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

...on a number of agreements in the group that discusses this.

[tape interruption]

...tried to show you that as long as you consider society as a -- the ceiling, or the sky, or the organization of mere individuals, the interplay of the social order is perfectly mysterious. Your heresy, that you think there are 160 million people, and then they have above their heads a government, or a church, or what-not--and there's the church, and there are you, and you enter the church, you can leave it; or you can enter the state, or you can leave it; this is all your -- there is science, and you can study it; or there are the arts, and you may practice them at will and at random--has led to the barbarism that there is not one permanent orchestra in this country, not one repertory theater, that you have no candidates for office except through the -- through the machine. And all the things come from this error that at any one moment, here is a mass of individuals who get together and then do what they please; of course forget next day what they wanted to do, and do the very opposite, in effect.

All the -- all the shortcomings of democracy come when you do not know that democracy is an anti term against monarchy, aristocracy, and dictatorship, and that it only makes sense as long as these -- the achievements of the three other orders are also carried out in the democracy.

To -- therefore I have put on this blackboard a number of notions which you can check yourself. And otherwise it wouldn't { }. I tried to tell you last time that what we call Church, state, arts, and sciences are in fact the behavior of every one of us in as far as he is, at a certain age, young or old, or as he is male or female. In as far as we are woman-like, and a man is just as much a Narcissus, and tries to dress beautifully--in the animal kingdom, as you know, it's -- the male is out for beauty, not the female; and it's a highly artificial development in our civilization that the women dress well, you see. That can be given up again. Only in the last 1900 years have the women been beautif- -- made -- beautified and the male have worn these drab -- these drab dresses which we wear. It could be op- -- the very opposite. And when I look around campus, I see many Narcissi, all these people growing beards now.

So it is much more natural that the fe- -- male should also be, you see, have the womanly trait of -- of beautification. However, in our Christian era, it is more or less -- it has been a -- a reverse of the purely animal state, and the women are adorned; and the men are out for the change. Not for -- for the pea- --

-cock -- peacock behavior of strutting, and rhetorics, but of changing the world by new ideas. So their -- their beauty is in the mind, and the -- the women's beauty in the body expressed.

That's why I put here for the arts the daughters. There would be no poetry, since Dante without Beatrice, and with Sha- -- their -- all love songs are after all addressed to the woman and what goes with it. The nine Muses serve the female in our tradition. Therefore the arts depend on the existence of the daughter in the house of man.

I talked yesterday to psychoanalyst of the -- of this university. And he was very much struck by my statement that in this country, with the abstract idea of a human family consisting of father, mother, and one child, always as the model's case, the omission of the daughter, of the contrariety between daughter and son has made -- wrought much havoc. He said that there is an Irish play, Catchers in the Rye. You know it? That -- wie?

(Salinger. A Catcher in the Rye?)


(It's an American writer.)

Well, is it? And -- and there was a beauty that -- the sister retains this man. And I haven't settl- -- I don't know it, I'm ashamed to say. I'm going to read it. But he was much -- very much taken by the fact that there is a whole poetry of the work, based on this -- on this existence of the sister in the -- in the hero's soul. Do you know it? Is it true?

(Oh, yes, yes, yes. He comes home at night, at midnight.)

If you omit the relation between sister and brother, you cannot understand what is meant by the fact of coming of age. When is a man responsible for his acts? If it would be, as Mr. Freud tells you, that by itself the ego wants just to fulfill his -- satisfy his desires, we certainly couldn't have peace in our society. Now, as a matter of fact, when a boy grows up to be 20, he has lived with enough sisters, and mothers, and fathers, so that he can see in the woman he -- he wants to seduce -- or he is seduced by, his sister. And therefore, the whole problem of rape doesn't exist in a decent society, because the same person you would like to rape is a -- is a person, and not just a female; and he knows this, because he has lived with sisters. He may have lived with coeds in the school, but that's just an ag- -- you see, an enlargement on the notion of sisterhood.

All this is today suppressed. And we have a naturalistic theory in every way of life, as the first 20 years in which a man becomes a human is completely omitted. I tried to tell -- show you that what we call "a people" is a group of humans in which nobody is allowed to speak up, and to make promises, and to enter contracts, and to go to study, and to write books unless he has received into himself the voices of the opposite age and the opposite sex. Before, he's just an animal, a brute animal. And he should be put -- best electrocuted. I have no mercy with this -- confusion between a physical being and a human being. That's not the same. You are only human beings if the voices of the opposite character of a -- humanity has reached so deep into your soul that you are a complete being, that you can understand the law which your father lays down and understand that one day you have to be a lawgiver yourself. That is, if the son doesn't have -- contain in himself the voice of the father, I don't care for this young man. He's just a brat. I have no respect for him. I don't -- he hasn't -- doesn't deserve respect, because respect comes only from -- for somebody who includes the past, and the past all our society.

The same is of course true of a father who has forgotten that he once was young, fell in love, and married his wife. So the -- in the father of course, the son has to be present. The same is true of course of the mother, that if a mother doesn't understand how her daughter feels, and has forgotten that she once, you see -- was vain, she will make a terrible mother. And on it goes.

These -- this interplay between the two sexes and two ages is what we call "man." Now under the abstractions of naturalism of the 19th century, all this has been tread underground -- underfoot. You have never heard of these very simple things, because it is still assumed that the family is imparted to you, without much consciousness. I have to make you conscious of this, however, because the family is threatened. All the theories in psychology, and -- et cetera, omit this stage. And which is this stage? This -- stage is the stage in which we learn to speak. Twenty years it takes how -- before a person can speak with author- -- with -- the right to be believed in.

I had a friend who was a Cath- -- a Roman Catholic bishop. He always s- -- told to me, I was a great optimist, nobody had to believe -- be believed before he was 30; because nobody could make a real promise and stand by it before he was 30. People were just too childish to be taken seriously.

You are all at this moment here in your stu- -- you can write papers. I can give you a D, give you an E, an F. It doesn't make much difference. It isn't serious. Now whenever you write papers that are -- have no final re- -- recoiling, you see, effect on your- -- -self, you aren't serious. You're still playboys, or playgirls. And that's most -- what all universities' and college educations are about. They --

they make you believe that your thought is free, your speech is -- is noncommittal, and therefore, all people fool around like that. Of course, they -- the people who are -- put -- hard-put to make a living from their work, and as far as you are -- do this, you know that it is not so. It may be so that you -- you here can afford to -- to say, "Well, it doesn't matter." But in real life it does matter. But we say in the courts of this country and everywhere that a person will not be punished for his acts--he will, you see--unless he has understood the -- the voices that make themselves heard against his lust, against his will, against his inclination.

And, well I offer you this as a first wall of defense against these strange theories that the ego exists. I've never seen an ego. How do we begin to live? Sons and daughters do not -- wake up as egos. They wake up and somebody calls them "thou" and "thee." The "you" is the first person of grammar in your own experience. You have been somebody else's beloved child long before you were anybody yourself. And only if you have been this, can you live. Ego is an answer, a response to an environment which has fraternalized with you -- has -- has included you in its existence, has loved you, in other words. Our love is a response to other people's affections. And if the -- mother hasn't called you "Bill," and said, "Come, go, sit down, drink," you will never be a human being.

All this theory, beginning with the ego, you see, is destructive of history. In history, there are no egos -- as -- as first persons. The ego is the second person of grammar. It's an answer. You now can say "ego," because 20 -- years people have patiently nursed you -- big, and now you can say what you allegedly want. But you ask a child to -- to s- -- begin with "I," and it goes nuts. And that's what is called juvenile delinquency. Parents make them so. The schools make them so, by telling them that the ego is first. I've never seen an ego first on a healthy person. Of course, an ego is an assertion against, you see, too much encroachment of love -- motherly love, and fatherly steering, isn't it? Then you say, "But I too have something to say in the matter." That's the ego.

So, once you understand that the "I" is the second person of grammar, you will begin to -- perhaps to wake up -- begin to wake up to the -- very glorious history of the Americans. The first task of society in this country was to endow every -- woman and man born from parents here in this country with love and affection; and that is, to make them into sons and daughters. You can grow up in an orphan asylum, but that's -- makes no difference. Somebody -- it isn't enough to have a guardian. It isn't enough to be under the law of the land. You have to be brought up in the cradle by somebody who smiles at you, and encourages you to smile back. You know that very well. Every one of you has seen a baby come to its senses by being smiled at, and by -- rendering this smile.

Why don't no -- does nobody make use of these empirical facts that sur-

round you everywhere? And you go to the -- books and -- begin to read that man is made -- an ego. The -- the egos are all in a lunatic asylum. The -- you more -- you teach this doctrine, the crowdeder they are. This psychoanalyst told me that of course, half of the beds--you know this fact, too--of all the hospitals in this country are filled with mental patients. And there's no other country in the world in which this is -- exists, this amount of madness. And what's the reason? Your -- the academic world's prejudices about ego and about individuals; your blindness to your own upbringing.

Since people speak of individuals, you never speak of the fact that you are a son, and have to become a father. And that you are a daughter, and must become a mother. And this -- of course, goes criss-cross. Mothers -- daughters must also know that they are fathers' daughters, and that they are also members of the state, of government. And -- the son can discover that his -- the dignity of his mother depends on forms, on traditions, and so that the Church cannot be brushed aside as a boring institution for Sundays, because this -- it's the mother's dignity written large. That's all what the Church is.

So I feel that the -- the practice of this country's history at this -- in the middle of the 20th century comes from this turning away from what you call very personally "the Hebraic," "the Jewish," "the puritanical" background. When you read "Hebraic tradition," you know that this man not only is an anti-Semite, but that he is an idiot, because the -- the Bible has never been believed because the Jews wrote it, but despite the fact that the Jews wrote it. The whole truth of the Bible is that it doesn't matter who wrote it, that God created the u- -- the Heaven and earth, and all the nations of the world. That's the whole content of the Bible, isn't it? And that unfortunately a little group had to defend this tr- -- great truth among all other nations. But what about Jews in this ma- -- matter? What has the Hebraic tradition to do with the fact that you and I have to wake up by -- under the eyes of love, or go nuts?

Whenever you -- this is the American style today, because the public has conquered everything. The whole academic world is anti-Semitic by calling the -- the tra- -- tradition of a universal creation by calling it "Hebraic." Of course, it's a way of getting out from under it and saying, "This is one tradition; we have some other -- Buddhistic, or Chinese, or what-not." Probably now very soon it will be the lama of Tibet. Probably they invite him to this campus, and then he'll become the -- the God-man in this -- in this Southern California.

This arbitrariness, gentlemen, when everybody for -- for thousands of years knows that all men are, as you, whole, born equal -- and where does this come from? The Bible. But the subtlety with which your academic mind is turning against your own experiences is really remarkable. You are all schizophrenic.

You have in your public mind, in your educational system, all the opposite truth from all the experiences of a lifetime. Why can Mrs. {Duncan} be held responsible for her deeds? What is the -- { } responsibility? That she knows her son's interest. She can understand this. She knows very well what a daughter, and a son, and a father, and a mother are, you see. She's not just a -- a creeping vampire. She even -- said, you see, "This is sin," when her son -- when she looked at her -- son's bedroom. Now a woman who knows this, you see, is responsible for her acts. Can't you understand? Because she hears the contrary voices, the voices of a another age and another sex very well indeed. Too well.

This is very practical, I mean, this question of Mrs. {Duncan's} responsibility, as you know. If you -- if you don't understand that she has to be executed, then the -- there is an end of justice.

So, I have put here the normal, healthy person as a thing to be desired. I told you that nobody, before he is dead, can be praised as having reached this bliss. We all are gifted and endowed with a role in society. Even the baby in the cradle. It's in this family the accretion; it's the newcomer. So any one of us plays a role in society. Either a supernumerary, you see, or an important role. Here is Mr. Truman, you see, or is a little baby; they all have a role, you see, in the -- in the society, statistically and otherwise.

Then everybody has a mind, and everybody has a body, and everybody has these things: role, mind, and body under one encroachment, under one burden, that he can change his body, and change his mind, and can change his role without going nuts and still have integrity. That's called the soul. The soul is our power to survive any state of mind, body, or -- social importance. A baby can become a man, can become president, you see. For this he has to have a soul. Because otherwise it isn't the same baby that can lead then as president, you see. It will -- you -- schizophrenic, or will be just an alias.

So people today who tell you that there is no soul overlook the fact that they want talk -- all want to talk you into a change of mind. Therefore they all appeal to your soul, because they want to convince you of something you didn't know before. So you have to dismiss your old framework, you see, of mind, and have to get a new mind. Now this you can only do -- take this great risk as a patient of a psychoanalyst, for example, if there is a soul that carries you through this valley of tears, of despair, where you suddenly see that everything you have believed is -- isn't so. But today again, in an academic community, anybody who uses the term "soul" is laughed at, made ridiculous. "Soul? Never heard of it. There is a psyche, perhaps." People are psyche. They mustn't be called "ensouled."

A st- -- tragic story. The greatest American philosopher, as you know, is William James. And he wrote a psychology, and he begins it with the fact that psychology is the science of the mental processes. And so getting off on a tangent and identifying the mind -- mental processes with the soul's life, he pr- -- goes on to say that he has no use for the word "soul." Centuries later, the word "soul" may come into use again, but he couldn't make head or tail of it. So that's in his book. And then he writes letters to his wife and children, and they are just riddled with the word "soul."

So for his private consumption, he had to stay ensouled, and he certainly was the most soulful man of his time in this country. And for his scientific -- purposes, he dismissed it.

Well, that's still the habit in this country, and of course this habit of schizophrenia, that you speak of the soul from 10 and 11 in church, and the rest of the -- week, to have only a psyche on the couch.

You can prove it every day to yourself that you hear of living on -- goes to the human soul, because if we don't know, sometimes you have to dismiss your youthful body and look very old suddenly, which is very painful if you suddenly enter your -- the year of change. It will all happen, to every one of you. And so the body has to be dismissed, and revamped, and an- -- another body suddenly surrounded. People just don't know that you have been very beautiful. And it is only your soul--the power, you see--to survive this death of your beautiful body that you carry through this. Not your mind.

Now the mind is opposite of the body in one respect, and that's: the body is changing every seven years in our constitution, as you know. All the cells of the body can be altered, except the cells of the brain. The brain is the root work of us. If you would think of man exactly in precise, biological terms, you would see that the brain is not the crown, but the roots of our existence. We hang with our mind in Heaven, in this -- in the mental life of the universal humanity, of history. And although we seem to stand on our feet, it would be much wiser for you -- would think of your head as being the root, the system of roots and rootlets by which we are embedded into this tremendous network of words, and thoughts, and traditions.

Why is that so? Because the cells of your brain cannot die. They cannot be replaced. They are there forever. The only part of the human body that is unable of regeneration is the brain. Now anybody should think about this, purely from the standpoint of physiology, that this is the only part of our body that cannot be regenerated. That's why only the human heart and human passions can renew your thoughts. Never the mind itself. You see, the logic of a mind -- if you know

a sick mind, you will find it is always working feverishly to its logical ends. "I am the emperor of China," they will say, and then go to the lunatic asylum, because they cannot break up the workings of their brain cells.

The only way in which you can renew your thinking is by admitting that the heart is wiser than the -- the head. That is, by opening up new departments of your brain, as you know, we have innumerable cells in the brain, and the way in which thinking is renewed is by dismissing certain trains of thought and superseding them by more vital ones. You can hate. Once you discover that it is better to have a friend instead of an enemy, you see, you can suddenly let the heart rush its blood into the brain, and break down this whole system, this train of thought, and begin at another end in your mind. That's how we renew our thoughts. Stop this, you see, begin elsewhere. As long as you try to follow something out logically, systematically, you are -- you are in hell. All systematizers go to hell.

You look at philosophers, they write a nice philosophy for other people's consumption, and they get married, divorced, have children, and do everything opposite in their philosophy of life. That's why originally philosophers had to be more honest, and they were not expected to marry, because otherwise the disunity of their mind would have been too obvious. Kant was yet unmarried. Leibniz was not married. Hume was, as far as I know, not married. But the -- the fall of man began when Hegel got married.

Why do I say these things? Really for quite serious reasons. You must understand that to agree on a social history of America is not possible if your and my views of man never come to some identity. You do know what I am speaking of. And in the year 1850 only, began this strange period--or in this country--in which the things which I have tried to tell you here today and last time, became unnatural. Down in any -- any little church community, on the Connecticut Valley, or in the -- in Missouri, people knew this, down to 1850, and they knew it even in the colleges and the schools of the land.

The great invention of this modern school system has been that with the exclusion of the teaching of religious instruction, and with the complete -- getting away from the experience of the family to be used as the basis of school instruction -- all the things I am telling you, must not be mentioned in good society. Everybody still, we hope, knows them by experience at home for 20 years; but everything that's taught in the schools of the land has this abstract view of the ego, the individual, you see, the -- the one single mind, and especially, you get since Emerson this terrific situation which I have put here, you see, the infinitude of the private citizen, of Mr. -- Mr. Emerson and on the other hand, the raw material of immigrants, pioneers, and factory workers. I have expressed it -- 30

years ago in a -- in a little doggerel: "They really try to run this nation by factories and education."

This is the summing-up of individuals. On the other hand -- one hand, you see, on weekdays an employment, in the -- at work, and the other in schools and colleges. And this -- this then is the -- education and factories together, is still madness, because it still is -- allegedly, if you think it through, based on a man who is split in mind and body. For his mind, he gets an education, you see. For his body, he is required to do manual work. But if you reduce human beings to only being mind and body without a soul, and without a social status in society, you don't understand their problem at all. Their problem is: what do I find myself in? These parents' child -- now, doesn't this set- -- settle everything already for a Negro child in this community? Who am I, you see, when I wake up? I'm not a mind and a body. Nobody is. But this is the fiction. Pure fiction.

Now this is Emerson written large. Emerson is, I told you, the -- this idea of the -- that only the mind matters, the beauty of the mind, the bea- -- beautification of the mind. And athletics, and factory, and manual labor, and immigrants, and pioneers--they are weighed for their efficiency, bodily; for their -- for their power to lift loads, to build roads, to -- to build the Pacific Railroad. So you get the Chinese worker, because he -- he is thrifty; and you don't care for his mind or soul at all, you just want to have him as laboring hands. That's, you see, the bodily approach.

So this is the world that cannot stand, that's passing fast, because what do you see today? You see, we said, we see the soul split into its atoms. I dictated to you, you remember, this verse from Edgar Lee Masters' "Spoon River Anthology." And I think I sh- -- it's important enough to repeat this. Masters certainly is a very good voice of the ordinary, American, midwestern approach to reality. And he makes this man -- do you have the verse by any chance? I dictated it to you last time, didn't I?

(...How hard the land, how hard the people { }.)

"To keep the soul from splitting into cellular atoms." Now this man -- this -- whom he makes the speaker, Thomas Rhodes, of course anonymous person to us, goes on: "While we, seekers of earth's treasures, getters and hoarders of gold, are self-contained, compact, harmonized even to the end."

Now we call these Thomas Rhodes--today--corporations. That is, the corporate wealth is that which comes from the robber barons, or the railroad builders, or what-have-you. And since 1850, this country, as you know, has split into -- into working hands, and into corporations.

I first wanted to give you--as the dialectic of the year 1960 as against private and public, mind and body, education and factory--I was going to give you the simple antithesis of giants and dwarves. That is, there are people who are undersized in significance in society, and there are oversized ones. I feel however that the word "dwarf" may excite you to antagonism, because in "dwarf," we think too much of physical smallness and handicap, isn't that right? I mean dwarf would be somebody perhaps misshapen or undersized physically. I do not mean this. But I do think that a clerk in an office, or a -- man on a conveyor belt, or one of the 350 professors of English at Ohio State University all in the same building in 350 different offices, are undersized spiritually, morally. You can't be one of 350 people teaching English without be- -- feeling very small indeed. You can see this?

And this modern smallness of the individual, you see, makes it useless to call him an "individual," because he must be characterized by its first impression that he's very small indeed, that he's just a cog on the wheel, that he has no influence, you see. "Who am I? I'm just a human being." And this capitulation, this unconditional surrender to size seems to me -- and I think you -- if you look around, you'll find it borne out by everybody you meet in the street, or in the railroad, or on the highway -- is the decisive thing. Does he belong -- does he borrow power from a corporate entity, you see? His party, his college, you see. -- As soon as you can say, "I'm UCLA," you feel reinforced, you feel stronger, you see, than if you -- if as soon as you can speak in the name of the corporation to -- of which you, you see, are -- happen to be a member.

So we are all today split into these two directions. I'm always amazed. I never thought that my -- position depended on my having gone to Dartmouth College. And I'm always amazed when in this West -- I feel rather low and degraded when people praise Dartmouth in order to show me that I must be a decent fellow. I thought I was a decent fellow, and I am an honor to Dartmouth. They tell me that Dartmouth is an honor to me. Don't know.

I've never found honor because I had to s- -- teach children. I thought they should be honored. But that may be the -- my personal case doesn't matter at all. But the fact is that when Emerson lived, and the Transcendentalists in Concord and -- Herman Melville went to the South Sea, he was giving -- given importance to the events, you see. No corporations did increase his stature, because he was -- became a member of Standard Oil, that -- became a vicepresident, that wouldn't have added to -- to his significance. But today, you have to be an organization man in order to be somebody. And if you are not in the organization, you are less than somebody; and if you are on the top of the organization, you are more than somebody.

And this is so true that even the presidency of the United States under your noses is changing into a corporation business, because Mr. Eisenhower is not afraid to have it been said that his speeches are being written on Madison Avenue. If this is so, then the presidency of the United States is no longer being conducted by a person, but by a corporation. And that's the end of a democracy, I can assure you.

Think of Daniel Webster or Abraham Lincoln sending his -- his speeches -- receiving his speeches by mail from Madison Avenue. That's ha- -- what has occurred in a hundred years, gentlemen, that we are ruled today by the throng -- by the prongs of a -- this -- these two -- we are either--now I'll give you the word--either wards of some corporation or government--w-a-r-d, I think, is the best word I offer instead of "dwarves"--and -- or we are in corporations, incorporated, limited, of course.

And this split makes it perfectly meaningless today to speak of the dis- -- separation of private and public. Gentlemen, we have private corporations who are public agencies. You cannot say that any of these so-called private, freeenterprise corporations like General Motors, or Ford Company, or Carnegie, or Rockefeller are private. These still -- that's why they had to come out with their foundations. They belong into the public domain. The whole division of public and private property makes no sense. Our industrial corporations are part of our public law. And the -- the moment has -- always comes when you can test this very simple fact. All this talk of free enterprise -- I mean, it's just so much --. And unfortunately Jeffersonian romanticism.

A private corporation has ceased to be a private corporation, when? You can all define this moment. When the public cannot bear that it is closed down. General Motors could not close down. It's impossible. It has to go on. In this very moment, where you can know of an agency or a part of the public business of the country, that the country cannot stand its -- its go -- you see, its going backward, it has to go on, paying or no paying proposition--like the Long Island Railroad--it's a public institution. Public means what has to go on. Private means what can disappear. That's by definition, you see, what private and public really is.

And now the public institutions of a country change constantly their character. That is only -- the -- Mr. {Summerfield} can go home, and we may go -- do without a postmaster general. He doesn't have to have a seat in the Cabinet, perhaps. He can become just a -- an agency, for example, you see. But the mails must go on. And the mails are not a problem of a paying proposition. It's a -- one of the errors as they go of -- of fiscal -- fiscal figuring, that the mails still are expected to bring revenue. They are a service. And just as the Long Island Railroad,

it is not the business of the mails only to bring in revenue, you see. It's not a business; it's a service without which you and I could -- couldn't breathe. I must be able to write letters to my friends, must I not? I must be able to send books. The whole civilization of this country is based on the mails. And that has absolutely nothing directly to do with the fact -- question whether it's a paying proposition or not. That's a very nice, secondary item, you see, whether you can make it a paying proposition. But the mails are a public service. And therefore, whoever handles -- you could give them to a private individual, a private corporation nominated, you see, by -- by -- but what would it change? This person then again would have to be subsidized, or kept going, or the franchise would have to say, "You have to deliver the mail," and I hope if we would give it to a private individual--I would wish it would come about--then we would not have mail once a day, but twice, as in all other decent countries of the globe. It's only in America that the mail delivered only once.

So the -- today we have a change in what has to be -- deserves to be called "public" and "private." You cannot say that all production is private, as we could say in 1840. That's my sentence, my doggerel: "They try to run the nation by factories and education" -- try to pin down the -- the wrong philosophy of mind and body. And where you had the mind improved, you went to school; and where you used your body in manual work, did -- sweated it out and toiled, you had factory production.

I -- you all know that far- -- with -- farming was concerned, and the main s- -- trends of our centralized production--the aircraft industry, bombs and so--there is a must. All armament industry, you see, are "must" industries, whether they are paying propositions or not. You cannot dismiss them -- as necessary ingredient.

Once you think this through, and understand that $40 billion go into our armament budget in this year, you know how much we have nationalized our industry. Or don't call it "nationalized," it's still in private hands. I don't care for the expression very much. I think it's not a good expression. But we have publicized industry, in the sense that it is now a public station, you see. It's an -- a public affair. I don't -- I -- I feel that this is the wiser way than the Communists have proposed it. The -- in Russia, the state, you see, tries to run business. In our country, I think we have done the more natural, and the more normal thing, that the industries build up by privates, become more and more duty-bound to be public institutions. You understand? It's the other way around, here. And I think that's the way of experience, but you have to see it. General Motors is as little a -- a free enterprise, you see, as I am here, when I am teaching under contract. They have to produce, and I -- take teaching as public, teaching has to go on. So they -- they are -- they cannot shut down. It has to be. And wherever man must teach,

then man must produce; and both are public functions of society.

The great change that this entails -- I'm projecting myself into the end of this lecture at this moment, only to explain you why I'm anxious to draw you into a -- into a mood, instead of into a sequence of dead facts. In 1850, it did look indeed as though individuals could improve their minds and improve their wealth. Today production itself has reached a point where the -- the ways of production force million-acre wheat farms on us.

I have a a friend in Montana, has a million-acre wheat farm. He said -- I said to him that there was no Russian, Sovietkhov of this size. And so why did he argue against Russian Sovietkhovs? He did much worse. Well, he laughed. I mean, the big agricultural ownership in this country is far more -- I mean in this sense, agglomerated than the Russian farms.

Twenty years ago in Congress, there wa- -- pended a bill for the Ohio corn belt in which settlers were hoped for--you know, we had a recession then; there was much unemployment, people -- people thought still they could settle small farmers, you see, in this corn belt, and increase small holdings in the Jeffersonian tradition of 1800. So in order to make these farms pay, the bill said that there should be garages in which the farm machinery of the village could be held together, so that everybody, you see, could have -- find shelter there. They should be built together. And this kind of cooperative, you see, machinery park should be -- made possible. This bill was thrown out by Congress as Communistic. This common garage in this village was considered Bolshevik. At the same time, my friend, General {Donovan}, developed this million-acre farm in Montana.

This is the -- the consequence of cheap thinking. People don't want to think in this country the real problems. Now the million-acre wheat -- acre farm in Montana of course when it is -- when it -- cannot be closed down. Time will come when if -- if this man should say, "That's now pleasure ground, not herding ground," the government in -- either of the state of Montana or in Washington has to step in and say, "No. This -- land has to be kept in good shape. It has to -- kept fertile, you see. You can't let it go back to wilderness, obviously." A problem of conservation, not only, but of constant and permanent pro- -- production.

This is inevitable. It's nothing special. So the more private agencies we keep and retain -- corporations of this type...

[tape interruption]

...I think the -- the more viv- -- vivacious and more vital our economy will

stand. Understand me. I'm all on the side of the private property owner. Only I see him passing out. When I came to my town, there were 400 farmers. That's 25 years ago. You know how many are left? Thirteen.

I -- the valedictorian of my -- of my -- our college in 1940 was the son of a small businessman in New York. And this man had to -- worked himself from nothing, and build -- did this, good business. Then they formed in Congress a small business committee for the -- improvement of the situation of the small businessman. And my friend {Root} went before this committee and tried to get a loan. And he said, "I need $90,000."

And they said to him, "Nothing below $50 -- $500,000 interests us." So he was thrown out, and destroyed by the small business committee.

I have to tell you these things, because the wards of the government, be they red Indians or be they college students, be they juvenile delinquents or be they college professors, are not told the truth. They cannot. They are too weak for that. They have to get some sock -- stock { } -- some -- how do you call it? Sock served. And the -- the real things take place elsewhere. We have reached this stage in our government. I told you that the statehood of Alaska and -- and Hawaii was such a pleasant stopgap for enter- -- private entertainment of the citizenry. That's not the issue today before the future of the United States.

If we are wards, somebody else then bears a part of the responsibility for our lives. If you got old-age pension, you are the ward of the government with regard to the sum which they pay you, because you are expected not to be able to make a living without this contribution of the -- security agency. The word "ward," therefore I think expresses quite well the -- the firm -- the assumption with which you meet everywhere that more and more groups of our people are not able to look after themselves, and certainly not in their old age, not when they are sick, not when they are born, not when are going to study, not while they went to get abroad--you take the passport business, you see, which is also making you a ward of the government.

These are the themes then of the second half of the course. And I don't want to go into them now. But I wanted to tell you that -- why I had to stop in the middle of this and try to bring you up with a jerk against your assumption that the term "individual," the term "private," and the term "public" cou- -- was a through-going term for the whole history of the society of the United States. It is valid for one century. And it is fast lo- -- passing out, because as I told you, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and the Aramco, are not private agencies. They can make war or make peace for us in -- in Iran, and in -- and in -- in Saudi Arabia. And they know it.

A friend of mine is president of the Socony Vacuum of -- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. And he came to me in -- we climbed the mountains together in British Columbia. And he said, "What shall we do? We went to the state department and said, 'We pay these scoundrels out there, these terrible people $300 million a year. They waste it. They destroy the la- -- vestiges of just government in their own desert there, because they no longer depend on their tribesmen, you see. All shreds of decency lost there. They don't allow Christian service to -- to take place there. They force us to fly the flag of the prophet. "Allah is great, and Mohammed is his prophet" on our tents.'"

The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey flies the -- the flag of -- of the prophet on its -- on its installations in Arabia. Nobody tells you this. Missionary societies go out and preach the Gospel while American Christians deny their God. Wonderful situation. And this man was concerned. He's a very fine person, as a person. But of course he is, as you and I, a ward of the corporation.

So he went to the state department and said, "Tell us what we should write into the contract with this -- with this tyrant, this bloody tyrant," whom Mr. Eisenhower, as you know, received at the airport in person, and the only potentate he had -- had been received in this way so far. One of the most tragic scenes, I think, in the history of the United States of America. Mr. Ibn Saud was received by Mr. Eisenhower at the same time that no American officer of the Jewish faith can land in Ibn Saud's country on a battleship of the United States.

Well, in this tragic situation, they went into the state department and said, "What shall we write into this -- into this contract, so that the money is spent reasonably for hospitals, or for -- you see, for sending people to the United States for education, or building roads, or what-not? We can do anything if you want it. But we are a private corporation. We are only selling and buying, and therefore, we don't know. We have no political interest in the matter."

The state department, in its unfathomable wisdom dating back to 1850, and antedating, you see, all the last 40 years of the great world crisis, said, "That's private. Not our business. We are the public -- the public policy of the United States has nothing to do with the contract of Aramco with Ibn Saud."

Now, this is the ridiculous situation which, you see, which today is -- you are taught to believe, because that's -- is the -- so to speak, that's your dogma, that what private citizens do -- do -- does not involve the responsibility of the government, vice versa. But do you think that the Aramco can do anything in the world without involving you and me in war? It's impossible. -- And these people were decent enough to know it, and go to the state department and say, "Please. Help us. We know that we -- what we do has consequences," you see. "Just tell us

what the -- are the consequences you wish to avoid."

And the state department--all government is always 50 years behind the times--said "No," you see.

Now I mean this, gentlemen. Public order is always lagging behind. The -- the -- emancipation of the slaves came very late, the decision. The lag of a political body is inevitable. Things have to really reach always a crucial point.

So it is very important at this moment that you should wake up to the fact that the United States has been built on the pioneering of its citizens in advance of the legal order. And it is only because this is -- no longer taking place that we are faced with these difficulties. These men are -- in Aramco -- are such big corporations that they {longer} can be messengers of good will a- -- abroad.

To finish this with one last example, to -- only to show you what I'm trying to -- to convince you of...

[tape interruption; end]