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

I was asked at the end of the last meeting a pertinent question. One of you did not follow the argument that as late as 1946, when Henry Ford, Jr., got married to a -- a devout Catholic, Henry Ford, Sr., felt provoked to join right away in protest the 33rd degree of Masonry in -- in Detroit. And others grasped the importance right away, that perhaps I have to say one more word about the significance, since some of you didn't seem to see that there is a connection between the important role played -- as it played by the Grand -- by the lodges, with Benjamin Franklin presiding in Paris, and this reaction of Mr. Henry Ford 150 years later to his grandson turning Catholic. But there is.

The 33rd degree of Masonry is not a part of the original Mason usage. It was developed mostly here in this country. We have here a number of rites -- the cryptic rites--the Scottish Rite is the most popular--and there you have the 33degree Masons. That is, on top of the three obvious degrees of apprentice, fellow, and master--which simply goes with the building trade, you see, of old, and which imitates masons in the true sense of the word, just the trade of masonry, you see, of the contractors' business, the building trade--there was then built up a whole edifice of 30 more degrees. And if you were a grand master of a -- in -- one of the 33rd degree, you, so to speak, embody Free Masonry and its ideas.

Now the ideas of Free Masonry exactly as we would expect it, with the stars, and with the pyramid on the dollar note, a generalization of the Christian and the Old Testament news: God is the architect of the universe; man doesn't need any specific revelation, although he recognizes--this is the paradox--that the Bible should be in every lodge as an open book.

In the time of the French Revolution, there occurred a split in Paris headquarters, and we have now--in -- in France and in many parts of Europe, especially the Roman -- countries, which suffered from the monolithic character of the Roman Church in -- those centuries--we have the Grand Orient de France, and its allied lodges, who do not pretend that there is an architect of the universe and who are frankly atheistic. But the American lodges have broken all affiliations with the Grand Orient. And at the time of the American Revolution, the question was, so to speak, undecided. There were obviously at that time, members in the Free Masonry of France, who were devout {aleists}, and others who were less devout Christians.

Today the -- the line is very sharply drawn. The English, Scotch, and Irish lodges have declined any- -- have anything to do with the atheistic lodges of France. And so we really have two Masonries. The -- American lodges belonged

on this moment again, so to speak, on the Anglo-Saxon side. And the atheism -- or the -- you must even say the militant fight against the organized Church of Rome, has not found any echo here in the hearts of Americans. And therefore if you talk today about Free Masonry, you are easily misunderstood, because some people may think that you are talking of a decided enemy -- enmity to the Church. This explains why there is so much confusion in -- in the -- a public debate on Free Masonry. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Masons were both Number -- Enemy Number 1 and 2. That is hard to understand, because for 150 years, Rome and the Free Masons had been at loggerheads, you see. And they called each other Enemy 1 and 2. The Nazis, you see, just engulfed everything and said, "One is as bad as the other."

Since there is such confusion, I thought I should mention these little--or not little, but magnifying--points. There has been a development in -- of the Free Masonry of Europe after the independence of the United States, which has left the United States more or less untouched. The direction of the French Masonry, and this I think sets it off against the proper American evolution, has been to take care of the independence of nations everywhere of Europe. The Free Masonry of Europe is largely responsible for the founding of Italy, Germany, and other countries--Yugoslavia--as independent and separate nations--Poland--and has played a great role in this sense as a meeting ground of the intelligentsia of these nations outside their own country in a friendly and hospitable atmosphere. At this moment, this function of the lodge is no longer present.

I was in Yugoslavia last year where I realized that the function has been taken over by other forms of propaganda, of nationalistic preparation.

I met a boy from Paris who was an Algerian, and he was with Mr. Tito's students. And he was invited first to Yugoslavia, then to Czechoslovakia, then to Hungary to spend there some months, because he was -- was in hiding from the French authorities at that time. Also his -- parents live in Paris. All very confused and very mixed.

This boy said to me, "Here I have found my brothers," and he had tears in his eyes. And I knew that he had found his lodge, his Free Masonry, you see, as of today. And this is no longer in the form of Free Mason lodges, you see, but it is another kind of hospitality given by these organized, political youth groups, you see: National Youth of Czechoslovakia, Communist Youth of Yugoslavia, however these groups are called. And the great distinction of course today is that the lodges of the Free Masonry are secret societies, whereas now this has been given over, after much study of propaganda techniques, to an open and avowed formation of propaganda companies, and camps, and institutions, as you have in

all these Communist countries.

The secret character of the Free Masonry deserves a little attention, because something of this secrecy has been siphoned off into many other forms of American life. Secret socie- -- the secrecy of the Free Masons is perhaps one-half of their story. And again, the secrecy has an Anglo-Saxon, and a continental significance or perhaps even root. In England, the secrecy was not necessary. The secrecy was liked, which isn't quite the same. The English like privacy. They like the secrets of the club. They right -- like the secrets of parliamentary procedure in the House of Commons. And you cannot say of the secrets in English society that they are to be compared with the religious secrets, or the arcana, the -- secrets of a secret police, or of the Jesuit order, or of the canon of the Mass, which in the Latin language to this day is called the "arcana"--that is, the -- the secrets which cannot be divulged to the profane.

English Free Masonry is secret, but not secretive. It was the opposite, however, on the continent of Europe. The op- -- on the continent of Europe, the secret was necessary because the people there did not live in Pr- -- a Protestant country, but in Roman Catholic countries, where the state religion was Catholic, where the king and the court, you see, officially, had to uphold the Roman religion. And therefore to enter a lodge was better kept secret. The second reason of course for the secrecy, which didn't exist in London, where the Scotch parliamentarians wanted to meet on friendly terms with the British par- -- English parliamentarians as the new British Commonwealth, the second reason for the continental secrecy was that you didn't wish to be known as a Mason in the outside world. And half of the power of the Masonry, and half of the reason why its power sometimes has been grossly exaggerated, has of course been that you never knew who was or who is a Mason. You know they have a sign which they -- put into each other's hands to prove that they have been initiated. But the average layman--I'm not a Mason, I've never been initiated--the average man outside doesn't know who is a Mason and -- who is not. And it's part of the power and the superstition of a group that its membership should not be known.

This -- secret character of the Free Masonry has been used in later times as a point of attack, but also has been imitated. We had -- the last upshoot of this ingredient of secrecy in American politics has been 60 years -- 70 years later, after it had flooded the country: the Know-Nothing Party of the '50s of the 19th century. And you may use these -- this Know-Nothing Party as the last, unbroken tidal wave that inundated this country from this route of Free Masonry. The Know-Nothing Party was a party that when you asked a member, "Were you a member?" -- was he a member of this party, they would deny -- they would say, "I know nothing." And this word "know nothing" is a good expres- -- expression for de- -- describing the principle of Free Masonry, with regard to the external

world. The -- this Mason is obliged to feign that he knows nothing.

The -- in the -- two elections of '54 and '5- -- 1854 and 1856, this KnowNothing Party made tremendous headway against the Roman Catholic in immigration. The old timers mixed, as they were in the denominations, still could recognized themselves clearly as non-Roman Catholic immigrants, and had of course big plans about keeping out these immigrants. There is a -- at the -- at the height of this discussion, there is a speech which may show you that any group, when it reaches its height, so to speak, of influence, becomes intolerant, and no longer investigates its own origin and principles. In this speech of 1856, the Senator {Clarke} of Mississippi introduced for the first time the measure which we now practically have in our legislation, that people should not become citizens for the first 25 years of their stay in the United States. Because the fear was that these Roman Catholic immigrants--at that time were the Irish, later it would have been the Italians and the Poles--that these people couldn't be assimilated to the standards of tolerance and freedom, and -- of thought and freedom of religion, which had obtained so long in these United States. It's a very eloquent speech -- and it sums up the principles on which this nation, so to speak, was founded. And it was founded on a generalization for -- in secular language of the principles of the many nonconformist branches of the Christian Church.

The main word that has entered the bloodstream of this country in this -- in this alliance with the European tradition of Free Masonry still has to be mentioned. Obviously Free Masons are not something specific American. They express quite to the contrary that an international, a cosmopolitan, you see, wave was needed to put this country on its feet, because it -- had never needed to have a secular political language. And this was -- had to be borrowed where it could be found. And the architectural language, and the naturalistic religion of the Free Masonry offered for the political body here this vision of a secular government about which people could agree without being in agreement on Sundays during the sermon and the liturgy.

And so the loan, the borrowing from Europe with regard to the political language of these United States reached its climax when Thomas Paine reached these shores, and published in the -- January of 1776 his book, Common Sense. Most of you have heard of it. Some of you may have read it. What I'm dealing with is not the content of the book, but the use of the word -- the new use of the word "common." That's a specific American creation. And the difference of the word "common" between English and American usage is perhaps the first clear indication that the Americans would begin to speak their own language in the future; and as the English language now is dying down and the American is coming up, at the bottom it is always the different -- the different use of the word "common" that you can -- to which you can trace it.

Thomas Paine was a bankrupt, who had to leave his country, his wife, his debts, his -- and his creditors, and come to this country. And with one majestic stroke of genius, established himself by writing this book, Common Sense. Now it looks rather harmless, this word. I went to the library here, and I found 36 cards with book titles containing the word "common sense." That's quite an achievement. The English use the word "Commons" for their nobility, for their gentry. So the Commons of England are an aristocratic institution. So is the common law of England. The common law of England is only for the rich. You cannot go to court in England without being ruined or without being very rich indeed.

So we have in England an aristocratic connotation of the word "common," as you have it in the "House of Commons," and in -- in "common law." The word "common sense," however in this country, as you well know, has led to two other applications, which today are very common indeed. One is the "common man." And the third is the "common" -- now you all know it, the worst of all things, the "common denominator." Now mind you, this seems to be taken -- the common denominator from mathematics. It isn't at all. It just comes from "common sense." It just comes from the worship of the word "common" in the American tradition. Because in any other country, it would be called an insult to speak of a common denominator, down, you see.

George Washington was able to unify the United States, because he made an appeal to the highest common denominator. Every greatness, every piece of art, every song of Ho- -- from Homer down to John Brown's Body by Vincent Stephen Ben‚t, is an appeal to the highest common denominator. It teks- -- takes a great effort to unite disparate religions, disparate people, you see. And only under the inspiration of the highest can you unite divergent opinions. Here, this is not believed. In this country, you can talk to serious people who shrug their shoulders when something terrible is done in the community and say, "It's the lowest common denominator."

Gentlemen, the lowest common denominator is the absence of a common spirit, because the lowest common denominator is everybody for himself. That's the lowest common denominator: the egotism, the selfishness, the ignorance, the indifference, the nastiness, the cruelty of every individual. Because that's the lowest common denominator if everybody is just a number in a number game. It is the -- society lives by all the higher denominators. And it is -- I'm not objecting to the stupidity of the people who use the common denominator, but as -- as an excuse for their sins. But I'm appalled that there is no group in this country who ever contradict this as not true. It is simply a big lie that any community has ever lived by the lowest common denominator. But you are disarmed. You have no way of -- of contradicting these people. And so I take you back to the hour of

birth, of the American republic, and want to prove to you that Thomas Paine himself meant the highest common denominator, and not the lowest. Because he wrote Common Sense in the January of 1776, and then he went to headquarters, to Valley Forge, and wrote his famous pamphlet "Crises," only two years later, in which occurs the -- in you which you have heard, "This is -- are -- these are the times that try men's souls."

Now what are the times? They are the times in which only the highest common denominator, only the faith in a leader like Washington, only the faith in the justice of a cause can hold together an army that otherwise would have run away. And so the same Thomas Paine in this one sentence, has exposed the lie of the common -- lowest common denominator by taking it for granted that common sense would go through the fire of the tidal wave of this experience of danger and ultimate decision, and the compelling law of subscribing to our tenets in the hours of death and destruction.

"These are the times that try men's souls" should therefore always be put together with the title Common Sense. Otherwise you will not see that common sense is very much between this downfall to the lowest common denominator, you see, and the British tradition of an aristocratic hierarchic regime. The common man and the common sense of the common man of a -- a country are, in the eyes of Thomas Paine, glu- -- not glued together, but melted together, or fused together in the -- hours of trial, in the hours of demand. That is, at the high times of life does common sense prove itself, and not in the low hours of the lowest common denominator, which means that there is nothing in common except that everybody wants to get as much from the gravy as he can.

It is quite important that you should see that as much as there is a breach between the Commons of England, and the common law for the property class, and the idea of common sense and equality of the common man, the bridge bet- -- the difference or the distinction between the political order of the 19th century and the modern anarchical, analytical, critical, existential- -- -ly despairing attitude of the modern self are equally -- sharply divided. To- -- I mean, I have -- this is not a very good thing. Should put it -- { } without this distinct divide. What matters is that you should see that the creation of the United States of -- in 1776 was not based on the -- what you would today call the "natural beast," the animal in man, but was -- based on a very high conception of a man who would prove himself the same in war and peace.

Now, as you remember, I based this whole course on this problem of the United States: how to solve in peacetime the problems placed before us in war, and the strange emergence always of a postwar generation that tries to live as though the war hadn't loaded it with new responsibilities and unsolved prob-

lems. And I told you that we -- you are exactly in this same position, that the war of 1945 hadn't ended, yet, in any settlement, just exactly as the Mexican War didn't, and as the -- as the war of 1783 didn't, and as the -- World War I didn't. And I s- -- -old -- said to you that the tidal wave of a war emergency already sets the limits of the next order of things. But then it recedes. The low tide sets in, and the ship of state remains, as we called it the last time, beneaped. That is, the neap tide grounds it on the shore and has to wait for the next high tide before--the people who sit there on the beach and take their Ph.Ds--before these people are merciful enough to consider the plight in which their country really finds itself.

And so I think any boy and any professor in the classroom is very much always in the situation of the beneaped soul. That is, if he forgets that he -- he lives between two high times of his nation's existence and is just privileged to eat his bread without sorrow, he will not see what is expected of him. What is expected of him is to keep alive in his mind, despite the fact that the -- tide has receded, the knowledge of the tide that has already reached the beach, and that is come -- go -- absolutely inevitably returning to it.

I took the pleasure of copying from my Webster the exact definition of this word "neaped" or "beneaped": "Left aground on the height of a spring tide so that it will not flow till the next spring tide." Now if you would begin to consider your student existence in this college, as exactly this, as being beneaped, you would know what you have to think about, and that great things are of -- expected from you at this very moment, when nobody else has the time to give thought to these very facts that are -- have to be thought out, preparing yourself for the next spring tide and the country. Because the -- the new delineation of the -- of the surf reaching the land has already been clearly -- given. Every war, we said, has le- -- left the United States with a tremendous unorganized, in- -- unincorporated part of its new one sphere of influence or territory, bases, islands, lands.

And so I come -- came -- wanted to come back to my word "beneaped" and think -- say -- tell you that in the word "common sense" and in the history of Thomas Paine, there has been--and I think to our great good fortune--enshrined the double meaning of word -- of "common sense." Common sense sets the limit to the lowest common denominator, because if you can say, "This is the time to try men's souls," that means that Thomas Paine said, "Anybody who cares for the lowest common denominator is not fit for the kingdom of the new Americans, because he will fall below that standard in which men who are tried in the fire of war have to prove themselves. And have to come out with glowing colors."

And in this sense, it is very strange--ladies and gentlemen, for anyone who take -- is a major in English, I recommend this consideration--that in the real

language of mankind, we always speak on very set levels. And the lowest common denominator falls below the political meaning of the u- -- of the words "common sense" and "common man." The common man is not the beast. The common man is a man who has common sense, and so much common sense that he will sacrifice his life for the common cause.

And therefore today the real, deciding decision you have to take is whether you belong to the tradition of the common man in the sense of a political unit, where every member is out to defend the fund- -- foundations of the founding fathers, or this other physicists' meaning of lowest common denominator, where you could become a -- a cipher, a numeral, and -- certainly not even a digit, in the display of statistics. The word "common de-" -- "lowest common denominator" is outside the American tradition. It's an intellectual invention of the devil. And for the last 40 years, you know, of every great period in history, whether you take the period before -- before Cromwell beheaded the king of England, those 40 years in which the Americans took to ship and sailed here, the elite, because at home things looked too desperate; or whether you take the times from 1890 to 1940 in this country, you always get this deprivation of the intelligentsia. And they seem to you to be up to date. I assure you, they are just out of date. They are out of history. They do the leveling-off, they do the burying of a period by their criticism, but they don't belong to the future. This usage of the word "lowest common denominator"--which is very recent, by the way--it is -- is not older than the First World War, is not older than these terrible times from 1910 to 1950 in which -- in every part of the world, not only in this country, the old order was criticized to death, because it had proved wanting in wa- -- two world wars. And of course, when an order is proved wanting, the -- all the beetles, and insects, and ants, and -- come and burrow, and prove that there is nothing but dust left. The old order has gone.

But you are in great danger to confuse the critical attitude, which speaks of the lowest common denominator, with the constructive history of the political order of the United States, from 1776 to 1910--or '12, or '17, you may say--during which time the appeal to common sense, you see, meant sacrifice, meant agreement, meant inspiration, meant enthusiasm, and never meant what we now mean by the "lowest common denominator."

By the way, in order to give you here some literature, I found a book by Mr. {Crutch} and others, Is the Common Man Too Common? You know it, {it's plain}? Ja? {Joseph Wood Crutch}, University of Oklahoma Press in 1954. And he of course is already in this dangerous spot that he -- is confused by the use of the word, "lowest common denominator," but he's quite valiant fighting it, I mean. He says, "This is not the solution, the lowest common denominator." And in this sense, the book and I -- we are -- I feel that's an ally.

So now we are embarked on a situation of political language, where the governing group is forced to use generalizing, natural symbols, like the stars of Egypt, and the pyramid, and the -- "In God we Trust," the -- the Free Masons' expressions of -- of deism. And we are embarked on a -- on a -- enterprise in which "common" is not aristocratically used as in England, neither used in a plebeian sense, but in an antithetical sense, that equality of all the people in the community does not exclude sacrifice, inspiration, and courage, and faith. And if you want to have a -- a metaphor, the use of the word "common" still always implies a raft on the river of life, and not a submergence by self-interest into the river, you see. It doesn't mean the fall of man, down into the bottomless pit. But it still means that instead of a dreadnought and a -- a boat of three or four stories high, with the captain on the bridge, and the lower -- the hands in the lower room, and the fire, there is a raft which everybody is in the same level as everybody else; but this raft still is not simply drifting, but it keeps direction and it goes forward; and it is supported as a common enterprise by the mutual trust and the confidence of the people in their right course. All this has nothing to do with the lowest common denominator, but it has very much to do with translation of the word "common sense," or "common" into the American meaning of "common sense." You will be -- not be surprised if I tell you that the word can't -- not be translated into German, the word "common sense." Nobody in Germany seems to have common sense.

The secrecy of the Free Masons has been inherited by every individual who has been -- remained a -- or become a member of this tradition of the lodges. In a strange way. You have here through the immigrants a rather exceptional treatment of the na- -- the name of the people. The change of names for anybody who comes to this country is very often a natural one, because the names from other la- -- countries cannot be pronounced. So the change of name in the middle of life is a daily occurrence in this country.

This has, however, in itself, wouldn't be so far-reaching, as long as people do not keep their ties with the mother country at home, and are just one and the same person in this country for the rest of their lives. As you know, however, there is a peculiar importance about the word "alias" in the American lingo. People live under many names. And that's peculiar to this country. They reach great heights of perfection. Seventeen husbands is not rare, even if only 11 are on the record. Now that means 17 names. Though mind you, that's quite an achievement. Now the poor women have to do it by always seeming to marry, but the men can do it otherwise. I mean, they have their alias in every com- -- other community. This comes from the secrecy of the lodges where you had a different name in the lodge, compared to the outside world. They are known by { } {civic} name in the lodge.

I have here a letter written by Mark Twain about his name, "Mark Twain." And since he is perhaps the outstanding man -- man in this country with a pen name, I thought it is quite interesting to hear in which peculiar manner he came upon this name. Is it known? Do you know the story? Wie?

(Read it, anyway.)

It's a very short letter:

"Dear Sir, Mark Twain was the name -- nom de plume" -- pen name -- "of one Captain Isaiah Silvers, who used to write river news over it for the New Orleans Picayune. He died in 1863, and as he could no longer need that signature, I laid violent hands upon it, without asking for permission of the proprietor's remains. That is the history of the nom de plume I bear. Yours truly, Samuel L. Clemens."

Written June 24th, 1874. Now I thought that is an important story, because he says he laid violent hands on this name. And he took it from somebody else in succession. It is the essence of any name that it is meant as a succession. You have your father's name in order to express, you see, this suc- -- succession in the family. And I thought that it is a kind of accomplishment that the most famous pen name in America always did justice to the meaning of a name that it -- succeeds into somebody else's position. Because I'll give you a secret which is -- has to be rediscovered today, that all our names are titles to a position in society. Names are not words, as you find them in the dictionary. But names are quite something different. Every name -- whether you call yourself the child of suchand-such, or "Jim" or "James," they are all titles. They all give us a place in society. I always use as a -- the simplest explanation, or the simplest way of tricking you into an admission of this fact, which you will not admit lightly--that names are titles, give us legal and social position, and therefore belong into the social history of a country--I'll give you an example which at least to those might appeal -- to -- who have served in the armed forces.

When you ha- -- are on parade, or inspection, or at appeal, and there are, let us say, just a platoon, 12 or 20 men, and the captain comes along with the corporal, the sergeant, and looks at these 15 men, they all feel safe, as long as the list of their names that is given to the captain and their own existence there coincide. And Smith is Smith, and Miller is Miller, and Peabody is Peabody. As soon as the captain, however, puts out his finger and points at one of these men, and says, "Who is that guy without a button?" the man is out of order. He is not longer quoted and appealed to under his name in the platoon as a decent and -- a recognized member. But he's out. For this moment, he's excommunicated, because he -- you see, he has the -- the attention of the captain has been directed

towards his physical appearance, purely physical, you see. And he sees that this man is not in shape. And therefore he doesn't call him by his name, but he points with his finger.

Now the same -- now I'll turn around and give you the -- parallel example in society. The -- in a good -- in good company you cannot speak of anybody present in the third person. If you listen in while your -- what's your first name? What's your first name?




Ja. I cannot say to you without being very unpolite, "He doesn't understand." You see. I have to say, as long as we are introduced to each other, "Stuart doesn't understand," you see, then he has to accept it. And beware you. If you talk of a girl in the presence of this girl in a dance, a "she" and she can hear it, she has the right to feel insulted. You have to -- quote her by her name. That's her right. She's entitled to that. I mean this very literally.

And modern man is -- has become so demolished by the naturalistic approach of the lowest common denominator, that you speak in the presence of people as "hes" and "shes" and "its," and what-not. You cannot. The name is their privilege. They have -- are entitled to be called by their name. That's why we have on our windows in our banks and the post offices the -- the name given. It's a desperate attempt to keep the identity of these people with their rank in society.

Now any loosening of this identity changes the society in which we move, and makes for chaos, and for disruption, and for lack of trust, lack of confidence.

The people of the United States have therefore to an extent -- that no other country, perhaps the Russians--no, no, they have their father's names always--as you know, call each other by their first names. That gives an overweight to the moment. First names are meant to be as of the moment. They do not imply status. "Jim," you see, and "Joe" come and go. You see, they are passing, any minute. And they do not imply any perspective. That is the essence of a nickname--or -- a nickname not even, but of these first names--that they are not naming the person down to a firm ground of existence in history and in society, in town and neighborhood. With these first names, you can even -- can gloss over -- over the distinctions of origin, and creed, and faith, and -- color. And I

think nothing is truer than that the American creed, "regardless of -- of color, race, and creed" can be applied to the present-day group than this free use of the first name--and not even just the first name, but its abbreviated form--as we -- as "Jim," "Jack," "Joe," and then so on.

This is peculiar, because in no other country is this felt to be an advantage. An Englishman will not speak of his wife with her first name, but he will say "Mrs. Smith -- Mrs. Miller couldn't come." And he will think that he saves his marriage by calling towards the outside world his wife with this "Mrs.," you see. That's a protection. "My house is my castle." And he doesn't love his wife for this reason any less, but he will not feel that he has to drag her first name into the outside group, where he has to make apologies that he didn't come with her.

So I feel--more I will not say at this moment--that the change of names, and the special attempt of coming -- reaching this common usage of first names has created a very peculiar American power to improvise groups indefinitely, as necessity occurs. If you free the present-day group from the -- all the stuff on names that cling to us through our whole life, or for half of our lives, and come down to this -- to these first names, the group becomes very changeable, transformable, flexible, mobile. And I think no other nation has the power to improvise group so effec- -- efficiently as this country. And I think it has been saved--even the city of Washington, as far as it can be saved--has been saved by the power to improvise new groups--whenever a new administration has been coming in, a change in administration had to be made--that people on this -- you may say superficial technique of calling each other by their first names have been able to -- to do astonishing things in a familiarity and considering the outside world of secrecy, of privacy, you see, which in other countries simply isn't achieved, because people there remain for the rest of their lives "Mr. Such-andSuch," and "Such-and-Such."

Now the light is here of course with the shadow. The improvised group in this country I think is the most excellent thing that has been -- has been offered to the world in political existence, and has never existed before; perhaps will never exist hereafter.

But you must not mistake the power to improvise with the opposite power of a group: of staying power, of perseverance. The more you can improvise, the more you will be surprised to find that this sam- -- same group after two or three years is the most rotten and corrupt group you can ever find. The same people who were just brilliant, and excellent, and self-sacrificial at the first moment, and went places, can become even after an incredibly short time unable to carry on, because these first names are not identified with the whole of their existence. They are really something as of the moment.

Now about this, next time.