natural law. It can be reduced to natural law; but to reduce, gentlemen, is also to kill. The world of space is a world of death. What the physicist deals with is a dead universe. Nature is then for this reason later than the conception of the Church, because what you and I call "physics," or "nature," or even "psychology," is a world whose members do not have to speak. It's a speechless universe. If you investigate the elements, the elements have no voice in the matter. They can't tell you that they want to be called "titanium," or -- "uranium." All the words which we use in natural science, gentlemen, are manmade. And the poor flowers and animals cannot say that "I don't be -- want to be called Fox. I want to be called Lion." You just -- they have to acquiesce in what we do to them. And the same is of true -- course true with people. When we -- I call you a schizophrenic or a man with an inferiority complex, you see, that sticks, whether you like it or not. It's a so-called scientific nomenclature. And the word "nomenclature" is perhaps a very useful term for you to see the limitations of nature. What is a nomenclature? You know this word? Who -- who has never heard it, "nomenclature"? So you know it. I thought it was rather rare.

Well, a nomenclature is a -- an index, a dictionary, a list of words in -- agreed-upon by scientists without appeal on the part of the things or people named. And you have acquiesced largely to this kind of type-forming. Anything that science can name, gentlemen, is only generic or typical. Nobody can in science ever understand something that is not -- cannot be compared with something else, and cannot be reduced to something else.

You are all caused, according to science, by genes, for example. Mr. Mendel and -- his followers, the geneticists, prove to us that somehow we are all already contained in the genes. Now I've always felt this rather -- was rather insulting. I thought I was a very original character. And I always thought that the love of my parents have sent me into the world, and there could be no reduc-

ing for the moment that they gave me my name.

And this is a constant bifurcation, or a constant freedom which you have. You can, when you move through this universe, gentlemen, always divide this universe into the people who say themselves what they have to say, and have to be listened to, because they say something about themselves and about the world which they've had to say--and nobody else can say in their place--on -- between those items, and things, and objects, which have no right to speak themselves.

My definition of the world, then is, gentlemen, of the natural world is the universe minus speech. It is the world treated as though it was speechless. You are quite satisfied when the people classify you, and typify you. However, there is one limitation which is very clear between the world of the Church and the world of the -- of -- mere space. The world of physics, which is the world of space, says, "Here is a thing, a piece of -- a magnet, and some iron -- files of iron. They move to each other, and then I can say how long it takes before the magnet has swallowed up all the iron, and gathered it around." The time in this -- in this experiment which it takes to move those particles of iron is subordinated to the space in which it moves. And you know that the physicists have gone so far to say that -- time is the fourth dimension of space. That's a superstition of nature, gentlemen.

You and I, obviously, come into this world with a certain lifetime; but the spaces which we fill, which we build, which we rent, the property which we acquire, the houses which we tear down or which we erect again, the movements towards the West--they are the projections of my lifetime into space. Never could you call my lifetime "the fourth dimension of space," of the space which I fill. While I'm standing here for one hour before you, gentlemen, my time fills this space. But it is absolutely senseless to say that my time, which I give you here, has anything to do with the space into which I go, and in which -- during -- in which we meet, and in which I speak.

And so you must begin to laugh, and laugh very heartily in order to save your own soul when you hear that time is the fourth dimension of space. It is only for those temporary processes, the fourth dimension of space, which are considered to be dead and mute. These files of iron, you see, we neglect what they have to say. Perhaps they have nothing to say. I -- I'm not {in} the secret of iron. And the botanist or the zoologist who watches the wanderings of the birds in cycles, and in their constant return--their going south and their going north--he neglects their perhaps not just being contained in space. He doesn't consider them as -- as elves, or angels, or devils, but he considers them a -- things.

And I warn you, gentlemen, there is today among students a tremendous habit to cons- -- to call everything "something," "a thing." Wherever you meet with the word "thing"--and I am afraid it is used now for God and people just as much and often as it is for -- for dead things. You treat me or you treat yourself as a part of that dead space, and you say, "This something"--you can also say "This somebody," because "body" is also a word that belongs into space--"This Mr. Somebody can be judged, he can be measured, he ta- -- takes up so much cubic feet in a housing development--44 square feet I think is now the norm for a three- -- three-people family--"I ne- -- neglect the real quality of this man or of this woman, or of this child, that they have their own time. I treat them as though they were contained in this thing-box, tin can" which you call "space," or which you call the "world of modern physics." It's the -- opposite way of approaching reality, gentlemen, from the Church -- the Church's way. And since it is only the opposite way, you must come to the rude awakening, I hope, that the -- treatment of reality as nature is always second-rate. It is always pure criticism of the opposite approach. Here is your own child; it's an angel. And then there is the juvenile delinquent from the neighbor. That's an object of your psychological thinking.

So any moment, you can change around and treat the same part of reality as part of yourself--even better than yourself, perhaps, when it is your friend, or your mother, or your brother--or you can treat the same as an object of your scientific thinking. When you lock such a person up in a lunatic asylum, you have given up hope that he's anything but -- more than a -- natural force, and you just put him in a strait-jacket so that he cannot blow up and cannot do -- shatter the whole environment.

So the -- your and my choice is between: What is space? and What is world? What is the reality in which people -- in which the particles or the members speak their own mind? And which is reality in which I try to predict the behavior of things, or of objects--it's another word, which is very common in your language.

If you would take a pad of -- a sheet of paper and write down carefully how often every day you use the word "thing," you will be frightened. You have in your behavior at the end of this millennium of worldly treatment of everything, you have reached an all-time limit of transforming the speaking, singing, moving, loving, and hating reality into a world which you contemplate as consisting of quantitative things. Things that are just -- can be weighed and measured. I want to bring you -- to your attention that this is your free decision, and I can prove this to you. After you have discovered that the whole world can be treated scientifically, you always still need somebody to whom you can shout this great discovery. You always need a listener. You always need somebody

with whom you can communicate. Now this somebody, this other scientist, you have to flatter him; you have to ask him to publish your article in his magazine; you have to treat him not only as a human being, but very often as a deity.

When the Ford Foundation decided to come into being with its hundred millions of dollars, I visited Harvard University. And there were 25 candidates for the doctor -- Ph.D. in history. And these 25 men had invited me to come down and speak to them. And the president, by the way, was a Dartmouth graduate, and a very nice man. He's now professor of history. And I first asked how many of them were interested in their doctor's thesis. There was only one out of 25 who liked what he was doing. He treated the whole thing just as a piece of factory work. So even history itself had become natural to him -- them. You can imagine wha- -- how good these theses were. They were just paper; they were just commodities to get a -- the degree.

But it was worse than this, gentlemen. The same 25 prosperous young men, half of them married, had sat down over the weeks before I came, and had asked themselves, "For what purpose will Mr. Ford give money? For this, he won't, probably"--they tried to guess, of course. They didn't know. And then they sat down and drew up a memorandum, which -- the gist of the matter was that they wanted, every one of them for three years a good salary, and then they would work out something that was pleasing to the Ford Foundation. Nothing to do with their own aim in life, nothing to do with their own interest in history, you see. Just something to please the powers that be.

Now the- -- these people, gentlemen, who took upon themselves to steal money from a foundation, under a false prete- -- false preten- -- pretenses, turned the world into hell. They treated people to whom you should speak in -- in trust and frankness, as -- sharing your own ideas, and your own convictions, as a -- as you would -- treat an automat -- machinery for cigarettes. Twenty-five you put in, and you get your cigarettes. They tried to put in the cigarettes and get the 25 cents instead. But it was just a -- a mach- -- mechanism in reverse order.

That's very far -- has gone very far in this country, gentlemen. But you must know that you do something by doing this. You are not adjusting to an environment. But you are transforming the living universe into a dead universe. I'm sure that in this Ford Foundation--they do -- doing some very fine things at this moment, by the way, especially in Europe--there were people to whom these boys could have opened their heart--if they had something in their heart--and said, "I dream of writing an -- history of America," or whatever it was, you see. "Would you help me?" But it -- obviously, you can only speak in frankness if some- -- there is something you have to say. Instead, these people tried to spell out something which the other people wanted to hear. In this very moment, the

other person ceases to be a person. It becomes just a machinery -- a mech- -- a calculable something, you see, where you know the levers and the springs, and then they will respond, because you try to learn how to cheat. This is very far gone, today. And the -- the terrible thing is that people do not know that they themselves take this step from nature -- from -- from the life of the world into the death of space. And then they say, "We live in such a world today that this has to be." They have never tried the other thing} They have never knocked at the door, asked so that it be opened. But they have always tried to assume that everything except they themselves is mechanic. That is, other people are vain, or stupid, or can be corrupted, or can be bribed, and the Ford Foundation can be taken in.

I'm no- -- perhaps you have to do these things, Sir. I'm not here judging you, gentlemen. I only wanted to point out that you do it. You yourself, and every one of us decides that the people to whom he speaks should be treated just like elements of nature, and should get what they expect to get. And so you treat them as objects. And so the poor Ford Foundation was just a mechanism. And the funny thing is that these 12 -- 25 historians had nothing to tell them. Because here was a -- something they treated as a dead mechanism. Then they tried to think something out to which this dead mechanism would react and respond. So there was no truth in the whole matter, no life in the whole thing. The whole thing was what we call a hoax.

You can play practical pranks, and you can play hoaxes on people. You must know that you are doing it. What I'm driving at is, gentlemen, that in fact, in every minute that I'm standing here, I have to decide whether I treat you as objects, or whether I treat you as comrades. And a comrade, or a listener, or a friend, or a student, or another man obviously is all the time somebody who is not on the side of nature, because he has as much the right to say something surprising as you are. He can answer you, "I don't believe you." And you can't have a nice conversation without somebody telling you that you -- he doesn't believe you, "Prove it to you -- me." And in this very moment, you have decided that this one person to whom you are treat -- speaking is not nature, that he's just as mysterious, and spontaneous, and unknown to himself as you are. Because when you open your mouth, you do not know how you are going to finish your sentence. It all depends on your power, that the potency of your own spirit at that moment -- how you will make out in the end. When I come into this class, I may have -- be a complete failure one day, and the other -- day, I carry it off. I don't know. It's complete risk.

A man who lives then through time and not in space, gentlemen, is all the time risking his -- his life to gain it again. And while we are speaking, gentlemen, we come -- become the people who have said that which we have said. I'm leav-

ing now, and obviously I am the man who has taught here for 22 years. That's all that will remem- -- be remembered of me. When I came here as a natural being, I already existed. But not as a man who would say these things. Because nobody, including myself, had any idea that I was going to say -- say these things. I have exploded my natural, spatial content, and I am now the man who has said all these things.

And again, the terrible thing is that I myself, in order to prove it to you, use now all the time this word "thing." "I am the man who said these things." Horrible. I haven't said these things. Nobody can speak things, you see. You shouldn't say, "I have said these things." I am also infected by this -- by this gravity-universe of death. I do not speak things, gentlemen. I speak sentences, don't I? And I speak -- say -- speak challenges. And I make decisions. I try, while I'm speaking, to make you realize the wall between life and death. I try to -- get you on the side of my living brothers. I don't succeed, I know. You treat me as an object for exploitation and cheating. But that is your fault, gentlemen; it's not mine. I have tried hard to avoid this. Yet one-half of you, as you well know, wants to polish the apple. Well, the expression is very eloquent. A man who listens to somebody with the intent of polishing the apple does exactly what these 25 historians did with the poor Ford Foundation. They prevented the Ford Foundation to function. If you polish the apple, you prevent me to function as your teacher. That is, you transform the world in which you happen to move into a big rubble -- rubbish heap. And that is what most human beings today feel they should do for -- caution and against -- because you don't want to stick your neck out, it is of course simpler to -- dwell on a rubbish heap.

To give a very poignant example, which illustrates the whole mentality of the last thousand years, with regard to the discovery and organization of the world as a speechless universe. I know so many men in our time who always speak of the blessed Copernicus, and say that this was a Copernican revolution, that we know now that we are only grains of dust, or of sand, on a speck called "the earth," and the earth is dead, and the -- dead earth turns around the dead sun, and the dead sun turns around something as -- that's dead again. Deader and deader, all the time.

Now it always strikes me that these monkeys, who boast that they are nothing but a grain of dust on the -- in the universe--you have heard this very often, and it is in books it is to be found, I mean--this great discovery of Mr. Copernicus, that we are absolutely nothing, it's quoted here left and right. It is also -- is so funny that people always boast of this. If they really were nothing, there would be no reason to boast of this knowledge. But they say that before, the Church had said that we were immortal children of God. And now, through natural science, we have reached the old-time -- all-time nadir, because we knew

we were absolutely nothing. We were transient. We were unimportant. We are just human beings. And it wasn't any reason to get excited, because in these thousands and millions of years of natural -- the natural order, who were we to raise our voice in despair or in joy? So don't get excited. Forget about it, the time will pass, and you will be cremated as everything else will be. So why not have the atomic bomb? It is better to finish the thing rather quickly.

I see not reason why these Copernican heroes do not invite the Third World War. It would just prove their point, that they were absolutely nothing, and that they were -- knows nothing.

The funny thing then that I wanted to point out is that all these people who try to transform the universe into nature and who say, "It is nothing but the world, the world of space around us," have left in their own heart this strange urge of boasting, and of inviting other people for admiring them, that they had shaken off any superstition that there might be more; obviously that is the flaw in their account, that they -- if you spend 70 years boasting that you are nothing, it seems that the boasting is quite a quantity in itself. And for being able to boast, you have to have somebody in front of whom you can boast. And that is the limitation of nature then, gentlemen, that even these proud, Promethean titans have to have somebody who listens to them, and admires them for what they have to say.

An atheist, gentlemen, has never existed, and can never exist for this reason, that he has to tell somebody that he is an atheist. An atheist who would not be able to formulate that he is an atheist, and couldn't write it down, or shout it over the telephone to his fianc‚e, so he can't go to Church because he won't--I mean, "No church wedding for me," you see--this man believes that there are souls in the universe who can understand and appreciate his emancipation, his audacity, his freedom. Without this, there would be no fun to be an atheist. You see, the whole fun of atheism is that you can boast of it. If you can't, there is no reason ever to develop any thought in the whole matter.

Now today in America, I feel, not so much in the rest, I think, of the western world--they are quite humble, the other nations--there is this strange gain from thousand years, that we live in one world, with the judgment of every member of this universe, of this -- every individual that we know how small this world is, how unimportant. And -- "Be objective," you say. Gentlemen, to be objective is a decision which is just as right and as wrong as to say, "I shall not be objective, but I shall sacrifice my love -- my life for the people I love. Both are decisions which you have to honor. But don't think that the decision that there is nothing to it is rational. It's a decision. No decision is ever rational. It's always voluntary. It is always a question of your power to love, or your power -- or your

impotency to love anything. A man who says, "Let the whole thing go to smithereens. Let's throw the bomb," just has decided, you see, that he's impotent. His mind has outrun, probably, his vitality. And he says that -- the mind won't get excited, and so he looks at the objective universe, objectively, and the -- so he says, "Let it go." He produces this famous rubbish heap of which I have spoken before. But never forget that he must say it. And he must say it.

Every word a human being says, gentlemen, presupposes the Church. The Church is as old as Adam. Christ founded the Church visibly and effectively, and He brought everybody -- gave everybody of us the -- power to join it, and thereby get a tremendous increase in power. But the Church is given with the human power to speak. And all the ancients, the tribes, and the empires, and Israel, and -- and the Greeks of course, had rudiments of this Church order, of an order in which men could make a name for themselves by what they said.

So the process of creation, gentlemen, is not changed by the Christian era. We have said -- spoken of this before. But I wanted to point out that while, in the last 900 years we have gone very far to objectify, to organize the speechless world, we always relied on the fact, for example, gentlemen, that all scientists had to trust each other, and could speak to each other, and could be -- have honor from each other. And that this whole boast about Mr. Copernicus' discovery is only meaningful because you come from a long pedigree of scientists, until it finally has reached you over television. You are the last and the least scientifically educated people, but you rely totally on heroes who have established this science through the centuries, and have suffered for it, and who are the martyrs of this science, and the bishops of your souls, of your minds in this respect. Otherwise, your whole boast, that you know, would be quite invalid. You don't know that the -- earth turns around the sun, yourself. You have no idea. It would never have dawned on you. You have inherited this faculty of dismissing the world at any moment into something that is not meaningful to you at this moment.

"If I have you," the Psalm says, you see, "what do I care for Heaven and earth?" Every human being has moments in which he knows that he can very well be at his best without the world. And that is the power with which man has organized the world, gentlemen, that you and I, in our highest moments, are not part of it.

It seems to -- that this has been forgotten today. As you know, these poor atomic scientists--I don't envy them--are now rediscovering this. Some of them went into monasteries. The others publish this organ in Chicago for the rescue of mankind. Mr. von Neumann became a Catholic on his deathbed, the man of the Atomic Energy Commission. Well, they make haste to emphasize that it -- with

some part of their -- that they do not belong into nature. I think it was very easy to know this all the time. Any human being knows that he -- his better part is not natural, because he can say something that has not -- nobody has ever said before. You're always free to forgive, or to be rancorous. You can always go to court for your property, or you can let it go at that and can give the man what he wants to have, without any right to it. You're always free.

This is then, gentlemen, not only bound with the opposition of the first thousand years of our era, when man became -- when God became man, and man therefore incalculable, and the history of the world revolutions of the next thousand years, but it has always existed. And only in the Christian era, gentlemen, everything is more extreme. The tribes spoke--don't you remember, you see?--they spoke. But inside the tribe, they could only speak this one language. The Bible has been translated into 1,018 languages, which means that the Church has opened all the languages of the tribes to each other. And therefore, we know a little more about speech. We are conscious of pe- -- speech. The tribesmen spoke, but they had not yet realized that by speaking to each other, they already invited a -- a whole humanity, that the -- the smallest tribe was already the earnest of -- once, all men speaking to each other.

Now the same is now true of the world. If -- if you want to understand what the last 900 years have really done, don't think that they have invented the objective treatment of the universe. Only they have put it to an extreme. Just as the Bible and the Church now have translated -- been translated into more -- over 1,000 languages, so, as you know, this, what we call nature, has broken down all separate worlds. The real story of the last 900 years, in other words, is not what you think, that we have all just fallen into the world, and -- say "Nothing else exists, we are all things, we are all objects, we all are speechless, we all can be measured," that's a {view} for children. What has really happened is something much more fruitful, gentlemen. The many worlds of antiquity must become one world. And you sp- - -take this for granted too easily, gentlemen.

I just ran into a -- book, yesterday, about a -- published in the middle of the 19th century, on German literature. And it -- the periods given there was: "Before the World War," and "After the World War." Now mind you, it was published in 1850. Now, what did they mean? They meant the world war, the Napoleonic wars. And they used the term "world war" for a phase 150 years before us. And they already felt that this was a world at war, in 1815, you see, which made peace. And in the -- the -- the title page of these six volumes reads always, "From the World War to the world peace," and the peace of Vienna -- at the Congress of Vienna was called the World Peace of 1815.

So even at that -- 120 years ago, gentlemen, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams

would have called -- the wor- -- quite naively "the world" their little world of the western -- of western men. Today we are a little more {critical}. But again, gentlemen, when we speak of world war and world revolution, we have not yet taken in the other planets. It's only the globe. We should be very careful and say it was a global w- -- war. But we don't say this. We say, "It is a world war," because even we still live -- call one part of the universe the "world." But we know already that the other parts of the world one day might have to come in. You remember I said last time: the world unknown and known, that's the world.

The word "world war," shoots too far, is a projection of your desire to organize as much of reality as you possibly can embrace and comprehend. But it is always what you call "the world" smaller than God's world.

Now in 900, in 1000, in 1100, when the pope set out to organize the Christian world, and to protect all the bishops therein, the world was still smaller. And not only that, gentlemen, there were, as you well know in the year 1100, worlds within worlds. The Hindus to this day, in their {vedetta} philosophy assume that there are many worlds. As wheels within wheels, so worlds within worlds. The very idea, gentlemen, that the world is one, with one natural law, is a creation of the last 900 years. Before, people actually believed that the various worlds had also various natural laws. Worldly behavior. Gravity was not assumed to be a through-going thing, but they dreamt obviously--just think of Gulliver -- of -- of Swift's Gulliver--they thought of worlds in which people could walk on their heads--the Antipodes, for example--or in which apples would not fall down to earth, but would fly right into Heaven. The contradictions of many worlds did not face people in antiquity. Nobody thought that the laws of the universe were applicable everywhere. It is we who have gone to the extreme and have proved to our own satisfaction that certain laws apply to every thing in the universe.

So the unification of all worlds into one world, gentlemen, that is the real achievement of the last 900 years. Something that's always overlooked in your textbooks. People today are so proud of this unity, that they take this for granted. Yet that's the whole story.

The story then of the last 900 years was that the Chinese emperor could not longer say that he was in the center of the universe. Because -- what is the world today, gentlemen? It's a globe without a center. Isn't that it? What we call "the world," gentlemen, is so dead that it has no center. You can begin -- counting and measuring the world any place. No one place has any privilege over any other place. Space is without values. Localities have no privileges. "There are no sacred cows in Boston." That's a very good saying. It expresses this fact of the desecration of empires. And we come therefore, to the simple conclusion, gentlemen, that what in antiquity was called "the empire," today has become one

corporate world.

If you want to understand what we mean by nature, or what by -- { } nature, "world," there must gleam, there must lighten up in your consciousness the fact that the unification of empires is that which we today call the "world," of spaces, of separate, limited walled-in parts of the universe--they have been made one. And that is a great story. The Normans have taken part in it. The -- the -- Christoph Columbus and Magellan have done this. Why were they such tremendous people? If you read the -- the jour- -- the travels of Columbus, or of Magellans, or of Vasco da Gama, it is fantastic what these people did in courage and in boldness, because they felt that the globe was their world, and not any limited boundaries of religious or political impact. World out of worlds then is the story of the last 900 years.

And I must insist, gentlemen, that the plural that preceded the one world, makes it only so emphatic that Mr. Willkie -- Wendell Willkie in 1914 published his book, One World. The -- title shows you that he felt--you have heard of this book?--that this was a discovery, that there -- definitely and for all practical purposes there now had to be one space, one world. And so we fly across the northern pole now, from Denmark to San Francisco, omitting the whole eastern seaboard.

If you really treat the world as one world, gentlemen, then there is no capital of this world. In the League of Nations, there is hung up the map which I first published in 1938 in my book, Out of Revolution. It is the map in which the two poles are in the middle of the ellipse. And all the land -- masses of land are flung around these poles in order to avoid any privilege for any country. And the American problem today is to be faithful to this fact that there is no local -- locality privilege, you see, that there is no Boston as "Hub of the Universe." There is no hub of the universe, you see, of the world without speech. It's just one big mass which can be organized in many different ways for different purposes. For purposes of metal, and for purposes of oil, and for purposes of traffic, and for purposes of -- of agriculture, you will have to organize this globe in many different ways, regardless of -- regardless of boundaries, I suppose.

When my son was little, he -- he was asked how he would divide the world up, by a friend of ours. And he said he would -- put a checkerboard, so that every country in Europe would have some colonial territory connected with it. And that shows you the wisdom of a -- really approach to space in a united fashion. Your idea, gentlemen, of a 54th degree of latitude, and a 38th degree of latitude is criminal, because that's a desperate attempt to look politics into geography. And geography into politics. And you know how many people have been killed in Korea for this per- -- pernicious theory. It's a scandal. We talked about

this, I think, before, didn't we?

I have to come back to this to see that space is without values, because it is without names. It is with -- it is reduced to space, and that means it is reduced to things; and things are dead, because they cannot surprise us by saying something we didn't know they could say.

A living being reveals something that we haven't known before. You can treat any flower and any animal--take your pet dog. He's alive as long as you expect him to realize that you are leaving the house, and that he may be saddened by this fact. Then you treat him -- as a -- very -- as a next-of-kin, as your pet, because he does something, you see, that is not calculable. He responds to something that's happening now.

Ja.

[tape interruption]

...now on see the world, this term within context. Everyone who speaks of the world always takes himself and his friends out of it. They judge the world. They speak about the world. They discover the world. They change the world. They also may succumb to the world. But gentlemen, without people who know that they are in the world, and thereby are not really themselves world, the whole term "world" in our time makes not -- no sense. What we call "the scientific discovery of the world" is based on the assumption that the -- through all ages, the friends of science form one big fellowship. You may say, gentlemen, that the modern organized sciences are one branch of the Church. The charters -- the delegates of Christianity, sent out to discover how far we can go when we treat our environment as dead, that is the branch of the Church. And in other words, gentlemen, the whole discovery of nature was possible after every human being had been assured that he would not be treated as world himself. What we hear today of human rights, and what frightens these atomic physicists suddenly so much--or drives them crazy--is the fact that they have never given any thought to the guarantees under which the scientific campaign to unify the world into one world could only be -- be successfully led.

To give you a very practical example, gentlemen. When in the 17th century arsenic was discovered as a very poignant poison -- also something that gives red cheek to young ladies when taken in -- in moderation--you know arsenic, a very powerful medicine--at first the cases of murder by poison in Par- -- the city of Paris abounded. There is a whole literature of novels written on this terror that was struck on -- in the hearts of people who feared that some doctor might prescribe suddenly arsenic and kill them. And they were killed. There's no

joke about it.

Gentlemen, science is only permissible today--that is the crisis of the atomic bomb, as you know, between Russia and us--if it is available to everybody. The difference, gentlemen, between knowledge of the old order in many worlds, private knowledge of individuals or nations, and modern science is that science is totally Christian. You can only know something in science if you are ready to let everybody else know this, too. That's never mentioned, gentlemen, but it is a condition of science. Science breaks down as science, and it becomes a curse, and it becomes a profligate abuse if Mr. Eisenhower can -- can keep the knowledge of, for example, of the atom bomb away from -- from people he thinks may be our potential enemies. They may also be our potential allies, by the way, tomorrow. You never can tell. As you know, politics makes strange bedfellows. And we did vote with Russia against England and France some months ago in the League of Nations -- in the United Nations.

So science is catholic. And that is its inheritance from the Church. The scientists speak to each other, all over the world, one language. And in this sense, gentlemen, there is no English and no French anymore, and no American, not even Americanese, because scientists all over the world speak one language. They are only allowed to know if they know for all men. That's of course their Christian background, their Christian heritage. And as soon as you destroy this catholicity of science, gentlemen, you have no science. You have superstition. You have witchcraft. You have murder. You have anything.

This -- example of arsenic is repeated today with the secret of the processes that -- of nuclear fission. You can keep weapons in secrecy, but you cannot keep in secrecy fundamental processes of nature. If you do this, you deserve to be destroyed. And you will be destroyed. It's -- not only immoral, it goes against the essence of your humanity. And I'm afraid to say, in this country this is not understood, because this country is -- hasn't had this background of dignity and worship of pure science. It has only had technicians and applied science, "technology" as you call it. That's -- isn't good enough for a human character. You must always think that the sciences -- fruits of science which you today reap are the harvest of a seed sown over centuries of completely worthless investigation. If people hadn't, for 4-, 5-, 600 years by now--since the days of Ab‚lard, and Roger Bacon, and -- and Albertus Magnus--studied the movement of the stars, or the laws of gravity or what-not, without any monetary reward, without any electric light resulting from it, or any machinery, you wouldn't be able here to drive your Cadillacs at 325 horsepowers, and speed limit of 50 miles.

You wouldn't. Yet you take this for granted, gentlemen. You think science is what I know today. May I draw your attention to the fact that science is what

all people together have come to know, and which for this reason now may be applied at this moment. You don't see this background, and therefore you underrate the -- the march of science in favor of its momentary products. And that's why I'm so frightened over the prognostication of this country, gentlemen. It has every right to expect to be wiped from the surface of the globe, because it thinks that it has this knowledge to itself. The world is one. That's the content of the Gospel of the last thousand years. And that has very strict disciplinary consequences. Everything known must be known by everybody -- or ma- -- at least be made accessible to everybody.

The famous example, by the way, in which the Americans play a very beautiful role is the story of the automobile, and the -- and the horn. An American invented a beautiful melody -- melodious horn. And he wanted to sell it in Europe. And he went to the German emperor, first, who had just his first car. And he offered him this ta-tee-ta-ta horn. And the emperor was very much taken by it, and he bought it right away. And then he telephoned the -- president of police in Berlin and said, "Nobody else is allowed to blow the same horn."

And here was my American inventor, and he had invented it for nothing. He had of course inspec- -- expected a tremendous market of horns in Germany, you see.

And the emperor was still of a feudal -- of the old feudal order and he said, "What I have, nobody else must have."

That's a -- quite a -- there you have a clash of ages, gentlemen. And at that time the Americans stood for the scientific principle that what one man has, everybody can have. You cannot monopolize a horn, and you cannot monopolize a telephone. When -- once you have a telephone, the road is open, you see, to everybody having a telephone. At least a party line.

That's a very interesting -- principle of technology of which I have to speak here, because it is the outcome of the last thousand years, gentlemen. Any invention made, in the long run must become accessible to everybody. You take this for granted, but it isn't to be taken for granted. Many centuries, thousands of years before, only kings or popes could have certain things. The art of writing was restricted to the -- to the priests, for example, wasn't it, you see? Many things were kept secret. If you today invent a technological inven- --take television and so--the whole problem in this country is mass production. Before, it hasn't been invented, so to speak. You make an invention, you even immediately--perhaps too rash--think, "How can we let everybody participate in it? Now this is a good dogma of yours, gentlemen. You must know it's a Christian dogma. A Christian dogma says that the world is the Lord's and everything in it. And since it is the

Lord's, no sacred cows.

If you only would know how much you are Christians, when you are scientists, and engineers, and physicists, you would not look for your dogmatic bull sessions so much for discussing the facts of the -- Christian era, gentlemen. You all are Christians if you believe that a technological invention in the last analysis has to benefit everybody. That's Christian. And it is certainly never before -- has never before stated. Never has the emperor of China thought that a non-Chinese should be allowed to ba- -- to -- to produce tea or rice. To hell with them! That was the monopoly.

And this is, I think, the only way in which you perhaps can understand the unity of our era when you see that in the -- second thousand years, the revolutions of the world have applied the principles of Christianity to this speechless nature. You all treat nature today as belonging to all men. Any public park, any picnic place, anything that's done on -- public funds today is accessible to everybody. Where it isn't, there is something utterly wrong. And already death knocks at the door of any such privile- -- privileged group, or caste, or whatever it is.

The goods of this world can only be administered, you see, as though they were already one. And we aren't at the end of it. That's why the wealth of this country is such a curse at this moment. We haven't found out -- found -- not yet found a way of letting the others participate. Gentlemen, you cannot have 42 percent of the telephones of the whole world--and I don't know how many -- what percentage of cars -- what is the percentage in the world production of cars?--without fearing the direst -- retribution if we do not make sure that very soon everybody on the globe can drive a car? Don't you feel this? This -- this is impossible to just sit back and say, "Well, this is just such a rich country, and we won't notice it," so to speak. They will notice it. And they'll do something about it. And that's why this -- you see, the terrible thing about this foreign aid program, was the name, "foreign aid program."

The world, gentlemen, can only be dealt with by solidarity. The translation of the word "charity" with regard to nature is "solidarity." "Solidarity" is a secular term. And it is applicable -- you know the soli- -- the socialists keep it -- speak of it all the time for the labor class. It's a very important word, gentlemen. The treasures of the world can only be dealt with in solidarity. What is solidarity? It's an old Latin phrase, "{Omnes in solidum}," that we are all liable together. It is like the famous phrase of the Revolution War, that if we do not hang together, we'll all hang singly.

With regard to the treasures of the world, gentlemen, the outcome of the

last 900 years is these mene tekel -- this memo -- this mem- -- landmark, this -- you may say, "this -- this ghost," also, that--or "this reminder"--that unless the world is one, you see, for all men, with regard to its natural resources, we are lost. We can -- knowledge is something that is by all, for all, and with all. And you can change the Gettysburg Address, gentlemen. In this sense, it isn't democracy that is by the people and for the people. It is the earth. And we haven't seen yet the end of this at all.

And the so-called world wars put this question very stringently. There can be no peace without settling the problem of the raw materials of this globe. It cannot be. Look at the Russian submarines. They'll destroy us very soon. They are far superior to anything we have. Just the submarines. Because they will cut off the flow of oil; they will cut off all the interplay. Our -- domination of the oceans looks very, very poor in practice at this moment. Perhaps you may cure it by planes. May be. But the whole problem of the next century is the unity, gentlemen, of the administration of the world in -- that is only dead matter. I do not mean people. I do not mean that we have to have One World state. I am far from this. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that what we know about the things of this earth must be common knowledge.

This country has been very generous. It has never kept its secrets from visitors, from the -- parts of the world. But there has been, between your grandfathers and you a terrible change in temperament. And I think you are very much inclined to now get stuck in a kind of American fetishism, and to think what Americans have, they must keep for themselves.

With regard to technological progress, that's impossible, I'm sorry to say. It is inherent in the way this world came together as one world, you see, that every step taken was a step for all and by all.

And you -- if you read history of science, gentlemen, you can't get enough of this. That is the story of the saints of the last 900 years. The saints of the last 900 years are these disciplined people--like Copernicus, or also Columbus, in his own way--who discovered not for themselves. The man who discovered arsenic to kill other people was a -- a sorcerer, you see, and he had to be executed in Paris, obviously. But a doctor who discovers penicillin, you see, the condition of penicillin is that you cannot even reserve it to the Americans. It was flown -- I myself sent a pack -- package of penicillin to Germany at a time when we were still not on -- fra- -- allowed to fraternize with the enemy. But there was somebody was sick, and we sent it across, because penicillin is universal. You cannot withhold it. If you have the medicine, you have to make sure that everybody has the medicine. You take this -- all this for granted, gentlemen, but mind you, it isn't to be taken for granted, because it is an act of faith. Your suspicion

can come to pass -- well, you see one day { } that penicillin mustn't be given to Russians. Very unthinkable.

Then we are out of luck. Then we have annih- -- we negate the -- the Christian era, because the achievement of the second millennium is the application of Christian principles to nature, always with changing the term, where the Church creates the charity between people who say to each other, "brother," we treat nature as one all over the globe, although they can't say anything to us, we think. But we do inflict on them this solidarity, and this unity, and this functionality. That's why we now- -- live in an era, as you know, the architects call it "functionalism." What is functionalism, gentlemen? Every one thing may take the place of everything else if it serves the necessary purpose. You see, nobody -- nothing is allowed to stay outside this tremendous machinery of provision, and of feeding, and of functioning.

The word "functioning" is better than -- than "mechanism" of course, and "mechanizing." Mechanizing is -- and organizing are a means of making the whole thing function so that all the material parts of the natural order, gentlemen, serve one common purpose.

This throws light now, I think, backward. And that's why I developed it at some length, because you are experts in this matter. Everyone living in 1957 knows all about the material world, knows all about technology, but you must compare it; you must see the connections under which it was developed {in history}. Also I must now in the next week -- the remaining time develop why can't -- why a new principle has to come about and supplement it. We have this world, by and large, with some flaws, certainly--and with the atomic bomb still a little bit of a secret, although not so very much--but on the whole you may say that the world has become one out of many worlds. The Hindu view of the brothers of Mr. Nehru, that man and world are separated in eternal castes, and eternal divisions, and there are many worlds seems to us rather laughable. The Hindus were the last to hold out this anti-scientific view.

If we now look back to the first thousand years of the Church, gentlemen, then you can see that what the saints did, beginning with Jesus, and ending in All Saints Day, on November 1st, 1850 -- -35, when this was first celebrated in the West, is that they have replaced the many gods of antiquity by one God. The action of the Church is not simply this -- simple phrase, "God became man." But you must see that before Christ came into the world, there were innumerable gods. There were the Olympic gods, and there were the Germanic gods, and there were the Celtic gods, and there was Mithras, and -- {Ariman}, and -- {Almuths}, et cetera. And -- not to -- not to speak of the Hindu gods. That's the weirdest pantheon of it all.

Gentlemen, what does it mean to say that God replaces all the gods? The gods are not nothing. The Old Testament always says that God is the God of gods. There are many gods. It is one of the impoverishments, gentlemen, of your imagination that you laugh the gods out of court, and therefore you cannot understand God. If God hadn't triumphed over gods, He was -- wouldn't be God. If the world in which we live hadn't triumphed over many worlds, it wouldn't be worthwhile talking about the world. That is such a big item. The world, I have tried to prove to you, had to be -- forced upon people who lived in separate worlds by the revolutionaries of the last thousand years, which you call explorers, or scientists, or what-not. The saints, gentlemen, have forced one God upon the many gods, and their tribes, and their -- and their churches, and their -- and their religionists by what means, gentlemen?

If God is just an idea, as you think, perhaps -- good idea, then there wa- -- would be no God. God is not an idea. God is not a construction of your mind. That's ridiculous. An idea of your mind is not valid. And of my mind, it is not valid, either. But the gods which the people worshiped for thousands of years on this earth -- they are, of course, real. The Old Testament calls them "elohim." And as you know, the Bible has three names for God, "elohim," "{chadai}," and "Jahweh." And the story of the Old Testament is that the Jews ac- -- recognize--in the plural, elohim--the one who is always there, Jahweh. And it's the identity of the Jahweh with the elohim of all the other nations, which is the gist of the experience of Israel, that he who is to come, is the same God as He who created all these tribes -- tribal spirits and all these imperial pantheons.

The saints, gentlemen, reveal the different -- the variety, the wealth of God. Without the saints, God would be a very monotonous idea, indeed. But every -- Christ is a god that has come into the flesh. We know who God is only now since He came. But that is true of every saint, gentlemen, that He reveals a particle of the mantle of the divinity. That's why you have to know the saints. That's why it's terrible if you have nobody -- no hero to whom you look up, whether it's Fridtjof Nansen, or whether it's Christoph Columbus, or whether it's John Quincy Adams, or whether it is Tho- -- St. Thomas, it makes no difference, gentlemen. A man who has not seen the divinity in humanity is ignorant of God. If you think that you can think out God, you don't know what God is, because God is the creator of the real world. He is not the maker of ideas -- of your bubbles in your own mind. What you can reflect upon is not God. But the thousands of saints, gentlemen, who have changed the -- the face of the globe, and the thousands of revolutionaries, they are incarnations of God. Very partial, to be sure. But they are. That's what we mean by the Christian era, that now God has ceased to be an idea, or an ab- -- or a construction, or a theology, and He has taken on flesh.

And so the story of the first thousand years--I wanted to say this, gentlemen, with -- rather emphasis--is the story how, out of many gods, there comes one God. What's the difference, gentlemen, between a Christian saint and a genius in antiquity? That the genius in antiquity stands on his own, on his own worth, on his own reputation, that he's himself, like men -- most people in the worldly world of today, on Broadway. They are themselves, and they say so. They are Greeks. The saint is a man who says, "I'm only a particle in a big body. I'm one out of this rev- -- total revelation of the whole divinity. That's the whole difference. Otherwise, gentlemen, saints are just as disagreeable as geniuses. They are both very disagreeable people. But the saint admits that he is one in an order, in a higher harmony, and the genius doesn't.

That's why the history of the Ch- -- saints of the Church is the same as the transformation of the many gods into God. We would not believe in monotheism if the discipline of the saints hadn't put before us the wealth of God, the welter of -- many appearances in this incredible multitude of saints, in this "cloud of witnesses," as it is called in the Bible. We do not believe, gentlemen, in western world, in -- in God as a ge- -- a triangle, or as a square, or as a circle in any such abstractions. Most of you, I always think, are in this great danger of thinking that God is a kind of a point somewhere. That's the first mover of Mr. Aristotle. That's a Greek concept. Has nothing to do with the living God. The living God is endless, fruitful, surprising, and you can't imagine Him in His wealth. And He's everywhere where a new name has to be said. Whether it's a new forget-me-not, or a new tulip, or a rose, or a new mammal, or a new human being. Where there is creation, there is God. And where is creation, gentlemen? Where you are forced not to reduce a man to what other people have been before Him, but to admit that this is a new man, or a new creation -- a new country, for example.

When the United States formulated their Declaration of Independence, gentlemen, they forced--by their "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" upon the other peoples of the world--the name "the United States of America." In that moment, the United States of America were born. Because under very great pain, even the British at -- for -- after a while had to admit that from now on, they would have to have an ambassador in Ca- -- in Washington. You can imagine what it cost them to admit that. When you can force other people to give you your own name, then you are born. When you are born in this manner of -- getting your own name, you are a divine creation.

So the Americans should know something about the expansion of the revelation of God. Because the United States only 170 years ago didn't exist. And then they suddenly did exist. But not as a -- as a brutal entity, but as an entity to which other people had to send messengers, to whom they had to speak, whom they had to invite into the concerts of nations.

And we come here now, to the step by which I try to prepare the next meeting, gentlemen. The world in which we live today has ceased to be a world of separate empires, of emperors of China and emperors of Turkey, emperors of Russia, and emperors of Germany, and emperors of Austria, emperors of France, emperors of Brazil--you must think all these emperors have existed a short while ago. Even an emperor of Mexico. Now who is the Emperor Jones? Is that also --? Who is he?

(Character from a { }.)

Who?

({ }.)

Where does it take place? { }?

(An opera on Haiti.)

{ }. Just next door. Haiti. Well, { }. America has many empires. Brazil, very good empire. Haiti, Mexico.

So gentlemen, our modern world in your imagination is peopled by nations. What you really mean by "world" is the globe. And yet you really assume to your great dismay, gentlemen--and to your great damage, by the way--is that automatically this globe can be sliced up today into nations. That's why you speak of "United Nations."

Now gentlemen, you come to the Near East, and what is the whole dilemma of the Near Eastern question? Why can't Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles solve it? Because they have -- blind eyes for the reality that part of the globe does not -- is not peopled by nations. The Arabs are no nations. It's ridiculous. The Egyptians are not a nation. They aren't. And Mr. Ibn Saud is not a nation. He's a slave-holder. And -- what -- what else? You can give him many names. But certainly he is not a -- he -- doesn't govern a nation. But you treat him like that, because you have a superstition in your mind that by some mystical process, the western nations who became Christians have been imitated by everybody else on the globe, so that every political entity within this world must be called a nation.

This is why the Near Eastern question at this moment is absolutely insoluble, because part of the globe is not yet peopled by civilized nations. Every rule of the League of Nations, or the United Nations is only applicable, gentlemen, to civilized nations. What are civilized nations? Very important, gentlemen. A civ-

ilized nation is the remnant of the first thousand years of the -- Church history within the world history of the second. You only have nations there, where the process of Christianization has taken place. Why? Because a civilized nation, gentlemen, is a nation in which, in some form or other, pope and emperor, or Church and state have divided, and have therefore set free the intelligence of the people within this nation. A nation is a process of dialogue, of conversation between husband and wife, between state and Church, between university and industry. Something has to go on, within such a nation, of constant change. Otherwise there is no civilized nation. That's why the Near East is no civilized nation. There is no such conversation. Mr. Nasser is everything. And there is nothing else. Cairo is just a hotbed of superstition, and dirt, and debts. There is no such fight between two principles.

The Church has, in our era, gentlemen, planted into mankind this power that in every moment, every one of you has to decide whether he lives in antiquity or in the Christian era. The form that has taken in our -- in our civilized world today is very simple, that not every power in this country can be derived from the state. We have private schools; here, Dartmouth. That's the Church. You may know it or not, gentlemen, but Dartmouth is only important as long as it is not identifiable with the state department, or with the Department of Commerce, or with the powers that be in Washington. If I cannot speak the truth against Washington, out goes the liberal arts college, doesn't it? I must be able to criticize it, as though I was here, you see, in an island, within the nation. All the private schools in America, gentlemen, are today the remnants of the churches. And they -- we are the only ecclesiastical power left. The so-called low churches, I mean, for the people have very little to say -- in -- compared to what we could say if we wanted to. That's the difference between a state university --. In -- in Wisconsin you cannot say that margarine is as good as butter, or you are fired from the university. But in Dartmouth I can even say that butter is better than margarine, if I want.

Now I mean it, gentlemen. A civilized nation has a clear heritage of the first thousand years of the Church, because there are -- must be in a civilized nation institutions that have survived the powers of the day. Otherwise you can't have science. Science is always based on a challenge to the ruling opinion of the times. Otherwise you can't have scientific progress. If I cannot say that cancer is treated wrongly today, I cannot make headway in the treatment of cancer for tomorrow. Isn't that obvious? But gentlemen, you can't say this in Egypt. In Egypt, everything is still sacred. Everything that is today done by the government is right, and everything that's not done by the government is wrong. That's in every dictatorship, so. A dictator cannot be fallible. He cannot make mistakes. He cannot be challenged.

So you don't know what you have gotten into with this Near Eastern problem, gentlemen. You try to treat Mr. Nasser as a statesman. He doesn't even know what that is. A statesman is somebody who is not a churchman. State is dependent on the dialectics to Church, you see. For a Moslem, this condition has never existed. It just didn't exist. That's why you can't negotiate with this man. And it's all foolish what you read in the -- . In the papers today it's in -- a desperate attempt of America to refute the insight of all Europeans, and all missionaries, and every Christian in the world that the Moslem people do not live in nations. They do not. And to give them the vote in the United Nations is destroying the United Nations. It's not educating them to anything. That's what we are -- are doing now. It's -- terrible.

Because here we come now to the point of points, gentlemen. The connection, the hinge between the first millennium and the second millennium is the word "nation." You may not know that you are Christian, personally. You may not be. You may be Jewish, you may be Free Mason, you may be an atheist, whatever you like. You may even be a Communist, since you live in a civilized nation, however, in France, or in America, or in Portugal even, or in Sweden, you see, you belong to an order of society in which you are perfectly accustomed that there is a distinction between what literature says, and science says, and the government says, and the Church says. And because of this polyphony, of this conversation within a nation, the nation is constantly siding between the preChristian elements and the Christian elements within itself. It is like a constant--how would you call it? flapping doors, so to speak--between the -- the pagan element in a nation and the Christian element. The Christian element: trying to reconcile, to unify. The pagan element: to sit back on your fannies and to play isolationist.

Paganism and Christianity, gentlemen, are mixed in all civilized nations, but not in the Near East, gentlemen. -- Not in China. The Indonesians are in the turmoil. The -- they haven't found yet how they can become civilized. The Dutch have left quite -- a very good heritage. And since we overlook this necessity, gentlemen, that the world of which you speak so glibly is a world peopled by nations, we have been hasty. We have dismissed--for example, are we in a civilized nation, gentlemen? Or are the French in Morocco? You say the French in Algier are brutal and we are civilized. Why? Because we have killed all the red Indians. They have let them live. The Algerians are very much alive, gentlemen. Our red Indians are not. Now is this so very meritorious on our part? Are we so much civilized because we have simply not found a way of making the -- the people who lived here before us stay, and develop? We have put them in -- some little, tiny reservations, the few that are left.

What time?

(Seven to 3.)

I'm sorry.