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

May I ask a question? Somebody wrote here a very strange paper on Nevada and Mr. Webster, forgot to put his name to it.

[tape interruption]

...we have to credit it to Mr. Webster, if there -- nobody turns up.

(There's a name on the back. The name's on the back.)

Oh. Didn't see it. Thank you. Pardon me.

Then I think I should mention this. You remember last time we talked on the position of the churches -- the denominations in this country at this moment. And I said that the corruption of the best is the worst. And hence -- sin- -- as far as these denominations do not put death in the center of their liturgy, that they certainly usurped the position which they had no right to claim. Now isn't it strange? The very -- next day, written on April 30th, that is, I think is the very last lecture was on Friday, that was the 1st -- so it was written the day before, I received from a friend in New York the following letter.

"As he -- as"--another -- a professor--"As he had been at a funeral the same day, we also talked of death, and how badly death is treated in this age."

I remember our talks, of mine and his, on death in 1951.

"I said that I thought the only hope for the parish churches today as vital parts of society would be if they brought birth--but especially death--back into the social order, giving these two events back to the people, and taking them away from the hospital and the funeral home."

In both cases, as you know, the -- these events today are classified medical events instead of spiritual events, as a birth and a death is.

"As an Episcopalian, Professor Such-and-Such was interested in this, and wanted me to write to his friend Pike in California"--you know, Bishop Pike. He talked here a few days ago?--"I don't think that without the Church an individual can ever do right by death. We can have our babies at home by ourselves."

And I may say that this gentleman managed to have his children born in

his home in New York City, which is quite an achievement. They couldn't prevail on him to send his wife to the -- one of these big slaughterhouses.

"We can't -- can have our babies at ho- -- at home by ourselves, but the family does not seem big enough to give death a form. Feiring and I"--that's another friend--"and I have talked about issuing a pamphlet or small book on death. Obviously written by you, but also containing an appendix with the legal and practical questions which need answering."

Now I thought it was a strange coincidence. That's -- you -- you see, with -- this man hasn't written me a letter for half a year.

And then I also sh- -- think I should leave you with a precise quotation from Dean Inge. I didn't have the -- my -- the paper with me last time, so I couldn't give it, and -- from -- by rote. I didn't know it sufficiently precise. So here it is.

"History"--perhaps you take this down. And I think it's a great help for any understanding of history.

"History shows us -- history shows us that the powers of evil have won their greatest triumph by capturing the organizations which were found -- formed to defeat them. By capturing the organizations which were formed to defeat them. History shows us that the powers of evil have won their greatest triumph by capturing the organizations which were formed to defeat them. And that when the devil has changed the contents of the bottles -- and that when the devil has changed the contents of the bottles, he never alters the labels.

"History shows us that the powers of evil have won their greatest triumph by capturing the organizations which were formed to defeat them, and that when the devil has changed the contents of the bottles, he never alters the labels."

Now you see, for you and me, the trouble with this situation is that you have no right to be cynical about the institutions that defeat evil. We need them. And on the other hand, that you have to be watchful not to be taken in by them. It is this in -- this tightrope walk which is demanded from you. Today you find the debunkers, the cynis- -- the lost generation, the cynic who say, "Well, everything is corrupt. Just politics," or whatever you say. That is absolutely meaningless, because you are in politics yourself. And anybody who utters this word simply is counted out of the realm of the living. You have to decide in each case whether your family is rotten or sound. Or whether your state is sound or rotten. No way of saying -- all what -- what concerns politics, you see, is bad, and all -- everything is piously to be accepted. That's our problem. We have to discern the spirits.

Will you kindly take down this expression, which I think is most needed in our time? I think I've mentioned it before. It's an expression which always existed in former times, and with the going Greek of this country, going pagan, and banning all -- all religious books, something which is not religious, but which just appeals to your reasonable faculty is omitted. And that's the discernment of the spirits. And that's a discernment, the discrimination you have to have. Whether the bottle, you see, is -- has changed its content, or -- and -- or -- and the label is -- is therefore a pseudo-label or whether the label still conforms with the content. And in most cases, you see, since we are inside the bottles--we are Church, we are state, we are -- are the arts, and we are the sciences, you -- you are this--can't get out of it. Every book you read, with every -- with every idiotic pleasure you undertake, you are doing these things; you are politics.

When -- once you know this, then there is no help but to -- to resist this change, or this -- these attacks of the -- of the devil, you see, and to restore the content of the bottles to their former glory. This is meant by "discernment of the spirits," the distinction between label and content. But it doesn't get out -- aus of the trouble that since we are inside these bottles, you see, we cannot pass it by and pass the buck to others and say, "Oh, empty." We are coward and rotten, we stink when we -- discover this "discern the spirits" and know that the devil has gotten the upper hand in us. And you see the -- the devil is always the denier of our power to discern the spirits. That's the devil.

And we have -- you see, four stages of this deviltry. First, the peasants remain pagans. That's why we still call the people who live -- "the pagans," you see, the Gentiles "pagans," because these were the people in the countryside, "pagus" meaning "countryside." So the first Christians, you see, couldn't convert the pagans, the peasants. So there -- there is a layer of witches' sabbath, and -- and fairy tales, you see, which is pre-Christian. Then the knights, and the Landsknechts, and the mercenary soldiers would go devil -- devilish, and all our playing cards are remembrances of the Black Mass played by the -- by the soldiers. If you play cards, that's a remnant of the deviltry of the Middle Ages. They were very obscene, these cards. You don't recognize it. Now the ladies can play with these cards without blushing. They couldn't have done so in 1400. But now they play bridge, you see. But then they played tarot. And I recommend to you an exhibition of tarot cards, and then you would blush.

Today we have the deviltry of the teaching profession. In order to make a career in America today, you have to ‚parter le bourgeois: you have to say something startling, and of course, it is only possible to say something startling when it has a certain grain of untruth. And that's the devil. And you must not be surprised that today the -- the lawyers, who were very pagan in Mid- -- the Middle Ages, and the soldiers, are all religious. Take President Eisenhower. He's

a general. And in -- for -- 500 years ago, he would have conjured up the devil, and all the teachers in the schools would have preached the Gospel. Now it's the other way around, you see. The soldiers represent today religion, and the teachers represent the devil.

And that's why I invite you to discern the spirits. You cannot live today. Every individual, every person who goes through this machinery of public education, he must learn to discern the spirits. And that's a tremendous emancipation which has never been -- existed in the world, that the individual is challenged to contradict what he's learning, because it is not in tune with his destination, with his destiny, with what he manifestly is meant to become. And your nose is given you to smell this out. The discernment of the spirits: that's the problem of the churches today.

I have -- made quite a hit last -- yesterday in the adult Bible class in a church when I said this -- the prayers for the -- for the seasons were said yesterday on Rogate Sunday, that's the litanies for the blooming of the fields, and the coming up of the harvest, and the -- taking possession of the township. That was the former three-day celebration and it was celebrated yesterday on -- on Rogate Sunday. And so of course, the -- versatile as modern churchmen are, they had added to the -- to the prayers for "Bless -- bless -- bless our seasons, and bless our fields, and bless our woods, and bless the farmers' work," also "Bless the work of the people in industry."

So I took them to task and said, "That's quite hollow, and that's just a -- embarrassed afterthought to include industry into -- into agriculture." Because, you see, in the -- your relation -- and it has something to do with our present turning to the masses today, of -- which I shall try right away --. Here you have the soil, and here you have the farmer, or the gardener--let's put it this way, here, in this -- Southern California everything is gardening, after all. And here is the creator. Now our maker has im- -- in- -- endowed the soil with the rhythm of time. There is an element of life in the soil through the seasons. And you only tend these seasons, and the demands of these seasons. But it isn't you who have to decide when a tree blossoms, you see. That's in the connect- -- direct connection between the soil and the creator that the time is decided. Time -- living time is always rhythmical, and the seasons are an example. And that's why we pray that some rain may come to Southern California, even this spring. We can't do anything about it so far.

When you come to the industry, it is perfectly arbitrary when you produce. You can produce the same button -- at nighttime, at 1 o'clock, or on Sundays. There is no season. And that's why industrial work is not blessed by the same mysterious connection of the production, you see, the process of produc-

tion with our creator. God has entrusted the rhythm in industry to us, to our problem of timing, when you should work, you see. You must decide this. It is not in the but- -- button, it is not in the steel, it is not in the dead matter, it is not in the -- our commodities. And all the churches ring hollow today with their attempt to ride -- run after the workers, who haven't even understood what their problem is. That's just sentimentality, romanticism. You cannot simply say, "Now the industry is blessed, too." It is cursed, because it is uprooted. It has no timing.

And I tried to tell you at the end of the last meeting that today -- he deserves well who helps a man today, you see, to find himself in these longer rhythms of year, and study, and so on. And I'm afraid most of you are not aware of this blessing in your own four years in college. That is, today in the whole world, all 3 billion people who are -- to live today, have not the benefits you have with a four-year education in college. And you make the worst use of it, because they hash it up into small units of examinations and courses, instead of considering these four years a complete unit to educate you into the greatness of the real periods of your life. To live four years in a continuum, to be able to mold these four years into a unit, you will never have this privilege again. And even if you had it, would -- were a man of leisure, if you do not exercise this splendid privilege now, while you are at this university, then you will not have learned how to apply to -- later periods of life when you are rich, and people of independent means. And you just waste your time by going tiger-hunting in Africa. And the ti- -- tigers will resent it.

So the -- we -- we bay -- we may -- may conclude this I think with some dogmatic statement. And I think the Church--who is dogmatic--should bear that we are also dogm- -- dogmatic about her, that there is no Church today where there is not the recognition of this longer time rhythm, because only in longer time spans we are faced with death and with regeneration, and rebirth. In periods of seven years, you must die and rise again. In periods of a week, you see, that isn't realized. And therefore today, the Church -- affects only the childish part of most people. They go there because they want to be good. But to be good is not to live. Live -- living is -- above good and evil. It's eternal, everlasting, or how- -- whatever you express it. The regeneration of life is not based on morality. That's -- are powers beyond your -- the control of your little judgment, what you think is good or evil. You cannot marry because it is good to marry.

And when I read Benjamin Franklin on venery, I despise the man. He has no idea what love is. And Benjamin Franklin is the curse of this country in this respect. He has lowered all the great divine passions of men to mere practicalities. Venery, "use in veneration," he says. Scandalous. You see. Making it an -- an action of man, when it is a passion. It's the opposite.

So there is much to recover, and to recover from.

Now let me, before going into our handling of the modern masses, the slaves, the immigrants, the workers, the children, and the soldiers of our country--and the strange way in which they have to be gradually discovered as needing a special treatment, despite the fact that they are not mentioned in the Constitution--before we turn to this, let me say some words about your papers. I have read them all, but for purely technical reasons, I shall not give them back today. There is one thing I -- I would like to -- to say right away about your understanding of the issues involved. Some have written good papers, and some of course no papers, and so on. But there is a misunderstanding, I think, about the League of Nations and the United Nations, with regard to this -- to this problem of un- -- unorganized territories.

We -- you remember that we started with the -- the assumption of internment improvem- -- internal improvements, and we saw that they are really external improvements tying the externality, you see, of the West to the alreadyorganized colonies. So that the word "internal improvement" is misleading. It is secondly misleading that they all -- only speak there officially of the distribution of the lands, of the free land in the West, when in fact they establish states, protect the -- these territories militarily, and grant education to future generations.

This is perhaps more important than you would think at first sight, because from the point of view of any Asiatic, European, or African country, the sequence would be, you see: conquest, rule, education, property. In America, and that's -- you -- I may tell you this frankly, is one of the greatest handicaps for Americans being liked in the rest of the world--it's difficult; from the historical background--that this wilderness first appeared in the form of parcels of land you could own, you could survey, and you could buy for $1.25 an acre. The situation has been, as you can -- read in the speech of Webster very clearly, that it has just been, you see: home--let us put it clearly--homestead, that is, land; education; government--I call this here "rule" -- I could have said "government"; and defense in war.

Now everybody at home here speaks therefore first of property and of how many dollars and cents. And he will say, "This farm cost me, you see, $500," when an -- a European would say that the -- the government allow- -- enabled him to settle at the military frontier, for example, Serbia and Austria, which was a famous settlement of veteran soldiers, you see. And it was called "the military frontier," and is the piece of -- very wonderful piece of land in Slavonia, between the Drau and the Danube River. That's just an example of how in the old c- -- world -- the military government comes first; the civilian government comes

second; the cultural institutions--church and school--comes third, you see; and property comes fourth, in our listing things.

So I was taken aback the other day--forgive me--when I mention this, that when somebody said to me that education had been here a buyer's market. -- Yes, a buyer's market, you see, so that the students, so to speak, could write the ticket, and the teachers had to follow suit. It would be impossible in any European country to speak of education in any connection with buying and selling. It is just impossible. It is on a different level, you see. Teaching and -- and -- and learning has nothing to do with the buyer's market. With -- it is nothing for sale. You don't get anything out of education as the ter- -- term is here.

So would you kindly notice -- it is, I think, for you of great usefulness in dealing with people from other nations, that in America, the lower--that the farm for $600, so to speak, the government sold it to you for $600--makes law for the whole vocabulary in which you speak of education. That costs so much to send a boy to college, you see. And on it goes. And the government is either expensive, or too much government, you see, and taxes, and then war -- that's just waste. In a -- in countries with narrow frontiers, people have always felt that they should start at the highest, the risking of their lives, you see, and that property was a very minor consideration inside the once- -- you see, -established frontier. Can you see the difference?

Now -- it was nothing different here. I assure you that these frontier people after all faced wild animals and Indians first, and even Spaniards, and English as you know, in the 18th century, when they settled at the Mississippi, there were still the English ports. And so don't think that in actuality, American pioneers have ever just act -- been motivated by greed, because they had to risk their lives, and nobody in his five senses, you see, will risk the wife of -- his wife and children if it is not for a higher law than just immediate profit for the next 30 days. But your ideology is -- is so absolutely turned topsy-turvy by the fact that this western land was not considered to be taken in war, but to be, so to speak, already within the economy of the United States.

And you know how much military effort has been needed in these Indian rebellions and wars. Always Uncle Sam had to send out troops and do the shooting. This is not mentioned. You speak of $1.25 per acre, as though this covered the real meaning of the settlement of the frontier. I -- I demand from you that you should revise this lingo, because ob- -- obviously, you see, the -- Hi- -- the people in India, and the people in Burma, and the people in Africa resent terribly this kind of blatant commercial talk.

I had once a discussion with a very great American preacher. And we

talked about this. And he said, "Yes, it is very true. I know how horrid the effects on the {other} world is. And the strange thing is that Americans cannot be bought. They are quite incorruptible. All this is mere talk. You see an American f- -- go out and fight for his country. He cannot be bought. He cannot be bribed."

"Yes," I said, "I know he's much less corruptible than a German or Frenchman for money. But he speaks this way, you see, as though he was." You understand. "Buyer's market" means that the sales -- the salesman will do anything to please the buyer. Of course no educator has ever done this in this country -- neither in this country nor in other -- any other, you see. They have done their duty. This is something quite different from a buyer's market, because when you do the duty of education, you have to do things the child doesn't like. And that's the condition of education.

And -- only now, in the last 40 years, is -- the devil goes -- stalks around and tells you that a teacher is a seller, a salesman. How could he? It's all nonsense. Don't -- it has never functioned this way. A good teacher is not for sale, and not for hire. He does it although he's underpaid, or she's underpaid, badly treated by society, and everything else. There have been teachers who have -- have -- who have paid the milk bill for their underfed pupils. Is that a buyer's market?

It's a scandalous expression--pardon me for saying this, you see--because you corrupt the word in saying that the American will do everything for the almighty dollar. Now I have lived after all in Europe, and I have lived here. And I think people are much less for sale here than they are in Europe, except these modern devils who have -- who have written off these values, and who now, so to speak, in the last 30 -- 40 years are forming this devil's guild. And that's why you have to discern the spirits.

I think there is an old lingo in America where you express everything with the lowest common denominator, "$1.25 per acre," but you mean the flag of the United States flying over this ground proudly. That's the opposite, because there's somebody buried in the process. And where are the $1.25 per acre compared to the man who was shot in the process?

So you hurt yourself terribly when you let these -- this nomenclature go on like that. It wasn't very dangerous in isolation. The con- -- this continent could afford its own language. Why shouldn't you speak American? But now you make speeches in the United Nations and in the 4-H, as a point-four program in -- you call foreign--you -- you remember what we said -- to say about foreign aid--and you hurt the interest of the United States terribly by putting all the things in the opposite order from which they really, you see, exist. It may be

-- it has its merits to talk everything down, and to speak low-brow, and to be very informal; but it has also its tremendous disadvantages when you compare this with the way in which the Russians, for example, put this. They say, "We bring you emancipation; we bring you liberty; we bring you the world revolution." And we say, "We -- we -- we bring you chlorine water."

Yes. That -- that is, we have no overall term for what we are bringing to the Indians--hygiene and so on, obviously. It's all fizzling out into -- into little things. You understand?

So I think this is the -- a great insight--you would develop this--that just in dealing with the western lands, the vocabulary applied there is not congruous with the facts. It is not congruous with -- your -- our real action there. War, peacetime -- wartime government, peacetime government, education, and Church--that is the domination of the word, the instruction, the ins- -- inspiration, and lastly property--that's the sequence in which a country is settled. And there is no other. It is impossible to settle any coun- -- in any other sequence. And the taking up of the -- the -- of their western land therefore, has to be looked in this complete form, and cannot be looked upon as though it was just the -- distribution of -- of spoils, you see. And that's how it is treated in our textbooks. And I think it -- does a mighty injustice to the heroic and pioneering aspect of the settlement.

The difficulty is here to see that in war every soldier, or every warrior is the government in -- in person, himself. In peace, there is a division between -- agents of the government and the people. You can see this, you see. In the Church, we are beyond a day's -- a weekday action. We are on a festival -- in a festival.

By the way, it's interesting. Yesterday a psychoanalyst buttonholed me and said, "We need festivals. The Church has destroyed it, or has given up the real meaning of festivals. And we cannot cure the sick people in this country, because it's all fake." There is noise, and there is -- there is Catalina Island. And Disneyland. But that's not festive. That's just amusement. And as long as you mistake pleasure and amusement for festivity, you don't know the difference. You know even not what -- what life is like; without festivals, of course, no Church, and no spirit, and no destination, and no direction of our lives.

So this I think I had to s- -- tell you. It has many implications. But your papers are all laboring under this incapacity to see that this extension toward the West was absolutely analogous to our going now to Guam, you see, or to the Philippines, that it isn't so different as it looks to you. And therefore, the analogy has got -- has betrayed you in many cases. One per- -- of you was very brilliant

and said that England, in being reluctant today to deal with the Berlin situation, really was very much like South Carolina in 1828 or '29, as the -- speech -- The Reply to Hayne, was made. This is really brilliant, because there the analogy was, you see, was really understood.

Now to -- with regard to the United Nations. The -- there is no analogy of course between Webster's Reply to Hayne, because there was organized territory and unorganized territory. Now if you speak of the ideological plan of a United Nations or the League, there is a hypothesis, which has -- proved false, that the earth is already totally organized. My analogy, my question however suggested to you that part of the possessions of the United States at this moment was organized, incorporated. The other was faulty, was disorganized, you see, was bankrupt, that had not a powerful government that could look after its own interests, but had still to be organized. Take Western Germany. Take Berlin, where it's very clear that it is not yet a state again, you see. It's just occupied territory.

Now I think the U- -- the League quite rightly broke down, because it had this pseudo-idea of organized -- organized parts of the world now only having to get together and to unite. This is the great misfortune of -- for the United States, that Mr. Wilson was an ideologue and the Peace Cau- -- Societies of course foisted this on him, partly. The fact of the matter is that we have today military interests simply on bases outside the United States. We have found out -- what for our own survival at this moment we cannot give up. This has nothing to do with the League idea, you see. And you see the bankruptcy of our policy in this -- or the -- the danger of a -- of this overall idea of the League, compared to our real interest, in the treatment of China. We have, as you know, forced Mr. Stalin to give the Chinese a vote and a seat in the Security Council, and the veto. To -- from today, seen from today, it looks absolutely idiotic, why the most disorganized country on earth should get a place on the highest tribunal, you see; one of the five: France has, England has, Russia has, China has, and America, you see. This was taken from statistics. Statistics are -- have nothing to do with history and politics. Just because the Chinese have 600 million people, that doesn't give them, you see, this place on the Security Council. That's -- that's pure abstraction, schoolboy abstraction. They are the -- one of the disorganized parts of the world at this moment.

And fortunately, we don't know yet how they will be organized one day. It's a long story. But -- but certainly, the illusion of 1900 -- you see, -19 and 1945, consists in just assuming that China is already organized, when it is just in the process of melting down its old structure, you see, and not -- and hasn't found yet a new one. It's in process. Russia wasn't organized in 1918, was it? It didn't -- wasn't able to -- to take part in the -- in the -- in the abortive Ver- -- Treaty of

Versailles, and the Peace of Brest Litovsk was never -- was signed, but never executed, as you know.

So please, look at the facts of the matter. What I was driving at, was trying to tell you that -- just as the -- as the -- the regions towards the Mississippi River were not incorporated, and yet they belonged already to the responsibilities of the United States, because they were taken away from somebody else, after all--from the French, the Spaniards, and the English, you see, and there they were. In the same way we have destroyed -- destroyed the Ottoman Empire, and we have destroyed Austria-Hungary, and we have destroyed Germany, and we -- if you destroy three big empires, you of course are held responsible for their reorganization. And that hasn't happened to this day. What are the Arab- -- Arab states? They are the receivership, you see, of the old Ottoman Empire. And since 1918, nobody has succeeded in reorganizing this.

The same is true of Austria-Hungary, of course. I need not tell you that half of Europe is now in the Iron Curtain because Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Roosevelt didn't allow Churchill to stay in Berlin, and to keep what he had. -- Assuming, you see, that -- that this could later, so to speak -- repaired. All our mischief comes from our own idea that the League should take the place of our military conquests.

And therefore--forgive me for being very -- very -- most -- as eloquent as I can on this matter--my paper was given you as a task to rid you from this ideological paleness of thinking about the League. I wanted to show that a s- -- government, as ours, is simply forced by wars to stay where it is. That's all. You see, the war -- you omit it completely in your analogy. World War I and World War II forced the United States soldiers to go some places, you see. And after we have been there, and have destroyed the government that is there, by unconditional surrender, you see, obviously the -- the responsibility now rests with this warlike government that has gone there and destroyed the old -- other government, you see. This has nothing to do with pale ideas, and abstractions about League of Nations, you see. It has to do with our physical existence in this place, and that no other lawgiver, you see, is allowed to act at that place. So we are the lawgiver.

And if you -- as long as you -- this is the real reason of the moral paralysis of the United States that -- in the last 30 years, that ins- -- instead of these actual experiences where the United States soldiers had to march to bring victory to their -- to their cause, you see, and then say, "All right, then we had to do something," that we -- withdrew from all these responsibilities--in Vladivostok we had our soldiers, we withdrew, you see. In Asia Minor, we had our -- we withdrew. But instead, we had a nice -- the Palace of Nations in Geneva. That's a laughing-

stock.

And as long as you cannot laugh about the League and its beautiful secre- -- secretaries, I'm sorry. You cannot govern the world. Write off the League and see where the troops of the United States, and the Marine Corps, and the Navy, and the airplanes hover, where they fly. Then you know your responsibilities, because they are the result of the war. And nobody wants to do it in this country. That's why nobody can govern this -- this country, because nobody is allowed to tell the truth. Everybody has to pay lip service to this talking club, where the Russians spy on everything we say or do there. Now they say, "There should be a -- a United Nations soldiery in Berlin." Have you ever thought that the Russians are part of the United Nations, and that -- can do what they please to betray every military secret? And march in -- when they are -- just like it? Such a fantastic idea! But it is all born here from the na‹ve unwillingness to look at the stubborn fact.

You always say that you are from Missouri and you want to be shown. And you don't believe in any -- you are realists. I have never seen an American who was a realist. All our rich men are -- are dreamers, and idealists, and abstractionists. And the poor, even more so. Don't believe -- you are dreamers. You -- really think that -- that political acts are not committal, and can be redressed; that you can march out of the -- of the -- of Versailles, of the peace conference for 10 years, and then not get a repres- -- depression. Isn't that -- isn't that na‹ve? Is that realistic?

But the League? Oh, yes. Then you put -- you put your own traitors, and your own poli- -- you see, antagonists into Berlin. That's why the League cannot work, because it assumes that the organized and incorporated territories are complete; whereas in any war, the victor destroys the organization of the vanquished, you see.

And so, since 1918, vast tracts of the universe have not been governed, but were in an anarchical Zust- -- state. And the word "anarchy" is -- comes to mind. It has been outlawed in this country, but fortunately a good part of our real life is anarchical. It isn't yet incorporated. It isn't yet ruled. And without some anarchy, of course, no little cell could exist. Partly the protoplasma is organized, you see, in a -- in the cell; partly it's anarchical. It's fluid. And don't want to -- do not try to outlaw anarchy. It's an element of life.

But here, when you talk, everything is law -- "government by law"; and when you act, everything is anarchy, and western films, and violence. This has something to do with each other. Since you think in your mind up there so abstract about law, in your limbs there is violence. Think a little more about reali-

ty up here, and you will dismiss these western films as very boring. Life is much more interesting than western films. But the division in you has reached now the point that this country counts 300 percent more schizophrenic pe- -- cases than any other country in the world.

And so my paper was an attempt to cure you. It hasn't worked. I'm very sorry to say that all the people who have dealt with the -- with the -- after the World War -- World War I issue, have always thought that I was thinking of this paper instrument of the League. I was talking -- and as -- as much as in the case of the 13 colonies in 1787 of the stubborn fact of the case, that the Americans transported an army across the Atlantic Ocean. That's something very different, isn't it? Because war make law -- wars make law. Sacrifices make law. Not papers.

The fact that so -- many people crossed the sea and Fr- -- some of them lost their life on French soil, that's the commitment of the country. But papers? This -- are just ideas, you see. And it is very strange. Nobody has mentioned in any one of your papers the fact that the United States went to war. And didn't make a peace that corresponded to the investment in the war. This is the only re- -- the only thing on which the people in a country can agree, you see. Because wars make law for your and my thinking. We must not go behind such a thing. We cannot go behind such a thing. But we can very well say that pipe dreams are pipe dreams.

But a war is not a pipe dream. And in this country, it is -- has reached a point where you really think when you go to New York, you must visit this empty palace there and think that's important; and you do not go to the cemetery where the Lafayette Squadron is buried. What do you think is more important?

-- To me it is quite un-understandable, but it all has to do with your buyer's market, and with your idea that we officially only talk about what anything costs in dollars and cents. And you do not wish to be reminded that the decision came when these pioneers took their lives in their hands--and their children and their wives, you see--and committed themselves to Indian warfare, and to neighborly warfare by the way, and to shooting it out with the -- the competitor in the Gold Rush, et cetera. And that only half of the people survived. And that makes laws.

Can you see my point? Any questions? Glad to answer. It's very important, ge- -- I feel it's central. It's perhaps the best I can tell you, because I had to learn this by bitter experience that the best this country has to give is not acknowledged by this -- by the nation itself. And that if you take flight into abstract

things like the United Nations; and instead of asking, "Where are we?" "Where do we stand?" this would immediately give you also a real relation to the other nations. I don't mean to say that that was -- would lead to isolationism at all. But it would open your eyes to the fact where our allies are, where our solidarity is. Can you see the point? And not that in the abstract, we already, you see, clutch the whole globe at our bosom from some stratospheric, you see, viewpoint. And -- and cannot distinguish friend and foe anymore, you see, and -- and who is with us and who is against us.

And I think you all can contribute very much to clearing up this mess when you stick to The Reply to Hayne. Mr. Webster allows us to see a -- draw a constant line. If you only would, you see, read into this Reply to Hayne -- into this strange term, "internal improvement," you see, what it really means, you see: the -- putting a conquered territory on a equal footing, you see, with an alreadyorganized peacetime government. Can you see this? This is -- the -- the question is always peace and war, and peace again. And it is not abstract scheming.

But the relief -- that must come to you is -- when you see it, it doesn't mean because no idealistic abstract scheming, that you only want to deal with the status quo and there should be no creative change. This is not -- not so, you see. My proposal to you is to see where the sacrifices already have been made, and to build on them, and honor your dead. And I'm the last to say that life is -- has not to be lived heroically. But it isn't heroically lived when you have heroic schemes, you see. It is only heroically lived when you honor the dead who have already died so, and are ready to defend their conquests. This is again the problem in Berlin, you see.

And we all are alternatingly cowards and heroes. Don't think that the world is des- -- divided by cowards and heroes. But we are all at the same time, when it is worthwhile, we are heroes; and when it isn't worthwhile, I hope we are cowards. There are -- you see, don't think that the world is divided into types. Here, in this country you mustn't the w- -- use the word "hero," because then we immediately, in our sober minds, we will say against it, "Well, we are cowards," you see.

The most famous hero in -- in Prussian tradition, the Field Marshall Blcher, always would say, "Cowards, we all are," you see. Everybody is a coward. But the strange thing is that there are causes, you see, where we forget that we are cowards. We overcome our cowardice. And it should be a good cause for which it is worth, you see, to overcome our cowardice.

I recommend to you -- I -- I have bespoken--or how do you say this? that--a disk, a long-playing disk, "History Must Be Told," in which I tell of my

own experience, within three days, of having been a courageous man and a coward. And I have tried to -- to embody in this -- in these two stories the real problem of a man -- a citizen and a soldier.

And there again, you have the discernment of the spirits. It isn't because the pope is a pope that he is a holy man, you see. He has also to be a holy man, besides being the pope. And so the -- you look at a soldier, and that's not a hero, you see. He may be a great coward. So the -- the offices only support our understanding that it is worthwhile, you see, to -- to be more than the little frogs usually are.

But you do an injustice to these pioneering people when you { } them as tradesmen who so- -- bought an acre for $1.25. They were their government; they were their Church; they were their army. And once you see them in this completeness, you see, of course, you -- you are staggered by the undertaking, and you have great admiration for what they did.

Now, may I now then prepare you for the next chapter, the last? I have to deal with these -- with the people who are in a transitional state. Masses are people who do not want to be spoken to as they are now, but as they hope to be finally. A worker at his toil waits till he can leave the factory to be a gentleman. A child wants to grow up. A prisoner in a prison wants to -- waits for the term -- when he has served his term. There are, in every one's life, periods in which only expectation can justify the in-between.

The simplest fact is -- you wrote a very enthusiastic paper on the emancipation of the Filipinos, that we really finally, in 1946, after they had been devastated by the Japanese for four years--which nobody mentioned in your papers very kindly--I don't know why; that's the most important event in Japa- -- Philippine history, is it not, that they were occu- -- conquered by the Japanese, by our lack of foresight? And we were -- left them there, steam in the lurch. This is never -- never mentioned in your papers. You are wonderful people. You have all abstract principles. You can -- never can see war, what it really means. These four years from 1942 to 1946, they were the misery of the Philippines. But I read your glowing papers, "Conquered in 1998; policed from 1900 to 1934; promised independence, you see, in 1934; and then the gloriously -- fulfillment of the promise in 1946."

Yes. And Corregidor? You see. After all, the Philippines could -- could hope to be treated like a homeland and to be protected against invasion. They weren't. And it's all to be read in Homer Lee, that they -- they wouldn't -- couldn't be protected. And this is after all our debt to -- why -- that's why the man is on the -- is on our stamps, the Filipino hero, because they have kept the faith as a

part of our armed -- territory in wartime. It's the whole story of the Philippines. Now -- then -- now they are our equals. And not even mentioned in your papers, gentlemen. It is trifled. You cannot see the real, important fact, because "war" is not in your vocabulary. At least 15 of you have written up this Philippine story; and not one of you has mentioned the war, the conquest by the Japanese, and what it meant to the --. It meant to the Filipinos, you see, that they paid--like England in 1940 in the Blitz--they paid for the United States. Obviously, if they had not been a part of the United States, the Japanese would not have treated them as a con- -- in this same way, you see. Very strange.

Now -- but what I meant to say is, all of you admit that in the times from 1898 to -- to 19-...

[tape interruption, end of tape]