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

...{ }. I have to try to put before you the second millennium as an attempt to replace the empires of old by one world. The second millennium, gentlemen, tries to keep the achievement of the first millennium, the Church, and to add to it the created world as against any particular world, or any sacred cows in Boston. {They have} a saying in Boston, "There are no sacred cows in Boston." In India, there are sacred cows in the Ganges River. That is, gentlemen, all empires consecrate parts of the world as though it were { } the whole world. The whole story from -- 1000, from Gregory VII, the first monk who traveled into the world, to our own day is that the world is in revolution. It must revolve. That what has been up one day must be down the other; that's the world. Nothing in the world, gentlemen, has in itself a permanent high or low. The world revolutions abolished the idea that kings are better than aristocrats, and aristocrats are -- are better than gentry; the gentry are better than bourgeoises; the bourgeoises are better than workers, proletarians; that whites are better than Negroes. The world is in a constant revolution; that which has been low will be high the other day; and that what has been high will be -- the mountains will be humbled, the Psalms say, and the valleys will be exalted. You can read this already as a prophecy of Israel in the Old Testament. And -- Israel, and the Church, 2,000 years of -- of preparation before the world could be tackled in this manner.

And part of what you call "democracy" in this country, gentlemen, is the acceptance of this leveling-off of all worldly distinctions. "Democracy" to you means, more than anything else, equality of opportunity. It means rotation of office. It means the tremendous fear that that which is high might -- will remain forever high. We rejoice when we read from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves, the three generations, and know { }.

Why should you rejoice, gentlemen? Because it's something worldly. Worldly possessions. And therefore the exalted must be put down and that which is low, the underdog, must be put up. That's why in this country everybody is interested in the underdog. Under, or below, or humble, or lowly is the -- in this country a word of promise, because a -- where the world goes, the underdog today will be on the upswing tomorrow. And nobody can -- stand high that he must not re- -- be -- remember that he may have to be put down. You remember Scipio Africanus, don't you, { }?

In this way, gentlemen, the world is in revolution. For the last 900 years, no government that isn't revolutionary {governs}. That is, no government that can claim to be, like the mikado of Japan, direct descent from Heaven in a peaceful manner, you see, without putting down something that was high before. Every high today, gentlemen, has been the -- the coming-up, the running-up of an underdog, against something that was high before. {Thereby our highness, that we may revel in it}. And this period ends with the principle of relativity. That's very fitting. That's a summary, gentlemen, of the world.

Now gentlemen, these world revolutions are fought by revolutionaries. The saints of the Church are people who take you out of time and space. And I'm going to try to be again -- be as simple as possible to show you that the world -- men who have put the world and lifted into angles inside of which it can hinge, and roll, and flap, and move in constant movement, that these were -- people were -- created the revolving movements of history in the last thousand years, these revolutionaries had a peculiar horizon. You know already how important it is -- what horizon is. The horizon of a revolutionary, modern man is that in the -- he has progress of civilization in front of him. Progress is the idea of all revolutionaries. Things must be bigger and better. The world must become one. Everything has to be discovered.

What has he in his background, gentlemen? The Church, Christianity, as a finished product. We all are, so to speak, within the second millennium, born as civilized people. Christian civilization is already there. We { } {conquer} { }. That's what the Church does, what {people} going to church does. There's a new group of revolutionaries who say, "We must do something in addition." So their horizon is, "{Open-shut}; we know all about it," you see. "This has not to be re-instated. What we have to add is progress."

Now all these revolutionary people--you may think of Gregory, Francis, Luther, Cromwell, Napoleon, and Lenin--just as examples; there are of course millions of others; they have as a fellowship is -- with -- in the -- { } people to whom they speak. That is, if they are rabble-rousers, it must be their native tongue. They have their native tongue as their fellowship, inside. The fellowship of the revolutionary is usually, first, the people to whom he can speak in their own native tongue. And the second is -- the third is, the world of nature is the thing they want to tackle. They want to put in -- the house in order, the house of nature.

To give you examples for this, gentlemen. When Gregory VII, an ascetic monk, began to travel through central Europe, and to instigate the princes, and dukes, and counts against the emperor and said that the emperor was stymying the freedom of the spirit, and created the spiritual sword of opposition to the pope, he -- said he wanted to put up the whole world as one geometrical circle, with all roads leading to Rome, and every man in any bishopric of the world able to come to Rome and -- for example, ask for -- an annulment of marriage, or for the check-up on his bishop, whether he was selected in the right manner. That is, Gregory VII is the first pope, gentlemen, who conceived of the Church as a global, geographical institution. In the first millennium, the Church was dots and spots inside the world, with saints going everywhere, into the desert, you see. In the second millennium, the Church is, as you take it today, a geographical organization of the world. But -- strange thing which you will never understand at first, which is very difficult for a modern mind to grasp, is, gentlemen, that the Church from 1100 to 1500 believed in the world, in the organization of the world. Long before the worldly { }, the scientists of -- geographers. It was Gregory VII himself who conceived of this earth as one geometrical figure, to be construed, { }, and set upon, and Rome in the center. That's the medieval translation.

So from 1100 to 1500, again, gentlemen, you have the conception that the world should be organized as one world--as Mr. Willkie's book says--with Rome in the center, and all roads leading to Rome. This was, however, with the discovery of America -- broke down completely. The world was so different that all roads could never lead to Rome. Now from 1500, gentlemen, to 1900, this civilization however had another center, another -- rallying point around which merely worldly, secular relations could be organized. That's gold. Rome and gold are the two worldly aspects, or the two worldly horizons which made the wheels turn. In the Middle Ages, everybody went on pilgrimage to Rome, everybody appealed to Rome, every movement always to arbitration between the princes about peace and war. He was not the governor of the world. Don't misunderstand this, you see. But he was the center, the hub of the wheel by which man's imagination, man's orientation was informed. That there was a pope in Rome gave all the people who lived in Europe and in the Occident {the feel-} -- the feeling that there was order out of chaos, that the world was not just chaotic.

From 1500 to 1900, if you asked the nations, "What kept all these many nations going?" The flow gold. You could find a professor of -- a teacher of arms, or munitions, or ships, you see, everywhere the same meaning. Gold, as an organizing factor -- the Americans with their mad gold rushes are a good example, you see, of gold as an actually organizing force. Where there is gold, you have to go. Funny, why, you see? All roads lead to gold, you could say for the modern man. And all roads lead to Rome for the medieval man. As you have this same strange magic, you see, that a -- people believed, you see, that even if they come to grief in Alaska, they go there because of the gold. Funny idea. Half of them died. The other half were pr- -- sick. I mean three out of the thousands arrived with some means. Everybody runs there, you see. -- Perhaps to you already this gold rush is inexplicable. Would you go if somebody told you there is gold in Alaska? See? You are already out of this cycle. But your great-grandfather would have gone. Which is very hard for us to understand, isn't it, already? You see how much we are already outside this -- this world millennium. We're already entering a -- the third -- next millennium, where the bonds are of a different nature. They are not geographical. They are not worldly. God is coming into this world through the Church, gentlemen. The saints have the power to take you out of space and time. The world millennium, the revolutions of the world, give us the power to conquer space. And Gregory VII -- the discovery of America made -- conquered space by relating everything to Rome. Every new problem. Even America, when it was discovered, was, as you know, arbitrated by the pope. He said, "Spai- -- Spanish get that much, and Portuguese get that much." And to this day, the Portuguese language is spoken in Brazil for this reason. And no other. And Spanish in the rest of the We- -- of this New World.

So gentlemen, the pope in Rome, and the gold somewhere in the earth are the powers that draw people into the various parts of the world and break down the boundaries of the existing order. The pope in Rome is stronger than any emperor and king. And the gold in the modern world is stronger than any political boundary. Think of the Truman Doctrine for Greece. We send a few million dollars there, and Greek- -- Greece is just at our -- it can't resist it. It's just too stronghold. You can buy today political le- -- loyalty by foodstuff, by -- by -- by material goods. Because the world, gentlemen, is the flow of material goods. It's the definition of the word, that we say "the world" -- what we call "the world" is the flow of material goods across political boundaries.

Now gentlemen, if you look at these four people, and these four {pillars} of the modern worldly expanse of the last 900 years, then we will find that for the modern man, Christianity has become something hereditary. In the first millennium, the Church is something to come. In the second millennium, you get at the end silver -- { } {Christian fonts}, this abomination. That is, people who say, "Because we have -- our grandfathers have been Christians, we don't need to be Christians. So we can say that { }." It's a complete perversion of Christianity.

That is, gentlemen, the Church from the coming of the Lord today in this country is a social relic, with segregation of everybody against everybody. It's funny. That's what the Church is in this country. Just funny. The only Church that still is a Church is the Catholic Church. The others are all class institutions. And if you wish to go to church, do it, gentlemen. It's very nice on Sundays, but you have to do something against it on weekdays to ex- -- expiate the -- the sin. Because you are making for class consciousness. I mean, the institution that is the only institution in this country, gentlemen, that is really -- bearing out the Marxian theory of the class war is the Church. The Christian Church is the only class institution which we {really have} in this country. The colleges aren't { } and so -- et cetera, you see. The factories are. You can be a college graduate and work in a factory without getting your eyes scratched out. And you don't even wonder over this, gentlemen. But you can't be a black man and be a -- a monk of a Church in this -- in this country of ours, in many, as you know, except in the Catholic Church. You can't.

I have a friend, son of a bishop of Massachusetts, himself a devote man -- a devout man, and member of the Oxford Group Movement, for moral rearmament and such nonsense. And he -- he had a -- had a ministry of the Episcopal Church in Massachusetts in which there were white people and Jamaica Negroes. First-class people, these Negroes, They were very proud, these Englishcolony, these West Indies Negroes. And they lived happily hereafter together. When he took the parish, there was { } peace. And then the -- the -- in the aftermath of the import -- Articles of Import from Europe, this race hatred clashed, and the South of course has had its share -- poisoned the atmosphere. And one day the white -- his white vestrymen declared that the Abyssinians had to leave the Church. And -- these { } called Ethiopians, isn't it? That's the expression, Ethiopian? And he was heartbroken.

And I have seen the pictures -- pictures given to him by his colored parishioners, when they departed. But he was of course a Bostonian, and he conformed with the social right, and he bowed. And he has -- for my -- mind, he has lost his faith at that moment. He now has a fashionable parish in Brookline, in Boston, where everybody hates taxes for more than $10,000 income, and his Ethiopians had to start a church of their own. And this all has happened during the last 10 years in this free country, where the churches, as I said, have gone to the backward front of life, gentlemen. At the backward front -- the only thing that counts is background. The very word tells you the story of the human -- significance of the Church in this country. The Church in this country is background.

A friend of mine who came from Germany, and was persecuted by the Nazis wanted to join a church in California. And he had some sponsors. And he's a very good man, is now a full professor in the University of Chicago. And his heart was set to -- to become a member of the Church of Christ in this country somehow. And -- however he had been attacked as a -- as a secret Nazi -- by -- { } was like the Communist { }. Ten years ago, you see, I was persecuted as a Nazi, so now I am a Communist. That's natural.

So -- but this poor man was not -- was out in California. And He had been interned as a -- presumptive -- presumably a Nazi, had been freed and cleared. And the Church would not take him for this reason. And his sponsors, and the vestryman, and the minister had a meeting. And the sponsor said, "But this man just simply wants to be a member of the church. { }." And then the treasurer got up and made a short speech and he said, "Well, Mr. { } is not -- he is not handicapped in his material future if he can't join the church, is he?"

And he said, "{ } -- have to deny." His income was not at stake.

And so he said, "Then we'd better vote him down, because it might not be { } of this church."

So gentlemen, you'd better be very careful in going to -- to Sunday -- to Church on Sundays. You have to do something about it on weekdays by { }.

({ }.)

{It's a German problem}.

I could go on telling you stories on this matter. Many more, many more. But the most tragic one is the one in Cambridge, Massachusetts, of this -- of this Epi- -- Anglican -- I mean, this Episcopalian who broke his spine by allowing his church to disintegrate on racial lines. Who's he, anymore? He's a lollipop. Sweet man. Always smiling. Good heart and good nature {had him -- he} personified. But to hell with good nature, gentlemen. It doesn't function anymore, this good nature. They all -- everybody in this country tries to -- to replace faith by kindness, and love by charities, and hopes by utopias.

Well, I mean to say, gentlemen, is: our civilization of the second millennium has managed to {turn} the Church from representing the second coming of Christ and the future of human mission, destiny, into the background, where it is a pi- -- pious memory. And that is the secular spirit of the age, gentlemen. The human mind--the devil, in other words--never ceases to put this, what obstructs his own will, out of the way. And the safest thing is to put the prophecies into the background, as though they had already -- all {that happened} was just a nice celebration of King James Version of the Bible. Wherever you run today in this country into the King James Version, gentlemen, you know that people want to be put to sleep. That's all that it affects them with. You cannot get aroused, revolutionized, by the King James Version. So the revolutionaries, you see, are wonderfully balanced. The revolution takes place against the background of a dead weight of ecclesiastical { }. The revolutionary, gentlemen, is in the foreground. What is this revolutionary? The conquest of matter. The conquest of matter. The mobilization, the total mobilization, total war, total atomization, total electrification, total industrialization, total mechanization--all the words you adore, you see, total. "Mobilization" is the best expression, gentlemen, of any revolutionary tendency. Everything might be kept in flux, and everything may -- may be kept mobile.

Gentlemen, this is good for the things that are of the world. It is good that frontiers, for example, should be changed. I'm all for changing the -- the boundaries of Boston into the lines of Greater Boston. It is ridiculous to say Manhattan must be a city by itself. You need the five boroughs, you see. That's a change -- a mobilization of boundaries, is it not?

So gentlemen, total mobilization is the watchword of the second millennium as the future. The unity of the group, the revolutionary group inside this tremendous tension between the backdrop of a Christian -- background, and the forward-looking striving for a total mobilization of energy is that people who speak one language, one tongue. The lang- -- the people who speak one tongue, gentlemen, form a party, form a party. The spirit of the second millennium is that of partisanship. {factionalism}.

You get -- I'll list you now the parties which have run the show of revolution during the last 900 years. The Lords Spiritual, the bishops, and the abbots, and the doctors of the Church against the Lords Temporal, as they still sit away in the House of Lords in England. That's a -- arcane expression, but I wish you would keep it, gentlemen, because this is an important -- important opposition. It's the first party line: Lords Spirituals against Lords Temporal. That's of course pope against emperor, in the highest; but it's everywhere.

And we will have to find for the third millennium, gentlemen, some form of opposition of a similar kind. We have -- will have to translate this, which I call, by and large, the opposition between Church and state. In every -- generation, gentlemen, there are two parties--for the last 900 years--representing one: the coming of the Lord, and the other representing the retarding influence, the conservative influence. It's now -- in the 11th century, the Church is still {aggressive}. The spiritual people are the newcomers. The temporal lords are the background people, holding back the Church from going on a crusade, for example.

So gentlemen, Chur- -- Lords Spiritual against Lords Temporal, outcome: crusades. { }. The crusades, you can imagine, tried to -- to organize the world under Rome, under the jurisdiction of Rome. That's the geographical projection of Christianity, the crusades. It's a worldly enterprise. It's weapons and arms. It's not a kindly or charitable action; it's bloodshed, you see. But its reason is to project the Christian space -- into Christian space. That's what the Church has done it, through its saints.

Crusades, gentlemen, are the recuperation of the countries of the world once { } by missions. So crusades, gentlemen, are the worldly repetition of the mission. That's an important understanding for you, gentlemen. That's why the crusades are something worldly, and fought by knights, and armies; and the missions are fought by martyrs and -- and confessors, you see. Crusades are the worldly form of the expansion of Christianity. Columbus, as you know, went still as a crusader. { } the Knights of Columbus still try to remember. Crusades are the -- the worldly translation of missions into -- into so many worldly, secular terms. "This land { }."

Now then gentlemen, the next faction are the Guelphs against the Ghibellines. You may have heard of this. The Ghibellines were the imperial forces in Italy. And for example, in Dante Alighieri--and his Divine Comedy--are Ghibelline- -- is -- are a -- Ghibellines; his work is a Ghibelline { } against the Guelph. What is -- do the -- stand the Guelphs for, gentlemen? I told you, already, the Guelphs stand for secular government, and against hereditary government. The Ghibellines stand for hereditary government; the Guelphs stood for the rotation of government every year. I told you, elections, rotating of office -- rotation of office. That is, gentlemen, the Guelphs said, "Let the secular be secular."

({ }.)

That's what I say. The Ghibellines represent of -- I say Guelphs against -- I always have the aggressive party on the left, gentlemen, and the conservative party on the right.

({ }.)

{ }.

({ }.)

I'm sorry. The -- the point of the Guelphs is, you see, then that they said, "You are so secular,"you see, "Emperor, that we have to replace you by mayors and selectmen," you see. "We don't wish to have -- hereditary kings anymore. We want to have, you see, the mayor of Florence, and the --." They went so far, gentlemen, that they -- in Italy for a hundred years they imported the mayor of the city under the name of { } power, for six months. Every six months, another foreigner took over the government of the city. That is, the exaggeration of the secularism in the 13th century knew no -- no bounds. We have regulations in some Italian cities where they composed a council of aldermen which took office for three months in such a way that these poor people had to leave their wife and children at home. They couldn't sleep in their -- in their marriage bed. They had to go and sleep together in -- in the council chamber, you see, and they had a key which only four men together were allowed to use { } the -- the safe in which parchments of the city were protected. That is, in every way with -- they really literally tried to construe a secular government in which no one man could say, "I owned this government," you see, "by right of birth."

Mr. Taft would have been executed in Italy, just because he's the grandson of a president, you see. They -- every- -- that's why Dante was relegated. So every man who belonged to a noble family, you see, became suspicious, suspect of being -- power-seeking. You can't imagine -- this is completely forgotten here today in this country--secularism was a war whoop of the Guelphs. It meant, you see, "Let the seculum, that which is temporal, you see, be transient." It is a -- an -ism of the worst sort. As -- all -isms exaggerate, you see. They said the s- -- the time ma- -- the temporal, you see, must be made so transient, you see, that everybody can see it's just fugitive. You know in which country of the world it still exists, this government, this kind of caricature of democracy, of secularism? There is between France and Spain a little republic. Has anybody ever heard of its name?

(Andorra.)

Andorra. That's still strictly -- you go to Andorra, if you read an article in the National Geographic magazine on Andorra, you know the revolution that was made between 1200 and 1500 in Europe. The Andorra people still run the government on this basis. We have still one word, gentlemen, in our language, which reminds you of this idea of daily government, and yearly government, as against permanent government. That's the word "diet." A word -- the word "diet" for parliament means a -- a day's meeting. And -- for example, the king of England -- Henry VIII still said that he was only king "with Parliament assembled." "King in Parliament"--you may have heard the formula, and "king in council." Have you ever heard this word? Who has not heard this? Well, gentlemen, the king in Parliament is a transient form of the king. Parliament is not always assembled. Council is always there. So the king in council is the dangerous, hereditary government, with divine right of kings. If you can get the "king in Parliament," there you have the transient government, because if Parliament is not assembled, no king. So you transfer--that's the whole content of the English revolution--put it down, gentlemen: the content of the English Revolution was to transfer all rights and prerogatives to the king in Parliament, because then you had limited government. Not only because there was a Parliament, you could bribe the Parliament and buy it--the king did in the 18th century. He could own the conscience of most of the members of the House, as you know. In 1760, the king of England could count on a majority in any house because he bribed them. But Parliament was not always assembled. And when there was no Parliament, the prerogative of the king, you see, was not there. And Parliament had to be { } public. So the country always had to be told what was happening. And public opinion, therefore, public spirit, you see, could {rise} against the -- other -- { } government { }, which the Americans did. They inve- ...

[tape interruption]

...{ } precedes this, after all. It's daily legislation.

Well, gentlemen, I wish to fill out this gap in your -- in your memory about the secularism of the Guelphs. That explains, you see, everything about the free cities of the Middle Ages, the wonders of Florence, and Genoa, Padua, Nrnberg, and London, and Oxford, that they had this annual renewal of all their laws and legislation, and council, and bodies, { }.

Now gentlemen, we get the {Protestants} against the Catholics. This {means} laity against clergy. Then you get Roundhead and Cavaliers, or Whigs and Tories. Take your choice. The same thing, of course. Put it both down, Roundhead, Tories -- Tory -- "Whigs" is simply -- a later word. What's Whig { }? Does anybody know? What's a Whig? Who is a Whig? What is a Whig? What's the Whig?

(It's a conservative.)

Wie?

(It's a conservative. { }.)

Are you Communist? They are the -- no, they're not at all. What are they?

(Well, I -- well, in England, the -- I thought they represent the -- {middle} classes -- as against the Tories who { }.)

No, you are quite wrong. Quite wrong. I'm very sorry. Of course I made a mistake here. Pardon me, And I { }. I'm sorry I was quite wrong.

The -- the Whigs are the aggressive party, of course, and the Tories are the conservative party. Now gentlemen, the Whigs are the country gent- -- county gentry, and the Tories are the king's gentry. That's all there is to it. That is, gentlemen, the English gentry splits into two parties, just as in the -- Italian {city} in Dante's time. Everyone -- city splits into Ghibellines and Guelphs. And you have a hard time to explain how one city can contain an imperial party and a papal party, you see, and find the { } party. So that's just how the human mind works, you see. The -- the English gentry is split into royal gentry and country gentle- -- gentry. The Whigs are the country gentle- -- gentry. Cromwell is a Whig. You -- didn't you know this?

(No.)

"Cavalier" means King Charles I's gentry. That's a cavalier, who goes to court. It's a courtier. And the Whig makes the revolution against the gentry who go -- which goes to court and say, "We stay home in our manor, and we run the country from home." That's why they have local government, gentlemen -- in a way -- you see, which we have partly inherited. County government. That's why all hospitals and school in England are run by the gentry, in their local districts, and not state schools, you see. To this day.

Terribly important, and very simple, gentlemen. Can't you put this down? The English revolution is made by the country gentry against the king's gentry. What's the difference, gentlemen? The -- the -- county gentry is only held together by gold, by money, by wealth. They are the commonwealth people. They call what -- that what -- holds them in common the commonwealth, or the common weal, as we say in this country now. And the cavaliers are held together by the court, by the king's court, by his -- the royal sun in the center, at the Court of St. James.

So gentlemen, in the English revolution, the new power of gold is for the first time the unifying part, the moneyed interest, the land interest, the colonial enterprises get together. Without the East India Company and all the interest in the British Commonwealth, you see, the gentry wouldn't have had anything to say. But their ships ran everywhere on the seven sea lanes, you see. "Britannia rules the waves." "God is carrying His purpose out as the waters"--what's the very famous hymn?--"as the waters move over the sea." Something like that. The vision, gentlemen, of the English country gentleman is: country gentlemen plus colonies. The colonization, gentlemen, of the English allowed the country gentlemen to go against the English king.

You look at islands. You can have a -- a boat start from anywhere on the coast without the king's customs, and the { }, you see. And that's the right for which the English gentry fought, and for which they -- { } Charles I, that they could rig their own freighters and their own ships, and own the seven seas for their own benefit, directly, and not only by, you see -- so that everything would be cashed by the king.

It's very simple, gentlemen. Country gentlemen against king, gentlemen, means that the country gentleman stands for wealth, instead of Rome, instead of any visible center. The -- the -- that's why the gold standard was invented by the British. Bank of England stands for all the financial practices of modern time. And unfortunately we have inherited this in a -- the --. One of the great superstitions this country carries, as an English-speaking country, is this gold in Fort Knox, as you may know. It's just turned into a -- into a very sinister thing.

For example, we pour -- all the billions of dollars which we pour into the Marshall Plan would be quite unnecessary if we hadn't in the Bretton Wood agreements bought through the { } of this country the privilege of buying gold at the -- the gold from the English at half-cost. Instead of paying them, let's say, $170 for a certain weight, we pay them $100. So that's too little. The world price for gold { } $170, but the Bretton Woods agreement, we have still built in the English idea of gold as the wheel that makes everything else turn. And now we pour the Marshall Plan into England to make up for the difference between 100 and 170.

And nobody knows this in this country. In England, they know, and they write in every editorial. But will any American co- -- paper come out with the truth? Will any -- have you read during the last two years the -- Bretton Woods agreement even mentioned? The bankers dominate the scene. { }. { }. The whole Marshall Plan would be quite unnecessary if we would pay the full price for gold. Now they dig out the gold in North Africa, and under the Bretton Woods agreement, the price is pegged. And we have to buy it, you see. And we can buy rav- -- you see, lavishly and ravishly, everything, every ounce of gold that is dug up there, but we don't pay the -- the price that it would actually have. And so we -- we send back a million dollars, and everybody here thinks he's a Good Samaritan. He's just not a usurer. That's all we do under the Marshall Plan. We are not usurers, because otherwise we wouldn't need it.

{ } the gold is an incredible fascination to this moment. It's going to break down. You will live during the next -- we are in a great reformation, gentlemen, of gold, just as the Reformation of Rome. When Rome ceased to be the center of the medieval church, something happened which is very similar to which has to ha- -- what has to happen now. Gold has to cease to be the hub of the universe. The reason is quite simple, you see. Our -- the production -- our means of production, our investment in production -- has now to {strive} its climate, and soil conservation, and all these things; and that's different in every climate, and every soil. The distinctions of this treatment, and the -- the lo- -- the population problems in every part of the world are over- -- so overwhelming. If a population somewhere lives on rice, and can have peace, it is more important than to feed it on bananas and have a revolution. That is, suddenly, gentlemen, gold will not -- the free flow -- flux of gold will not pay because peace is more important than standard of living. It is better to have a low standard of living in peace, I suppose, you see, than to have complete anarchy and the import of American cars into China. That's why the Communists are winning there. They are not winning because they are Communists, but because they are indifferent against gold.

They will live for the next seven years without gold. You can be sure of that. They have none. That's the issue. Gold is the issue, gentlemen. Nothing of this capitalistic and -- Communistic business. Don't believe this in a minute. But the orientation of the flow of goods according to the -- gold, be -- that's the issue. And -- already the United States have gone off -- not only gone off gold standard, they also have falsified the price for gold on the world market through the Bretton Woods agreement. In other words, we ourselves no longer believe in gold. The Americans -- the United States themselves are in the midst of a reformation. That is, trying to get away from gold. That's the Marshall Plan.

Why is that so, gentlemen? It's very interesting. After the First World War, America poured $15 billion in gold into Europe. You know this. And didn't allow the Europeans to sell any- -- anything in this country. So all the $15 billion of gold were lost. If you have side of goods on one side of the ledger, and gold on the other, the Americans went the whole way into Europe with their gold, and they stopped the goods here at the frontier, and so the 15 -- the overflow of gold into Europe did take place. { }. And with the tariffs in this country, nothing else could be done. { }. In 19- -- gentlemen, the United States--take this down, gentlemen--entered the world revolution in the year 1929, because the Am- -- the United States suddenly ceased to believe in gold, the free circulation of gold itself. { } a few years later, when the United States devaluated their money, buried it in Fort Knox, no longer allowed gold coins to be -- to be coined. All { } -- psychological { } of { }--the Swiss do the same { }. And their { }. And the Swiss are the only people who still believe in { }.

We don't. But we say to the others that they must believe in gold. And that's always the beginning of the end, gentlemen. The United States at this moment don't believe in gold themselves, but force everybody else to believe in it. That's what Luther said of the pope. He said, "{ } -- he forces everybody else to believe in charity, faith, love, but hope, but he himself only believes in the secular sword. He goes to war," you see. So that can't be done. You can't have a {double morale}, one for the clergy and one for the laity. The same is true of the bankers of this country, gentlemen. The bankers of this country have a double morality at this moment. One for themselves, and one for the others.

We are in the midst of revolution. Mr. {Hoffmann} of the -- of the European Recovery Plan is the greatest revolutionary which we have today in the world. He is carrying out the world revolution, gentlemen, against gold. Do you think Mr. -- Mr. Stalin is doing anything? He is a dictator, quite uninteresting. Has not an idea in his head at this moment. { }. The -- the world revolution is a world revolution. What has this to do with Russia or America, gentlemen? We are all instruments of this revolution. The world is in revolution, and the revolution is marked out by our going off gold. Because gentlemen, the end of the world is -- has come when there is no up and high. When you cannot say "Gold is the thing," when everything is so mobile, when you no longer have this wonderful simplicity to say, "He who has gold has the power," you see. We don't know who has the power. Certainly not the man who has the gold in Fort Knox. We must run after our customers, and after our debtors, and must coach -- how do you say? coax them to work, and coax them to eat -- drink Cola-Cola, and -- and -- and because -- for Heaven's sake, children, { }, you see. The debtor has lost all interest in work. He says, "My creditor will take care of that." Nothing is safer today than to borrow money.

I had -- received a letter from a young man. He said, "Don't" -- I had offered him help, and he said, "Don't offer me help. I have learned that the more I borrow -- on the safer ground I stand. I go to the bank and pay 6 percent. The more I borrow, the more they'll become interested in me."

Now gentlemen, this is { }, but it is quite serious, gentlemen. Let's come -- the Whigs have introduced the -- as a unifying element of their party: wealth, gold. Now we come to the next party, gentlemen. They are the liberals, as against the conservatives. Now "liberal" is not older in Eng- -- the English language than the year 1929. You ought to know this. You think that's an immortal expression. It isn't. It is very short-lived. Only 120 years old. In 1929, in England, In London, there was found for the first time a liberal club, taking over the French principles of a bourgeois society, and calling the Whigs and Tories both with one name, "conservatives," you see. In each case, the former party is superseded, of course, by the new party in such a way that the old name disappears. You don't know what a Whig is anymore, because you think the English liberals, you see, are the only thing interesting. That isn't true. Liberals, gentlemen, are people of the ideas of 1789.

Which are the ideas, gentlemen, of the -- revolution of 1789? They are nationalistic. The nation of shopkeepers against the rest of the world, sovereign nation. The revolution of 1789 says, "Equality, fraternity," and what's the third?

(Equality. Oh.)

Wie?

(Liberty.)

Liberty, yes--for the people who speak the same language. That is, the whole picture -- the whole horizon of the French Revolution is 66 nations. All sovereign. All { } against each other. And all with high school teachers teaching American or French history. And then wondering that they { }. It's a national revolution. La grande Nation makes a model revolution for every Lithuania, or Estonia, or Honduras--even Costa Rica is { }. That is ancestral { }, because there is just no nation.

A revolution, gentlemen, in the French sense can only be made by a nation. And what is this nation, gentlemen, in the 19th century? It's not set together by gold, as the English. That would be an injustice. The whole -- I don't believe in the expression "capitalism," for -- it doesn't exist, gentlemen. We have the Whig revolution of wealth against central government, the bankers. That's 17- -- 18th century; that's much older. And we have in the French Revolution the setting-free of the national group of one tongue, of one school, of one training, and one literature. A nation in the 19th-century, gentlemen, differs from a pagan nation in the Bible in -- by one simple criterion, It's -- nation is not established by the people speaking one language, but by the fact that they are writing one literature. The nations of the modern world are written nations. Literary nations. You have no nation where there is no literature. Albania is not a nation, because there is no Albanian literature. There are only 10,000 { } in Lynch, Massachusetts. { }. They don't form a nation. They are just a nationality. The Russians have no -- no problem with the nation, except the Ukraine, because the Ukraine is the only part of Russia which has a literature. The rest are Mongolians, and { }, and Kirgizian tribes, you see. The difference between a tribe and a nation is that a tribe has no literature, no universities, no -- no high schools, and therefore no {blood} { } by writing. And by written traditions, which are { }.

So the national revolution, gentlemen, of the 19th century is based on the unifying character of the factitious and partisan character of national history. Just read the history books of the South on the Civil War, and you can see what literature can do. It is incredible what it can do. All -- one side is black, and all the other side is -- is white.

Literature today is -- is the great myth-maker, because the people who can read one literature are immunized {literally} against the literature in another language. So you are building up a Frankenstein in your own national literature, of course. If you -- I come to think you boys all only read English, practically. That not one of you has learned a foreign language. Keep the -- it up by reading a newspaper or a book in the other language, you see. Whether it's Homer, or whether it's { }, or the Pravda, I don't care if you only would have the habit of reading one other language source -- literary source every day, you could be saved. If you would read the Bible in Latin or Greek, you could be saved. But gentlemen, you are all the victims of the 19th century. You are the product of the French revolution as long as you only speak your own language and you only read in your own language. Because whatever you read in your own language unites -- you with the whole rabble in your own nation, and divides and separates you from everybody who speaks another language.

So gentlemen, the {answer} to the national revolution of 1789--here, liberals--the liberals are the people who write this book on the City of God -- did I talk about this here, this class?--City of Man? And they omitted, these rascals -- that they wrote the book in English. They could have the City of Man, of course, very easily, because it was only for English readers. And they omitted the great handicap, that the rest of the world doesn't speak English, and therefore mistrusts anybody who writes in English, or has an English name. Mr. Smith is very welcome in New England, but he isn't welcome in Russia, only because his name is Mr. Smith. Don't you see what a dividing element language is at this moment?

Now God has created the spirit, the Holy Spirit, but man has created languages, and the languages turn against each other in the 19th century. And the liberals overlook this. The liberal man, gentlemen, is the man who can -- bandies language around as though it had no power. Any liberal book on language would begin, "Oh, we have such a poor tool in language. Thought is so wonderful." The liberal puts thought above language, and says that language is a mere tool, and therefore doesn't protect you against the effects of your speaking just one language. Whereas any man in his five senses knows that the power is, which I observe, is not in my thought, but in the accent which you hear. You hear me with -- scream with an accent, and you say, "That's just -- he's a bloody foreigner." I'm finished, long before I could say what I think.

Now the liberal said, "Doesn't matter at all. -- Thought is all that matters. Give us freedom of thought, you see, and then the rest will take care of itself." It doesn't, gentlemen. The rabble-rouser comes, Mr. { }--or what's this man's name, who was cited here two days ago in the Supreme Court? This rabblerouser?

({ }.)

Wie?

({ }.)

Ja. And just because he can speak the -- the language of these people, you see, they listen to him. Not one thought in his head.

So gentlemen, the liberal says that the frontiers of his ideas are unlimited. And at the end, he is limited simply by the national boundaries of his language. All the liberals end in nationalism. The sons of the liberals have all become Nazis, in Germany. The end of a liberal is always that his son becomes a fascist. Because the son finally is { } up with the pious principle of his father. It's very -- the liberals, a friend of mine said, no longer beget -- what was his wonderful --? Yes, no longer beget, and if they beget, they don't have children. He meant spiritual children. He was rather { }. { } situation, you see. "These liberals no longer beget, and if they beget, they don't have children." You see the joke of this, don't you? No?

But it is true, gentlemen, the liberal spirit has ceased to function, because the frontiers of liberalism coincide with national frontiers in { }. The liberals can organize nations, and then they can organize the League of Nations, and you know what that did. Or the United Nations. That is, they can't organize. It's impossible, you see, the -- because of their complete ignorance of the moral, historical, dynamic power of speech, of language. That's why I try to teach you something about names, and speech, and writing, so that you might outgrow your liberal prejudice.

The first thing a man of today has to learn is that the liberal has bandied around dynamite as though it was myth. And it has turned out to be the most explosive thing, setting people up against each other only because they speak a different language. That was unknown in 1800, gentlemen. It made absolutely no difference what language people spoke in 1800. But today it makes a great difference. Today we have census-taking according to -- to what language you speak. And frontiers are set up in Trieste, just through the middle of the city, because one man happens to speak Yugoslav and the other Italian. Have you ever heard of such foolishness? Who cared in Silesia, in Germany, whether the people spoke Polish, or whether spo- -- they spoke German? It made no difference. The king of Prussia governed them both. And even it made no difference that the -- that there were Scotch people who spoke Scotch, and Welsh people spoke Welsh, and English people who spoke English. There was justice in the kingdom, and that was all that the government was for. There was no -- no nationalism before 1800. Who cared?

But he hasn't made it, a { }, who when the word in 1776 was said in Congress, here in the Congress, that this was a nation. A shudder {fell over} the 13 colonies and their deputies. And gentlemen, this country will not survive if it doesn't say it is not a nation. The United States are more than a nation, or they are nothing. They are the New World, or they are a continent, or they are North America, or they are part of the globe. They can say anything. As soon as you write -- have this newspaper, this magazine The Nation, you are {on the run}. That's a liberal magazine, as you know. Nation and -- and The New Republic stand for two things this country cannot afford.

Anybody who makes this country into a nation imprisons it into nationalism, and to -- does exactly what the Russians would like us to be: just a nation. Because against the nations, the Russians { } their { }. { } -- this is sovereignty { }, you see, against the machinery of the Communists. But this country is much more. It's a commonwealth. It's a -- as I said, it's a new world, it's a new order. And it's wonderful enough. It's an anarchy. So we cannot be conquered by some -- by -- by -- by all -- any means. The na- -- we are not a "nation," because we have so many minorities. We have many literatures, you see. We have {sectionalism}, we have Pueblos, we have Indians, we have Negroes, we have Jews, we have Poles, we have Albanese.

For Heaven's sake, gentlemen, never call this mighty country a "nation." Whenever you use this word, you condemn the United States to stay in one phase of the great revolutions of the last thousand years. You condemn it to be simply a satellite of the French revolution. Can you see this, { }? The word "nation" should be erased from your nomenclature, gentlemen. Simply by not using the word "nation" for the United States, gentlemen, you are a man of the future. And simply by using it, you are partners of the decline of the West.

Do you use { } in this country? You do? Yourself? I'm interested in your own -- in your own vocabulary.

({ } one nation indivisible.")

Wie?

("One nation indivisible.")

Very dangerous. Very dangerous. I'm sorry to hear it.

({ }.)

Well, Lincoln is very careful. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. You see, that's why he said, "the people." "Government by the people, for the people," you see, "shall not perish from this earth." Nowhere is there "nation." Only "binding up the nation's wounds." That's the only time I -- I recollect.

(What about "One nation under God"?)

-- That's another attempt. Gentlemen, the inner fellowship of the national -- of the revolutionaries was then one language. That's why the Russians try to spread the gospel that the class speaks one language everywhere. But they haven't succeeded. The Communist Party is a -- is an anti-national party obviously, and tries to say that Communists speak one language which is more unifying than French or German, you see; class language. However, gentlemen, the class war of the Russians is fictitious, because it is not true that all Communists in all countries speak the same language. I mean, the language of the { }. That's a -- that's the point at which Marxism breaks down. Communism is beyond the second millennium in the sense that it tries to establish a -- one party all over the globe. And runs into the snag that any--Monsieur {Tour‚} in Paris, the famous {Maurice Tour‚}, the Communist there, you see--{ }, sings, and speaks, and agitates so differently from any Russian Communist or any German Communist, you see, that he just isn't the -- doesn't speak the same language. A -- a French Communist and a Russian Communist, gentlemen, are more -- differ more widely, you see, than the czar of...

[tape interruption]

...you see before your own eyes the breakdown of the Communist speech, of the Communist language. It wanted -- it still -- listen to these Communists in court. They can only speak American. That they can invoke free speech, and -- and the -- you see, and every principle of American tradition is invoked by these scoundrels, but not one word of -- of their own. And they don't even try to. In -- in 1850, a liberal in court in England or in Germany would have blasted, you see, with eloquence, and all the listeners would have learned a new language by simply listening to the appeal of the accused. But if you rea- -- you listen to Mr. {Dennis}, all the pious phrases of liberty, freedom of thought, et cetera, are invoked by -- that is, he speaks the language of democracy, in court. Very simple. Isn't this very -- I mean? I haven't heard one word -- on his part which is inflammatory, except that he tries to be -- to break down { } other side. But the language even, he doesn't do it by language. He doesn't do it -- { } do it by quite other means. By -- by speech { }.

A very exciting story is this, gentlemen. I firmly believe that the intellect has run away with the Marxians, and that anybody who lives out of the intellect is -- always remains sterile. -- Marxism is a thought-out revolutionary theory, and therefore it will -- bear no fruit. The -- world revolution in which we are is a very real revolution. It consists of two world wars, from 1914 to 1918. And from 1939--as you already have forgotten--and 1945. And these two world wars, gentlemen, have run off technically, much quicker than psychologically and morally. In other words, gentlemen, nine years of warfare--or 10 years of warfare, you see--have to be lived out by two generations, which makes 60 years. And you can't hasten this process, because you and I are slow people. The whole difference, gentlemen, between the 19th century and the 20th century then to me consists in a revolution of the French, with telegraph and quickening the understanding of the people in one nation. And in the 20th century, we learn that one war uses up a whole generation before it is really digested. And two wars, probably -- will last for the next hundred years, before the mind has worked out the problems posed by the wars. Or take it down this way: the last world revolution consists in two world wars. And the Russian revolution is a very minor event inside of these struggles. Can you see what I mean?

Very important. And that's not a bon mot -- witticism of mine. You can note that I have banked on this insight. My life of the last 30 years, my -- all my books on revolution are based on this assumption: that this time the war itself is the revolution. Can you understand this? And the intentionally made revolution is child's play compared to that.

If you see what happens in this country at this moment because we have gone to war, the bureaucracy taking over the Air Force entrenched, the corporations running -- establishments of -- of multi-dimension buildings which nobody anymore can understand, you know that the war has revolutionized our economy, and not the Communist Party, Sir. {We'd never win}. But we are in a revolution. Your prospects, and your { }, they are completely changed to what they have been 20 years ago. Why is this a revolution? And -- because it's a -- brought on by violence. It's brought on by the violence, conversion of a civil war of mankind. That is a revolution.

Revolution, gentlemen, is civil war. These last two world wars, because they were world wars, were civil war. You cannot understand the last two world wars, because they were not { }. And the one world is brought on by this very fact that there were already two world wars. Now when a whole world is at war, the only peace you can make is for the world. Well, a peace for the world means one world. Doesn't mean one-world government, gentlemen, but it means the state of peace is in this one world.

Now what am I trying to say today, gentlemen? The last faction I have still to fill out. The people attacked allegedly in this revolution in Russian terms are the capitalists, and the party who fights them -- are the Communists. That is what they would say, so we would have to put "Communists" here, "versus capitalists." Now I am afraid that the real revolution looks a little defferent -- different. As far as I can see, it is "planetary man versus national man." And I recommend to you to read up on this, my pamphlet, which is on sta- -- in the stacks -- which is it? { } "Planetary Man."

Now Mr. {Hoffmann} is a planetary man. He is forced to be it, not because he has any interest. Gentlemen, the planetary man has no ideology. He has no ideology. He is exactly a Marxian, because Marx said ideologies come later. You first do things in your production. Production orders man's mind around. And so no Communist can be a Marxian. Take this down, gentlemen: no Communist can be a Marxian, because Marx had said that the way in which we produce, you see, the way we think. And that's why thinking never will produce anything.

So gentlemen, if a man is thrown into a new way of production, as Mr. {Hoffmann} is, then he becomes a new type of man -- according to Marx, I'm no simply quoting. If you work under different conditions, Marx says, { } you -- you belong to a new society. That's the essential. And the Communist Party is a laughing-stock in the eyes of Marx. Karl Marx would be the first to say, "Sorry." And he would send them back his membership card. He was a man who understood power; he understood {mass}. And he understood what made the wheels turn. Certainly not nega- -- negative things. He said the way in which we produce is the way we think.

Marx ma- -- could have made his peace with modern management. He {couldn't} have made his peace with the Communist Party. Because that's an i- -- still a -- a liberal idea. You have an ideology, you see, people speaking one language. Now Mr. {Robbins} speaks the language which { }, you see. Not the language of facts, but the language -- language of processes of production. I -- propose to you to -- to adopt this phrase for the time being. It's not finished, really. But free yourself from the idea, gentlemen, into which you are frozen today, that the parties of this mighty revolution are capitalists and Communists. Never be sure who is the avant-garde of the revolution, you see. This -- the -- you have to look at what things do -- people do, according to Marx. And he's right. It doesn't matter at all that there is a myth of free enterprise at this moment in this country. The only people who abolish free enterprise are the free-enterprise people. They do. This might -- may be abolished. They have better things to do, and more important things to do. They do abolish their own system in order to survive in a new form.

So Mr. { } quote him so much, because otherwise he might be executed by one of you, as a good a Republi- -- good Republicans. They might turn against him. They are the revolutionaries in -- every respect. Sa- -- take the Republicans. The Republicans allegedly stand for the old form of government -- little government, and rich people, much capital, much { }. Who forced the hand of the president to -- give out the executive order of the loyalty boards? The -- Republican Party. By giving over this mighty power to the government over millions of citizens with these loyalty investigations, the Republican Party abolished its own idea of little government, and much { }. { }, it is the Republican party at this moment that forces the government to have Mr. Forestal entrenched in the military, running the show for the last three years. Or to have the loyalty board investigations, thereby -- introducing dictatorial star-chamber methods in our government, and having a terribly overbearing bureaucracy.

Whenever you find, gentlemen, that the people who make the loud noise in favor of the old traditions are in reality the people who abolish and destroy these traditions, you can know that something tremendous is in the making. I told you, the mor- -- immorality today is that the bankers of this country have given up their faith in the gold standard, because they have tried to get undue benefits out of the Bretton Woods agreement, under -- under world price. That the Republican Party today is forcing the government to use -- well, take the UnAmerican committee. I'm -- I don't -- I -- I think I'm right, that Mr. {Thomas} is a Republican, isn't that right? It's the Republican Party that does this. Mr. Taft is quite innocent. He is a real Republican. And he has no { }.

As you see, he is a real Republican, but they -- they didn't make him candidate, because they no longer believe in his principles.

The -- that is, in other words, gentlemen, the right people, the conservative people, the--what you call "reactionary people" in this country--are today making the revolution. They are the people who carry forward the new situation in the world. And which is the new situation, gentlemen? That the planet is unified not through gold, and not {through literature}, but through common processes of production, which is very different.

({ }.)

{ }. The future, gentlemen, of the third millennium will not be based on the opposition of Church and state, or Guelphs and Ghibellines, or Luther- -- Protestants and Catholics, or Whigs and Tories, or the Bolsheviks and capitalists, or -- but on some two very simple divisions in your and my own heart. The future--the third millennium, gentlemen--will have man as partaking himself in two parties. You and I belong to two parties in the future. You can't be either a liberal or a conservative. You can't be either a Tory or a Whig -- it's all { }. And you can't be either a capitalist or a Communist. If you once discover this, you are cured of all this nonsense. You see the Communists must build up a tremendous { } state of capitalism in their country, and the Republicans in this country must built up a tremendous system of socialism in this country. Only they don't say it. But what are they doing now? Don't you think General Motors is a public utility? What else is it? Is it a private enterprise? Look at the stock exchange. Not one shareholder -- I mean, this doesn't function anymore. We live in a time of public utilities. All the private companies try to prove it to us that they are public utilities. When a strike is, they want the government to {halt} it.

Well, the railroads are a public utility, that is -- . The whole statis- -- we live in a -- in the midst of socialism with the emblem, "free enterprise." I'm against it. I mean, I would {learn} to be a procrastinator, I mean. I'm -- I wish today every decent person has to -- to save the last vestiges of free enterprise, you see, because it's vanishing a little bit too fast.

What is your party, gentlemen, your future party? Well, it's the same as in Church and state, gentlemen, as in --. Every man, gentlemen, must marry and have work, you see. The great two things of the future which will occupy your imagination is marriage and work, or profession, or occupation, or profession, or whatever it is. And they are in conflict. You want to marry one person. And you want to work with others. Work and family life obviously today are completely segregated. You take a woman. She marries one man, and she works for another. Unheard-of before. Yet all these funny secretaries; married to one man, and having another man as her boss. Very { } situation.

Well, I'm not joking. It's a tremendous conflict in every man -- human being's heart today. If you have a woman who is married to one man and works for another. Have you ever think -- thought of this, that she may { } conflict, that she has two { } in her own heart. The -- in the third millennium, gentlemen, Church and state will be represented by labor and education, or as I prefer, by work and marriage; by love on the one-hand side, and by service on the other. And they will be in harsh conflict. They, on the surface, are irreconcilable. That's why the Russians went to such despair, you see--I told you this--they forbade the marriage between Russians and non-Russians, because they can only take the labor side, the work side. And they said, "Those who don't want -- work together, must not marry." Americans, I think, would take the opposite {side}, and would say -- you see, "You can marry a Chinese, but he can't immigrate to Australia." You know this story -- this Australian boy who married a Malayan, you see. They can't forbid this, but they could send him, you see, where the pepper grows.

Today gentlemen, the two swords are in every one of us. And that's you. And that's why the time of world revolution is over, gentlemen. The future -- the third millennium, gentlemen, is based on a different topic, on the re-con- -- {reparation} of the strength of the human -- family, on the universalization of the principles of the tribe. We said, gentlemen, the natural world of the last thousand years revolutionizes the empires. The society in which you and I already live and make a living--you and I, at this moment, you see--this society revolutionizes all our family relations, and must universalize them. And just as you, obviously, prefer Christus Columbus to a racehorser in Africa, or an em- -- a pyramid-builder, so the discoveries of the interplay between marriage and work will be the great secret of the next centuries, as it has been the discovery of continents, and lands, and countries in the last thousand years. We won't have to discover anything on this globe. It's all discovered, you see. The world is known, gentlemen. But who is unknown? Who is unknown? Who can yet be discovered in the third millennium?

(Mankind.)

Thank you. Yes, man; quite. We ourselves. We have not yet found out of which tensions, of which conflicts we are capable, you see, of reconciling in our own heart.

So gentlemen, the Russian revolution is over by a long shot. You see it. This is over, because it's a part of the world revolution. The world revolution consists of the two world wars. The first world revolution started the Russian Revolution; the Second World War ends the Russian revolution, as the Russian revolution. And now we are in the midst of living in one world, but not in one family. And therefore we all are divided in our own loyalty. Every one of us is two parties. We have two--how do you call it in a telephone exchange, the -- on the switchboard, the various switches? Wie?

(Extensions?)

Ja, you see, the -- how do we call the -- the -- in the { } stops?

(Trunks?)

Well, in the trunk, what will you put in -- how do you call these { }? Wie?

Yes. You see, our valences are at stake. What are man's necessary valences? V-a-l-e-n-c-e-s, you see. Man is ambivalent. He has more than one valence. And he must be occupied, and he must be able, you see, to operate a switchboard in such a way that his flirts--yes, "flirt" is a word?--you see, that they get somewhere. Today we are operating in a vacuum, very many of you. You are just -- cut off from this what would -- make the connections with the rest of the world. This -- individual breaks down in its isolation, you see, and runs in circles, and gets persecution mania often, and phobia, or what-not, you see. He disintegrates. The creation of the human family, gentlemen, is no longer possible on the principle of world revolutions. The millennium of world revolutions is over. The world is one. The empires are gone. But man has not yet re-universalized the powers of the clan, and the tribe. He has lost his name. You can -- you may -- may say, you see, our riddle is man, you said "ourselves." "Ourselves" is a pronoun, "man" is a name, you see. But is it a name, you see? What is your name, Sir? That's your question. For what are you -- we called into being?