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

[Opening remarks missing]

... be indifferent and on a quotation waste a whole page. This quotation I only brought you because I thought you might be interested that a thousand years ago, a man in the Muslim world in -- world in Spain already was able to say everything good on history which we could still subscribe to today. But the -- the constitution, gentlemen, of the tribe to us must be understood for us as it was important, because at this moment we are lacking in the one rudiment, or in the rudiments on which the claim of the tribe is based, to be revived today, to be regenerated. We enter, certainly, a thousand years in which tribalism will be of -- so to speak, a necessary refresher course for us because the family is destroyed today and speech is destroyed today. And therefore speech and the family, being the creations of the tribe, must be found there where they -- were most intensified.

And this is what I try -- shall try to do now, to once more show you that the tribe needed marriage. A tribe can be defined as an institution to create marriage. Everything around the tribe can be summed up in this one function: the tribe is a family-making institution. Now hark well. The tribe is then the couche, as the French say, the source, the machinery to produce families. What you read in your textbooks is totally misleading, because it says that in the -- in -- primitive man lived in families. Primitive man created institutions out of which every day or every year families could be produced. Mark this well, gentlemen: families are transient. Tribe is eternal. The tribe is a lasting form. One of the greatest mischiefs done at this moment in your own thinking is that the family in which you have been born is there, meant to be eternal. And all families must dissolve. It can only make havoc and lead to fascism, or Hitlerism, or racism, or some kind of superstition when you are told that the family is an aim, a purpose in itself. It is not!

When you get of age, the family must become second-rate. And when you have children, you must give your parents the privilege of becoming the grandparents of your children. And that's how they reconquer then their family status. But it is very unhappy when you have two parties in this country. One of rugged individualism, destroying the family and escaping to the West Coast; and the other, the mother party, the mothers of America, going with their boys to Korea and arguing with the corporal about their diet. Neither has a mother anything to do with the dean of this college, but unfortunately they have, because you are unable to stand on your own legs. So they come here where they don't belong. And on the other hand, you don't know where they belong. They belong to your

children. You -- don't give your parents any chance that they become the revered authority who redeem your idiotic family life by bringing some spirit of longer history into it. So your wife is jealous of her mother-in-law and you are usually jealous of your father-in-law, and that's what is an unpurified family history. But on the other hand, you have a bad conscience when you leave off your own family at a certain age, which you have to do. You have to cut your -- the apron strings of your mother.

Let me repeat, gentlemen. It is a heresy to say that a family is for eternity. The Church may be for eternity, and -- but not the family. However, we need permanent institutions to create families, just as you obviously cannot take any one part of a water -- elem- -- and say this water will stay forever -- and you want to have a spring out of which water can gargle up in spouts and spurts.

This is a complete confusion today and as it always is with revivals, gentlemen. For the last 50 years, people have begun to revive clans and tribes. And so their first primitive attempt was to praise the family. So we have courses here on the family in this college, too. And everywhere you find today eugenics. And you find racism. And you find attempts to say that the physical family is so wonderful that your race must be eternalized. And you know what it does in South Africa. And you know what it does in Asia, in Malaya, where the Dutch lost out -- and the Eurasians, because people tried to eternalize the physical product of the old tribal world. If you once more would remember that the tribe, we said, was the first historical achievement of historical man, then it isn't breeding, it isn't the animal production, procreation which has to be revived today, but those thousands of years during which people learn to marry. That is, the act of marriage, of belong -- one man and one -- wife belonging so close together that their children can greet them as one, that is the historic creation of the first thousand years of our race. But not the animal breeding, which we find in the whole animal kingdom and in which, as we do with all animals, since we can reject or adopt. That has nothing to do with tribal achievements.

So the first thing, gentlemen, tribalism is not biological. It is not breeding. It is not racism. The confusion today is total. You can read any book on eugenics, on family. They always mistake the fact that marriage has been given us a certain way of procreating, with the process of pure animal procreation in itself. Now if you come to this, then you must worship your mother. Then you get matriarchy. Then you must have ancestor worship, in the most primitive sense. But in the ancient tribe, gentlemen, the ancestor worship was subservient to the great mission of man to be one through all times. And therefore ancestor worship and marriage was only a first step into the same life we have to lead, which cannot worship any flesh, any purely transient group like relations between parents and children.

So I have to do a difficult task at the same time. I have to try to show you the greatness of the tribe that produced families, but I have to warn you against your superstition that the product of that historically is the family in itself is, you see, something to be worshiped 100 percent. Can you see the difference?

The problem of the tribe was to enlighten the act of mating with the word. Gentlemen, when husband and wife meet, and when the husband stays with his wife to her hour of birth, as -- Joseph did with Mary and thereby ac- -- acquires the right of a spiritual authority in this history of Mary. When you see what we tried already to say before, that marriage means to go from your blind passion of the moment to the -- through the whole life cycle, even to its most opposite point, to the childbirth, then you see that the problem of marriage was to alter the course of nature. In nature, the husband and the mating animals mate in spring, and perhaps the male stays building the nest, as in the birds' case, for the young. And then the young forget who their parents were. In the animal kingdom, gentlemen, the children forget who has begotten them. They forget it. After a year, no horse knows who the mare -- brood mare has been from which -- from when -- out of which it came. No chicken knows who was the hen, let alone the cock, the rooster.

Animals cannot go beyond their individual life cycle. They do not know what happened before their birth, and they do not know what's going to happen after their death. It is the essence of history that we know this. I told you this in various terms. Now let's investigate this with regard to the family.

To marry means to create a body of time. A body of time. That's a Shakespearean expression which is very wonderful, you know, a "body of time." This is found in Shakespeare. And he has created there something -- we must appropriate in so- -- in the social sciences. A body of time, that is the problem of marriage. Which is not natural. Which is based on being named, in the name of the ancestors. Marriages were concluded therefore, and on the bowling -- dancing green of the tribe. Marriages must be public. Marriages must be entered upon not clandestinely, not between you and me -- as free lovers think -- but it must be entered under invocation of the whole group. Marriage is public business. Because marriage means to force the rest of the tribe to recognize the existence of this special tribe -- body of time.

You remember our triangle -- no, it isn't. I didn't give it to you, here. But we talked enough about this recognition, I think, that you'll understand that all history depends on this problem that others should know who we are, and we should know who others are. Without this mutual experience, the whole problem of the tribe wouldn't exist. You think if you do right, you haven't to ask anybody else for his permission. You're absolutely wrong. Your parents had to

force the rest of the community to call your mother "Mrs. Smith." If they would call her -- called here enduringly "Miss Brown," you wouldn't be here. Dartmouth wouldn't have accepted you, because you would have been out of -- born out of wedlock. The whole problem is not when people marry that they love each other. That's not interesting to anybody. But it is very interesting whether they have forced the community to say that these people are married. You never see this. You see for the last 50 years people have weakened all these rules of the game so completely that they think if two people have -- are in agreement, and they go to some sheriff somewhere, that's okay. So you get these children's marriages, which are no marriages, because they cannot force upon the community the esteem and the dignity that two people -- we who are -- shall be given a -- a house of their own, and shall be allowed to bring up their children of their own, and shall be allowed to bestow on these children their own name, and shall be allowed to make, for example, the religion of their children their own decision. Gentlemen, as you know, we hold still to the fiction that parents decide over the religious upbringing of their children. In this country, it means that the Roman Catholic -- parents allow their church to take care of the education of their children, and that the others send their children to Sunday school. In other words, they force their children to believe in something they -- don't believe themselves.

So we have a wonderful arrangement, which all comes under the heading that parents have the right to determine the religion of their children. Gentlemen, when marriages were created, it was, of course, in a very different sense. The first authority that go with parents is that they have the right to influence, and to educate, and to direct their children under one condition: that they impart their -- to their children their own beliefs. Now in 90 percent of the cases of education today, parents do not impart today their beliefs to their children. But they allow other institutions, like churches, or the cultural ethics school, to give their children a religion which they themselves do not even know that they have. Because most people in this country don't know what they believe. They are just all gamblers on the horse race. They know more about horses than they know about God. Who in this country knows anything what he believes? He has one philosophy one day and the next philosophy another day. He has opinions. The people who have opinions, gentlemen, are not -- have nothing to do with the power to ask the community that they be given the authority to bring up the next generation.

So I can foresee, gentlemen, that it's -- this authority will be taken away from you. The great powers -- Church, and especially state, and the American Legion, and some other similar organizations will take care of that, that it will be just fictitious that you are allowed to bring up your children in your own religion. Because you have -- you have relinquished this right already to the nursery

school, to the psychologist, to the psychoanalyst, and all these people. They give you your religion, so what has your right to teach your children your religion? You have given that up for the last hundred years in this country more and more. I don't see how you want to take it in again, bring it back -- take it back again.

The other day a group of people in New York -- young mothers got together in the suburbs, just to give you -- show you where we have gotten. And they had -- were all -- women who had -- hard-working women, and they had not much -- not much money. And they decided to run a nursery between themselves for these 15 or 16 children they had to take care of. And the mothers said that always three mothers or two mothers would take care of them within a fortnight -- cycle of a fortnight. Two days, and the others would come and so they would, you see, be able to cope with this educational problem. They did very well, but one of these mothers had the typical philo- -- scientific urge and they said, "We don't" -- she said to them, "Perhaps you do everything wrong. We must ask the psychoanalyst."

And so they invited the psychoanalyst to give them a talk about the problem of taking care of their own and the other people's children. And the psychoanalyst needed some money, so she went -- stood there and said, "It's impossible for you to do this, to take care of your children, because you either prefer your own children, and that will be an injustice to the other children; or you will lean over backward and mistreat your own children in favor of the other children. So the only way out is to give me those children and to pay me for it." Which they proceeded to do.

That's by and large the state of America, that they actually believe this professional -- this professional criminal, you see, who said that indifference was better than love. And that's called science.

And that happens every day in this country, that parents abdicate their sacred duty, to love their children in favor of people whose -- frankly have declared that love is damaging. And you pay people for this. That's why you go to the psychoanalyst. Who -- I have a young friend who went to the psychoanalyst. She had a love affair. She was this desperate. So she wanted to be -- to comfort it, so she went there, and he comforted her there by saying that she never was in love, but just has a repression from her second year in life. So now she's rid -- even of her one experience that might have made her a woman. Unhappy love is a very serious affair, you see. But she lost that to the psychoanalyst.

But that's what you -- what I call the abdication of your -- rights certified to you in marriage. Gentlemen, marriage is priesthood. You cannot understand

marriage when you do not understand that what we today call the universal priesthood, which is the old, as you know, war cry of the Protestants against the Romans, and which the Romans have never, by the way, denied: that all men are meant to be priests. Well, the -- they are part of the Christian Creed that one element comes from the tribe. The first priests instituted in the tribe their fathers and mothers. They were put in authority to represent to the newborn children the whole past world of the tribe, by teaching them the sacred names of the tribe, by making these children in their youth, already, form their lips to the invocation to the ancestral spirits. And to know that whenever these names were formed, the children had to stand in reverence and awe, and that -- that was the greatest authority under which a human being could be placed. That's priesthood, gentlemen, to be allowed to teach others these sacred names of invocation, of prayer, of authority, of law.

To teach children to speak, gentlemen, means to make a terrific decision whether I teach my boy German first, my own native country, or English first, is a decision over my orthodoxy, obviously. You know very well this problem of the minorities. When in Buffalo the 300,000 Poles teach their children -- Polish first, whatever the decision is, but let's take it to be Polish first -- they have made a religious decision. Because to learn Polish first means to keep this generation still in the position between two worlds. To keep them, so to speak, first-generation people. Which perhaps is a good thing. But it is a decision.

Gentlemen, you say -- I just let -- let these children learn English. But you make a decision if you let it go. You have just made a negative decision. You have not evaluated at all the problem whether it would be a good thing to make your child bilingual. I don't say that you should. But it is a decision. And don't fancy that by -- because most Americans make no decisions, but -- leave it to the public schools to make the decision for them that you haven't made the decision.

By making the decision, for example, that your own native tongue, or your parents' native tongue shall not be kept, you of course escape or run from the real problem that God must be worshiped in many languages. And that you -- certainly it is easier for America to keep its civil liberties and to keep out the dictatorship of the government if there are many languages still spoken in the home, because that would remind people of the real facts of American history, that people came here for freedom of conviction, and freedom of speech. But the way you live, gentlemen, you have forgotten this. You think everybody must be standardized. Everybody must put on his -- off his straw hat on Labor Day. Everybody must eat ice cream. And everybody must go to the football games. Why must he? As long as you would know that it is the great privilege of America that people could speak, you see, their native language, plus American, you would stand for liberty. Because then it would be natural that people are not

conformists, you see. But as soon as you think that conformity is not a desire, but must be an accomplished fact, then nobody has the right to say anything. And then you have yet this -- this strange situation today that nobody wants to stick his neck out and say anything, from fear that he may be different from the most stupid and most cowardice-fellow next to him. And what you really find out is that everybody dislikes the situation, but everybody thinks all the others are a scoundrel, so I must be a scoundrel, too. That what it amounts to, you see, this -- just state of fear. When you are afraid to tell the truth, you really of- -- insult all your neighbors, because you assume that they all are cowards, you see. And you are the only man who would like to -- not to be a coward, but then you say, "I better am a coward, too." Funny {morale}, you see. If you really have respect for your neighbors, you would say, "They are all heroes, so I must be a hero, too."

But no -- not one of them does this. Think of all the off-color stories which you allow to be told in the fraternity without ever pouncing the desk and saying, "You swine! Be quiet!" Has ever -- body -- any spoke- -- spoken up in a fraternity and said, "Don't go on with this"? Before, I won't talk to you, gentlemen. Before, I won't admit that you are parents. Before, I won't admit that you know what it means to get married. Because a married man, gentlemen, is a man who can say "No" to any desecration.

Gentlemen, parents are there to consecrate their children. I -- I mean this very literally. If you can't consecrate your children, you can't christen them. That's the same word. "Consecrate" means to give your children direction. Once you teach them English, you have already separated them from the stem of the human race and made them into Americans, which is very dangerous, because it is a limitation. It is one way among many. And you -- that's why this whole problem of Christianity is -- has been, you see, to warn the parents later on that by making them speak Egyptian, or Roman, or French, or English, they have to instill into this a warning by the Christian term, you see, in the Christian first name they give the child, to tell this child, "Yes you may speak English. But that's not the whole story. You remain, you see, a part -- creature of the whole creation, despite the fact that we allow you now to march on this narrow road of Americanism."

You can see that Christianity to this day simply purified the old tribal system. The first tribal man, when they allowed people to consecrate their children, only saw the benefits of giving the children some consecration. When Christianity came onto the world, the divisions between the races, and divisions between the tribes had reached a point that it now seemed important to consecrate the parents back again, and to ask the parents, "Now when you now teach these children Latin, English, or French, please inject a note of warning. Give them a Biblical name, so that they may know that they do not have to be nationalists," you see. The whole problem of Christianity is then, in this sense, nothing but the true

meaning of the old tribal marriage. Christ has not come to change anything, but just to fulfill it. And you must take this together, gentlemen: modern christening, and first marriage system have very much to do with each other. The tribesman wanted to do exactly that which today people try to do when they christen their child, to consecrate this child. They only missed out in identifying the special family group, you see, the clan, with the permanent problem of this child: direction. And the -- Christianity today says, "Inject into this family bond some corrective," you see, "so that this child knows the limitations of this one tribal connection."

But what we have to do, gentlemen, is to understand that the first man on this earth was as good a Christian as you and I. And as little a Christian as you and I. It's an old saying, which you have forgotten: Christianity is as old as Adam. The church has existed since the beginning of the world. This is old, good, patristic Roman Catholic teaching, gentlemen. You don't know this. Your idea is so silly that you think we could have a world in which all of a sudden everything was changed. No, gentlemen. The first step in history, that parents must bring up their children in this knowledge of what has gone before -- this consecration of the child -- is the oldest problem of mankind. It's always with us. It is so much so, gentlemen, that -- we come to a very practical problem of our days in this. Marriage means that father and mother must cooperate before the child is born. In some tribes, that goes so far that the father goes to bed and shares the wife's suffering -- symbolically. You may have heard of the man's "coubade," c-o-u-b-ad-e, coubade. The man's childbed. Now don't laugh. I think it's one of the sublime rituals of the human race. It's an attempt to convey the fact to the world outside that the father feels as much responsible for the birth of this child as his wife.

In order to show you the full impact of this, take the fact of a malformed child, of an embryo that is idiotic, or so. In ancient times, there was no question that a child was the carrier of the spirit, to be consecrated, to receive a name, to be understood, and to be recognizable, as a potent member of the group. Therefore, gentlemen, it wasn't done as today, when a nurse is asked to let a baby, a mil- -- a misformed, stillborn baby die. Because somebody has to take the responsibility. You don't know what's going on in our hospitals, fortunately still. That not every child is allowed to live. It would be terrible if we allowed every child to live, it isn't meant to live. Somebody has to care -- have the responsibility today. It's a doctor, or the nurse, and the parents never know anything, because they are treated like children in our hospitals. It's all over when they come. The wife is in a coma, and the husband is -- having whiskey. And that's how the child is born today. So somebody, of course, has to say, "This -- can this child, you see, be figured to be a real child, or do we not, you see, make it cry?" If you don't beat the child, you see, it cannot live.

I was asked here by Mr. {Keats} the other day how this is done today. And I told him the story of the tribe, gentlemen, that the father had, of course, to look at the child and to take it in his arms and to say, "This is my child," as God did when Jesus was born, in the river -- baptized in Jordan. "He is my child in which I take pleasure."

Gentlemen, this formula is very ancient. Because it is necessary that in the spiritual ancestry of man a child should be received, just as it is necessary that it would receive out of the mother's womb into the physical world. You have all forgotten this. You -- we live simply by nature, by motherhood, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and by Benjamin Franklin, and by all these semi- -- these half-baked people who think that life is natural. But your life is not natural, otherwise you wouldn't sit here. Otherwise you wouldn't wear pants and a sweater. Otherwise you wouldn't be in Dartmouth College. Nothing in your life is natural. Everything is spiritual, which if -- you really {treasure}. And what is spiritual, gentlemen? That you can speak. And that by speaking, you enter into the great life stream of humanity from beginning to end. And somebody has to impart this life stream to you, just as your mother imparts life to your body, so your father imparts life to you by naming you. And this is -- would be the first rediscovery of tribalism, gentlemen, in our age: that the father would again have the responsibility by saying "Yes" or "No" to the child.

You may think that's very cruel, because you think every child born should live. Of course it should, gentlemen. But don't miss -- mistake the situation. Somebody has to say, "This is a full-fledged human being," you see. When a child is born with three heads and -- four legs, the -- it should not live. They make people -- these people live today, artificially, I'm told. Didn't you tell me? It's a scandal. Nothing but brutality. Make it in -- into an object for a circus. But you think that has to be. Because you have completely kowtowed what you call nature.

You see, your whole picture of humanity has been completely falsified because you -- think that people should be one with nature. It would be much better if they would be one with the human race, which is still very natural. But humanity has the great purpose of staying one through all times. The human animal, gentlemen, is that animal which is ubiquitous and always, and of which any member can acquire the consciousness of man's ubiquitousness -- that is everywhere-ness, you see -- and all the time-ness. No elephant knows what went on before him, and what will come after him. And no animal can know what happens next door, around the corner. We can.

Man is extending all the time his space and his time, gentlemen. That is, he is creating supersensuous periods and supersensuous spaces, or localities, or

boundaries -- if that is better. Man wants to be where he is not physically, in time as well as in space. And marriage allows him this, because it allows the child to know of ancestors. Fathers and mothers -- will you take this down, gentlemen? -- represent to the child in the absence of the tribal meeting, in the first 20 years of his youth, the existence of this big entity, the tribe. The child is not taken to the assemblies of the grownups. But just as education tells you that there are united nations and there is a republic of America, and there's private property, that it's the law, although you don't see it; you live in your home, you see, innocently -- the fam- -- the father and the mother are the local priests who testify to the child of the existence of a wider world, of a wider reality. How is this done?

If you take the little group, the family group, you would find that there are always several youngsters under the care of the parents, growing up and receiving from their parents, as the first thing, the knowledge that they share their -- their mother tongue, their parents' -- father's tongue. In the tribe, of course, it's the father tongue. You should again mark this down, gentlemen. What we call "mother tongue" is sentimental. The -- all in -- all through antiquity, down through 1100 of our own era, the native tongue was called the "father tongue," the paternal tongue, because it was still well known that were the males, the warriors of the tribe that spoke, formally, you see. "Mother tongue" is an expression after the full victory of Christianity, and can only be understood because there was the physical mother and the Mother Church. And the -- Latin was the mother -- the tongue which the Mother Church spoke. Therefore the native tongue was, you see, the mother tongue which the physical mother spoke. Very important for you to notice. "Mother tongue" is something romantic, sentimental. The real fact is that the -- in the law of the jungle, the males speak, and a child must learn his father's tongue. The father and, in his absence, the mother, represent to the children the tribe.

Now, all the families therefore must have access to the source of their existence, to the center of the tribe, to the meeting ground. At this tribal meeting, gentlemen, the decision is made for the funeral of the hero -- ancestor, for the warpath against the enemy, for the expiation of deviations from the behavior laid down in the tribe, and for marriages. We call this today "the orgies," because it had to be danced at this tribe. Gentlemen, the whole -- all the mature members of the tribe were married in the tribe -- and sealed, so to speak, as father -- future fathers and mothers, by these so-called orgies, or dances, these wild dances in public of the marriageable people. In this tremendous upheaval of a wedding, the parents become the carriers of the tribal law. So to speak, they are endowed with this spirit which has led to the use of the word "Ehe" or "legitimate" for ch- -- for marriage and children, gentlemen, which shows that the marriage is the carrier of the law, is this priesthood by which the parents represent the law of the tribe.

Who knows German? Anybody? Well, you know the word "Ehe," for marriage? You know that?

(No Sir, I didn't know.)

Which just means "law." That is, gentlemen, what I mean to say is that in the ancient language, "law" and "marriage," very often it's the same word. It means the same thing to get married and to become the legislator, or the representative of the law. In any marriage, the whole tribal law becomes, so to speak, documented. The law is written on the skin of the marriage people, in the tattoo. Tattoo is the first writing of the tribe. The constitution of the tribe that the authorities which it invokes are painted, depicted in the tattoo. You must come to think, gentlemen, tattoo is not a superstition, or not something funny. But in the tattoo of the modern sailor, you have the last remnants of the first layer of script. It is simply not true that writing was invented by the Egyptians, or that the Greeks inherited the script from the Phoenicians, or so on. It is much more complicated. The tribe writes, too, but he writes on living bodies. He has nothing more permanent, because the tribe moves. So the most permanent a tribe can do is to write the law of the tribe on the skin of the people who are ready to marry. Then they bring the tribal law, the totem pole, or whatever the symbol of the tribe is, everywhere, on their skins. They are one document, one edition of the constitution.

So gentlemen, in these orgies, there are very painful operations. In order to get married, these people have to undergo circumcision, incision; their noses are perhaps made to stand out in some -- you have {japanation}. They make holes in here -- into the skull, which is a superstition. We may -- we may talk later about the -- very interesting because it was -- went on -- down to the days of Faust. It has been said of -- of the modern Faust that he also had still this tribal thing performed in him -- a perforation of the skullbones, something we do now again, you see, to get rid of blood clots in the brain. These perforations are now found to be very useful. When children fall, you see, a blood clot, you perforate the brain -- the skull you can save the child's life.

The tribal man had all kind of such ways of making pain the great memorizer. As you know, tattoos are not easy. They have to burn -- be burned into the skin, or painted, or whatever the method is by which these tattoos are inflicted on these poor people. But the tattoo is only one form. If you have earrings {set} -- long so that they pull down your -- here, how do you call the -- the lobe of the ear, you see, as you have in some African tribes, you these kind of extreme hardships which are connected with the moment of making the child of nature into a bearer of the law of history. The tattoo and the circumcision, gentlemen, are the most outstanding rituals of this type.

The ring is one. It { }, of course. Especially when you can't pull off the ring again. I can't mine, because my finger has become too thick in the meantime. So here I am linked with this {taboo}, you see.

But this is very serious, gentlemen. In the orgies of the meeting ground, the acc- -- people of accidental origin are made into members of one group. They are all identified by the same tattoo. They recognize each -- then by the same constitution. And there is an order in this constitution, gentlemen, because by the tattoo it is said whom you can marry and whom you can't marry.

The tattoo is also a taboo. Your tattoo shows you that you can't marry those who have exactly the same tattoo. The great thing of the tribe is that it creates orderly marriage. It excludes inbreeding. The tribe invents incest. What is incest, gentlemen? Incest is the destruction of a sacred space inside which the passions of sex shall not rage. All modern people show the weakening of the tradition of the tribe by de- -- writing now poetry on incest, on homosexuality, but specially also on the love between brother and sister, or the Oedipus complex: love between parents and children. Gentlemen, that shows that it is high time to study the tribe again, because the tribe is the institution that has outlawed incest. In -- in nature, there is no such law. Animals do inbreed, if you leave them to themselves. We have found -- out to our own great dismay this fact that we have now today the father and the brother among our horses being the same individual, and it happened against our will, certainly.

Gentlemen, chastity has nothing to do with morality, in your sense of evil thinking. Chastity is the creation of a spare room inside which man is unafraid of the other sex. What you call a home today is of -- first of course not a home, but a relationship of the children of the same family. The members of the same -- family cannot intermarry, of the small group. Parents and children to each other, you see, form one body of time. And the consecration of the children makes it necessary that the father and the mother remain to these children father and mother.

Now you may think that's a small matter. But if you think that for the last 8,000 years, parents have not slept with their children, that is not a small matter. It's quite unnatural. A father would love to sleep with his daughter, because she is very young and beautiful. It just isn't done, because he loves her too much; because his love outweighs his desire. You think nothing of this, gentlemen. I must wake you up to the fact that with all your sneering of history, and all your ridiculing of religion, you all simply believe that your daughter is sacred to yourself. And in doing so, you are part of the greatest historical tradition. I advise you to stick to it, but to be proud of it, and not to concede it to yourself that this is quite unnatural, quite supernatural. You recognize in your daughter somebody

who must reach the future in freedom.

So chastity, gentlemen, is the creation, or the division of the world of man into two spaces. One, for sex, and the other for non-sex. That is, the orgies and the meeting ground, and the -- the brotherhood, or sisterhood of the home are correlated. You can say that the tribe increases the frenzy, while they meet, and allow all kind of sexual libertinage, licentiousness, in these tribal meetings in order to sanctify all the better -- to consecrate all the better these private groups, these small groups inside of which this must be completely excluded, never happen, never be thought of. A brother does not think of his sister as a sexual being. And a sister shouldn't think of her brother as a sexual being. Mothers should not think of their sons as being good to sleep with, and parents -- fathers should not of their daughters.

Now, gentlemen, you will see we have to learn this again, because that is the root of all human purity. All these things in the abstract -- virginity, chastity -- make no appeal to a grownup man. He knows that. He is free. But wherever you have a nurse, or a nun, or a sister, you voluntarily carry this creative power into their lives, and your relation to them so that you recognize here is home. Here is family. And whenever you meet somebody, you see, in the moonlight, you feel free to -- to court, and to woo, and to worship, and to propose, and what-not. But it is each time your free decision whom you treat, you see, as under the law of the jungle, and -- whom you treat as being in the same house with you.

And you have to know this. You have to know that man has in himself this tremendous starting point of orientation that there have to be with human beings two worlds. One in which the consecrations, the sanctuary of the spirit, of speech, of naming each other, you see, is so strong that the physical has no right. And the other, where the spirit is not there, where the physical -- your pleasure in another man -- human being -- the physical appearance prevails. If you cannot make this distinction, gentlemen, the girl to whom you are going to propose will find out. If you only run after her for her fair looks, or for her impertinence, or for her sensuousness, or for her lipstick, or for whatnot, if she is any good, she'll know that -- what you're doing, that you have not this other power in yourself to create at random the second step into the sanctuary. You have to have a sister and a bride inside your heart before you can get married. If you only expelling the sister or your mother by now the -- the strumpet, you can get a strumpet, but you can't get a wife. And the names do not -- have nothing to do with it. You can get a strumpet and think you are -- married. It's up to you, gentlemen, to -- to let your sweetheart know that she -- you know this other world too, of non-sex. If you don't have both, gentlemen, you can't get married. That's the difference, gentlemen, between puberty and an erection of your penis, and the power to get married. Your physical part is one thing, and your power to consecrate is the

opposite. And the tribe has introduced this balance of power inside yourself, that you can re-create the sanctuary inside of which there is chastity.

As I said, chastity has nothing to do with your physical being, but it is your power of the spirit in favor of the whole human race to abdicate for the time being from your physical urges. And you will admit everybody can that -- do this. You may say, "I can't vow chastity as a monk. Oh, that's too much." I've heard many people declaim that priesthood -- celibacy is unnatural. And there should be no celibacy. Gentlemen, as long as you live as you do at Dartmouth, there have to be monks and nuns to remind you that you too have the power of celibacy at random. You can honor women, easily. At home you do. Only now you repress it. All these special institutions of the monk and the nun today, that is, of the eternal virgin, you see, are only reminders to the normal being that he has this power of priesthood inside himself. What's a priest, gentlemen? A man who can throw the switch between his physical wavelengths -- which goes from 20 to 60, in which you want to procreate, you see -- and his historical role in which he stands for the direction of the whole human race through hundreds and thousands of years.

It's nothing abstract, gentlemen, this -- what I call "the spirit." It is -- when you say to somebody, "Sister," you place her in a time stream of thousands of years. When you say to somebody, "Sweetheart," you want to have her and kiss her right now. And therefore in your sister, you face eternity. And in your sweetheart, you face the moment. Now, your sweetheart can demand from you that you give to this moment that much perpetuity, you see, that she can save her sisterhood, her power to be a mother within the sequence of the family story, that she fills a whole range on the totem pole between one generation and the next generation, she must come into her own, which takes 30 years. If you only go behind the bush with her, and make a child, she is of the moment. She has no -- she is not introduced by you into the history of the whole group. She has no way of becoming a grandmother, or an ancestress, you see. She cannot rise to the proper time lengths. That's only, so to speak, put into you by your learning to treat a sister. With her it's the same -- with the brother.

Everybody knows these great secrets, gentlemen. What I try to add is only consciousness and some respect for them. I don't -- really today it is so im- -- unimportant whether people go to church, gentlemen, because you misunderstand the Church, anyway. But it is terribly important that you should rediscover your divinity in this power to be alternating a brother and a lover. And I assure you, you all are. It is the sovereignty of man that by the simple word "Sister" you can suddenly see in your sweetheart this human being which is not dependent on your lust, is not waiting to go to bed with you, but is this child, for example, as Joseph when he went to -- and took the baby and put it in the cradle, you see,

in -- in Bethlehem. That's the great story of -- of the birth of -- of Jesus, that there, the whole question of the marriage in the tribe is put just on the opposite pole, where there is no lust, no relation of sensuousness, you see. The child is born and the father has to act out the midwife, because Mary has become Joseph's sister. And that's the idea of the virgin birth, by the way. It plagues so many people. The problem of the virgin birth is that in this case, it only mattered that Joseph and Mary are -- were sister and brother. That's the only part that's interesting in this story.

So that goes through -- all of humanity, gentlemen. And today, with these psychoanalysts and so, it's nearly lost, because people are told that even the mother is an object of lust. That is, the son wants to go to bed with his mother. I don't know where they found this. But you see, they have really gone back to prehistoric animal life. You see, these people. They are radicals. Now, don't -- we have to look into this -- steps. It is perfectly true that among the animals, mothers and fathers for a short while do not exist. Once the child -- the colt, or the chicken, or whoever it is -- the bitch has reached a certain stage, there's no memory. All the relations of sex are concentrated so totally, you see, on the consciousness of any dog, or any bitch that there is nothing else. There is no horizon.

Perhaps we may use this word with -- to some lasting effect, gentlemen. The tribes established horizons of time and space over the members of the tribe. The horizon places even the greatest passion, the passion of lust, of sex, you see, in the -- under the horizon of permanency, of its opposite. On a horizon, the sun rises and it sets. Now, if you take the story of Joseph and Mary, and the story of your mating, you see that when the sun rises on your passion, you only try to -- be in this. It is very hard for you to see the sunset, too. The sunset would be the -- mother giving birth to the child, you see. Then your passion completely has died down. You even look in the other direction. You don't want to know it. It's too distasteful to you. It's dirty. This is not very agreeable to see a -- to see a pregnancy, or to see a birth. It's travail. You sweat, you -- you run away, as you say.

Now the horizon of the tribe establishes, you see, the identity between the sunrise and the sunset of your passion, and it teaches you that after the sunset, there is a sunrise again. It's the first calendar of human life, gentlemen. Very interesting. The first calendar of human life tries to identify passion and nonpassion. Difference and indifference. Ecstasy and -- yes, ecstasy and indifference, I should say. The problem of humanity is to find the sameness between the ecstatic, the passionate, you see, and the cold. You try to be objective, gentlemen, cold only. Your ancestors tried to be in their revivals ecstatic. But the problem is only to be the same person in ecstasy and in indifference. You cannot be objective, you see, as long as you do not know that to be objective and to be passionate are just two sides of your life. If -- you want to be objective instead of living.

This you cannot do, gentlemen. I'm all for being objective at times, and passionate at other times. You understand? The problem of man is always the horizon on which the sun of objectivity can set and the sun of subjectivity can rise. Before, you have not been able to see that your sister and your bride are, as in the Song of Songs, one, you are not human. You're just little apes. That's what you try to do by your claim that you want to be objective. You -- nobody can be either objective or passionate. Life only begins -- historical life -- when you can remind yourself in the moment of passion that there will be a sunset of this passion. And when you can remember, in your moment of indifference that there has been a consecration of your passion, which has allowed you now, you see, to stick, despite your indifference to the wife of your choosing. If you leave your ch- -- mo- -- your wife in the moment when she gives birth, you are a scoundrel. Why? It's very objective to say at that moment "I've nothing to do there," you see. Isn't it very objective? You really have as a male nothing to do there. As a male, you haven't. But because you have been consecrated into the priest of the tribe, there is now your place. It's purely inspired. It has nothing to do with the physical -- any physical reason. Objectively, you should be on the other end of the globe. Otherwise you would -- now you will have to support this brat. You don't want that. Why should your money go for the support of this brat? Physically, naturally, you can never explain that.

Let's take a break. Wie?

[tape interruption]

[Opening remarks missing]

... very simple rule of thumb for this problem of incest. I think it is pertinent. The -- as you know, there has been much talk about inbreeding, or exogamy and what is better in eugenics. It's all talked on on a biological level. Long ago, St. Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, the saint of the Church, the father of the Church, was asked this question: "Why not incest? Isn't it very handy?"

And he said, "It is not, for a simple reason. Wherever a word -- a name of love has been already been given to a sister or a mother," or in those days even the aunt or the cousin, "you can't approach this person with a new name. Love needs a name given to this sweetheart or your bride for the first time. Incest is everything -- every situation in which somebody has first been called by a dispassionate term, sis- -- like Sister. You cannot rearrange this, because love must give this person a name as though you see her for the first time. And since, between mothers, sisters, brothers, and fathers, there is already a first name of love, the second name would be deteriorated, would be impaired."

And therefore, I think that's the best explanation of the incest rule of man in history. That wherever you have given first already a name, you see, of no passion, like "Sister," you can never approach the situation in the way it should be approached. That's why in these orgies, there is this ecstasy that you meet this woman for really as though you had never seen her before. And that leaves the idea of the totems of the tribe. A group that has met before dispassionately should -- cannot enter marriage. As you know, the old tribes in their arrangement of marriages, were very careful to split the tribe into marriage groups.

You may have heard in anthropology, or sociology, or in prehistory, or wherever you have met with these problems, with the fact that the tribe had subdivisions. And that -- one had perhaps the fish as a totem, and the other has the eagle, and the third the raven, and the fourth the bull. These totems have the -- this profound reason that if you have met these people on -- in -- without ecstasy, they are already sacred. They are out of the running. They are not the people, you see, to choose. Today the incest problem, as you know, is not a physical problem in the family. Nobody thinks really of marrying his sister. But if you marry your coed, you may already make this mistake that you have met this girl first, you see, in a dispassionate way. And you have to think twice whether this coed is really so new to you, so unknown, you see, that you can discover a new relationship. A good marriage must try to see -- give a new name to the mother of your children, and not something already hereditary. I feel the problem of intermarriage and of inbreeding today is very much a problem not so much of the family as of the schools. You can inbreed by marrying the girl with whom you went to school from your eighth to the 13th year. You understand this? Because you have called this girl first, just as a -- as a fellow child, you see, as your fellow classmate, and as your playmate, and that is not the true origin of marriage. In marriage, the sequence is: first, you see this girl for the first time as somebody whom you desire; and the second step is that you add to her all the horizon of her becoming your sister and the mother of your children and the daughter of your parents. If you pervert this sequence, gentlemen, you put things -- stand the things on their head, because passion is the founding energy. And indifference, or -- not indifference, but objectivity, or realism, as you like to call it, or factualism -- is always that which then comes out of us.

So I think St. Augustine's answer is very beautiful. He simply said, "Wherever a name of love has already been borrowed by the younger generation, from the parents, where you have called somebody your sister, or your mother because you were taught to use these terms, the -- the -- you are lukewarm. You have inherited this." Inherited love, gentlemen, is the reason for the incest rules, because you have already lived with these -- these people, you see, in affection, but without passion. They cannot become the -- the object of your passion. Can you see this? And this solves many riddles. And it is the only explanation I've

ever found in the literature on this subject which holds water, which is really completely correct. You can test it. All the biological explanations will never work because, as you know in breeding, you can have at times the necessity for inbreeding, the feeling that you should stay to your race, like the princess, or here, the white man who doesn't want his daughter to marry a colored man. And in other cases, we have the great feeling of embracing the whole world and going out. Physically, you can never decide these things, really. But you can very well when you ask your tongue. Where your tongue has already applied a name within the family relation, you can hardly then be allowed to use the name for the beloved, as though this was for the first time.

The subdivisions of the tribe then tried to pay attention to this problem of keeping the woman whom you meet on the -- at the meeting ground for marriage unknown to you. You have never spoken to her before. You speak to her for the first time. It is this great experience of the power of giving somebody your name so totally that there is nothing, you see, you have to obliterate, which is really new to you. That she can become old and familiar to you, but she is somebody entering your horizon like the sun for the first time.

Now, gentlemen, the -- on these totems, let me say something which is -- may also show you how this is really the spiritual or the inspiring past of human biography, of human living. When I was out in British Columbia, I was struck with something I had never found in any books: that I had to walk there through the underbrush on the paths made out by the great animals: the elk, or the moose. All people who go on expeditions in unexplored countries -- without maps we went, we didn't know where we were going -- have to -- or are very grateful when they then find these paths made by the big animals, to their watering place, for example. The meeting grounds of the weak, frail, primitive man were the paths created by the animals. And the animal totem is, I'm quite convinced of this, never only the -- the superstition that man came from an eagle, or from a lion, or from a bear, as you can read in most textbooks. But it is the simple acknowledgement of the gratitude, the spiritual gratitude owed to these animals for the organization of this incredibly weak man, who has -- had at that time no eis- -- no iron axe, no steel, you see, weapons. He had perhaps stone weapons. He could not possibly fell those trees, which he had to in order to find the place of union inside the jungle.

And so man, in not only giving name to his ancestor, whom he buries, but also in naming himself after those animals, recognized a dependency on the existing universe, on the existing cosmic order. We have, for thousands of years, and as you see, even modern man, we still follow the paths of the created world. The first five days of creation, gentlemen, are much more with modern man than you care to admit when you live here in these urbanized cities. You don't see that we

still to this day follow the water courses and the animal courses. And even the birds direct us. The otters do. The beavers do. All these animals, which you find used in the totems of the tribe, in some way or other have actually directed the paths of man on this earth.

And the word "path" therefore, gentlemen, you should make the foundation of the political understanding of tribalism. The tribes try to find paths in the jungle. Paths in time, paths in the thicket. And that's why, going upstream, following there the water courses, or following the paths of the wild animals was the first power -- political power that allowed these groups to become a little larger than the -- the small group of husband and wife and children. That's the one thing, gentlemen. The relation of the tribesman to the animals is one of spiritual gratitude, of gratification by their directing powers, by their -- the work they have done for them. Because an elephant, and a lion, you see, and a fox, were more -- were superior to man. This explains to you all these strange ideas of dragons, and lions, and sphinxes, and cherubs, in the Old Testament and in antiquity. People felt that man should base his existence by bringing together all the achievements of the animal kingdom and making use -- put them to use. This has nothing to do with man's pedigree in a physical sense, but it has very much to do with man's devotion to what existed already, to the organization of the world which he could inherit. It's his inheritance.

The boy scouts, of course, still try to do some such thing, again -- it's a very -- the beginning of such revival. But I think most people today -- all the textbooks I know never mention this confrontation of primitive man with the achievements of the animals. They think that man develops, or evolves, you see, by evolution out of the animal. I think that's of no interest to any one of us. There we are. Whether we came from these animals, from the apes or not, is a very minor matter compared to the great question these first men had to solve: how much use can they make of what these animals already, you see, did. You see, this is a very different relation: one of working together, and one of owing them something -- some gratitude. This explains to you the sacredness in which the animal world was held. These people did -- these animals, these beings, these creatures did something for man. You may sum it all up in the one sentence: man without the large animals -- and the small animals, by the way -- couldn't have survived. The -- the political organization of the first thousand years of man depended on his following the paths, the trails of the animals.

So it is very different from what you think that man was threatened by the animals, or that they were -- he was superior to them. At the first beginning, man certainly was weaker than the animals. I think we still are. The whale, if you think of Herman Melville, he's -- still has this symbol of the white whale, you see. As he, the white whale, knows what he is doing and has all the powers in the

world and this little crew on the -- on the boat has to try to -- to match his energy.

So from the very first, gentlemen, man's grouping was trying to imitate the achievements of the animal, in a very permissible way.

Let's just list what we did today. I tried to show you that the creation of marriage, the consecration of a room of chastity, the organization of the tribal meeting as being able to draw people together who otherwise did not see each other, and tried -- attempt -- tried to allow them to mate passionately with newly seen, newly invoked, newly named people of the other sex, that is the great center of production of tribalism. The center -- the tribe produces marriages. And all the things which you know of the tribe -- taboo, tattoo, incest rules, totem -- all go back to this one, simple central problem: how do people so fall in love that their marriage means more than the satisfaction of their momentary lust?

Thank you.