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

So we had the two meetings { }. And I wish you would write down a report of two pages on these two first meetings, every one of you, so that I get a little bit of your own handwriting. Who hasn't taken part in the first? So may you just go in for the -- the last one.

And with this break in continuity, that we ask you today to write something that doesn't -- is two weeks in -- a week before { }, you see how difficult it is to know anything about history. And I -- I think you will find this already an imposition, that you should know what went on a fortnight ago. Now you can imagine what we are in for with history that pretends to know something about a hundred years ago, or 10 years ago.

And -- what did we do last time? Does anybody recall? I mean, of course, never has any generation and any place been so forgetful as the people yet in Los Angeles at this moment, you see. You are -- have no memory. But -- please.

(Well, one thing you said was that Los Angeles was a horizontal city, which might suggest in this city as representative of the whole American thinking, that our view is horizontal, rather than having a historical perspective of viewing things -- in relation to one another, rather than all flat and blended in. And you related this to other historical themes, throughout the -- the period.)

Then there was -- what did we intend to do today?

(Discuss Samuel?)

Wie?

(Discuss Samuel?)

Quite. The Book of Samuel. First real historical book, I think, of the world's whole literature. But let me -- I have found a very strange quotation which may show you the very anti-historical bias of this country. You know who Mr. Kettering was, the inventor, who died recently -- a few months ago? And since one of his relations lives in our little village in Vermont, so I became very interested in the man. He was a very great inventor. What did he invent, by the way?

(The engine, didn't he? The combustion engine, I think it was. { } engine.)

(The starter engine. The -- yeah, the automatic starter, the solenoid starter. The -- the thing that starts the engine.)

Ignition, I think, isn't it? Well, he has of course made a number of -- of inventions. But -- I -- but I do think he delivered us from the crank, you see, so many inci- -- accidents have been eliminated by him. And of course, he became very rich.

Now he's a -- a man who graduated with him tells the story that when Kettering graduated from Ohio State in engineering, he received his sheepskin diploma, and threw it in the wastepaper basket, and said, "This is not what I have toiled for, for four years, at starvation level."

Now I think that no European, no Asiatic, no African will ever understand--except the Australian, he would--Australians and the North Americans are in line with this strange separation from the act and its formal declaration. That is, obviously, the four years in -- in Ohio State were very important for Mr. Kettering. It made him, you see. But the expressions, the declaration, the document in -- on which this is written he throws in the wastepaper basket. He's annoyed by the certificate. And by the way, the -- his roommate tried to rescue it from the wastepaper basket, and fished it out, and gave it back to him, and then he throwed -- it in a second time. So it was not a rash movement, but his considered opinion.

I can give you a strange parallel to this. The father of William and Henry James, you know who Henry James was, the novelist, and William James, the philosopher. Now they had a father who was greater than the two of them, Henry James, Sr. And when the two boys -- sons came to England, Bernard Shaw teased them on this, and said, "You know, you are nothing. Your father is everything."

And they su- -- surprised Bernard Shaw, who of course was a terribly ironical and sardonical mind and said, "Well, we know that."

So they were convinced that their father was a greater man. I think he was. And this man, when he went to die, in 1882, was asked by his daughter what they -- he should -- they should do at his funeral. "Oh," he said, "I'll tell you. You just come forward with one sentence, to be read by the oldest child -- the oldest -- the -- the son. 'Here lies a man who has always thought that the ritual connected with birth and funeral is just hokum.'"

Now here you have the -- two typical situations -- which -- are certainly anti-historical, because they go against the documentation of history, you see,

against the form in which history is recorded. Because after all, what is a funeral? The record of a death. And a death in a family is a very important event. And a birth is, too, you see. In a birth, the new name is given. In a death, you are entitled from now on to treat this person as no longer, you see, to be reckoned with. And therefore, obviously, this has to be declared.

But in this country, which is strictly naturalistic--you can call this "naturalistic"--the -- the -- the declaration of the event is brushed aside as unnecessary. The fact of the birth and the death stand for themselves. And thereby history is destroyed, because history is the -- the weaving together of natural events in such a way that they make sense to each -- that they--although they occur in one or the other person--they make sense, so to speak, to each other. A birth is nothing unless the father says, "This is my child, and he's now called William Smith, Jr.," you see. And a death is nothing unless the widow now is called a widow from this day on. That's what we call a funeral.

So the -- between the event and the declaration of the event, there is a minute, or a day, or three days of lapse. And -- the American mind cannot deal with this amount of time. It destroys it and says, "We don't respect it."

In former days, you know, at -- at a funeral, the widow had to stay put in her house with the belongings of her husband for 30 days. She shouldn't make up her mind before, you see, what to do.

Now I have -- known a -- judge in New York City, and his wife. Very good people, and very happily married. And when they -- he, the man, came to die, the -- the woman--this poor widow--sold her belongings the day after the death, before the funeral. And of course, four weeks later, she was in a sanitarium, because she hadn't given the necessary time to her own soul to digest the event.

So it is a -- the -- what no American, it seems--pardon me for saying this boldly--seems to be able to digest is that an event, before it reaches the outside world, takes time, you see, before it is digested, because it becomes a part of history. That -- if Lincoln dies -- is murdered in -- at -- you see, in the evening, and he expires in the morning, and then Stanton, the secretary of war, says, "Now he belongs to the ages," then this is still -- no reason why he shouldn't be buried in all the cities, you know, through which the coffin passed. There were celebrations. And this is part of his death. You can't -- you can't eliminate the waves that an event, the stone that falls into the water -- you see, mo- -- mo- -- mobilizes in -- in a pond.

But this is what the American mind tries to do. When the stone falls into

the water, the idea of a wave theory by which these waves have to be accepted as part of the event is absolutely undigested, but it seems for Reader's Digest. And Reader's Digest is the stomach of America, as you know. I mean, we are all digested by Reader's Digest, so to speak. Or pre- -- pre-chewed, you can also say.

So -- and this is your point where -- which you have to -- I think to start your historical thinking -- at this moment; here, in this place especially. Is there really, between a purely natural event--that is physical, I mean, in nature, like a death of a person--and its becoming an historical event, a necessary lapse of time during which this event must get the chance to work itself into the fabric of the -- a nation's, a city's, a family's consciousness, you see -- isn't this as much real as the so-called physical event? And all of you are inclined to deny this, and give the -- this wave mo- -- movement of waves around the stone that falls in the water no reality. Say, "Well, that's not real, that's just -- that's just"--how would you call it, I mean?--"mental, or psychological," you see, and how -- all these strange words are.

And we -- you live in this era--psychoanalysis is a case in point--where the -- the physical is divorced from its meaning. The death of a person has a very different meaning in the hearts of man, whether this person has been murdered, or whether he -- dies a heroic death on the battlefield, or whether he dies in a sick-bed in a hospital, and un- -- unconsciously, you see, doped, and -- and -- and kept alive for 10 years too long, as they do now, you see. -- You see, such a death leaves quite a different imprint. One -- death on the battlefield is so sudden, and so unexpected, because the lieutenant is only 20 years of age, you see, and it is not his natural way of dying, that you have to celebrate him for 50 years to come, by 4th of July celebrations, or Battle of Gettysburg celebrations, in order to do justice to this shortening of his life, by his bravery.

When a man, however -- I have such a dear friend. She wanted to die. She was 84, was a beautiful woman, and a -- widow of a great painter. And she knew that she had -- would have to die. And we all loved her. And if she had died at that moment, we all would have honored her memory, you see. And she would still be with us, so to speak, in spirit. But the doctors came and said she had cancer, and so she had to be operated upon. She protested. They said, "You have to do this for the students' sake, so that the student can learn something," which is really bestial. And -- they were treating her just as a -- you see, a piece of flesh, to be studied.

Well, as -- at this age, you see, with all the doctors agreeing, she went to the hospital. She was a corpse for -- a living corpse for another two and-a-half years, and when she died, nobody remembered her. The -- every interest in her had been spent in the sympathy, you see, given to her sufferings for these two

and-a-half years. She had known this, you see. And so she was destroyed in the hearts of men, by this ridiculous state of medicine which we have today.

And this has to do with the naturalism of the age, you see, because if medicine can separate the person from the body to such an extent, you see, then -- that the body is kept alive even when the personality is gone, then obviously, this is just the anti-historical bias of our age, which says, "The only thing that I consider valid is the -- the body."

Now history is not made out of bodies, gentlemen. But strange as it -- may show, it is made up of spirits, or of laws. You see, you cannot explain the -- the death of any person unless you relate it to -- to what happens after his death. Does he bequeath his fortune to somebody? Has his -- Mr. Dulles to be replaced if he should die now, you see, by his successor in a state department, you see? Is he that -- is he indispensable? Is he irreplaceable? This is all discussed today in the papers. And a physical world, as ours, you see, thinks -- in Mr. Dulles' case is desperate. There is no succession for the presidency; there is no succession for the secretary of state at this moment, because we -- we have not learned that all life is based on spiritual succession, and not on physical succession.

Formerly, this was very different. Any son would inherit his father's business, you see. A son at Harvard, I told you, I think last time, wasn't it here?--that he would rank in the -- in the -- in the--how do you call it?--in the syllabus of Harvard, in the album of Harvard, the almanac of Harvard, in rank with his father, because it was quite natural that the son did participate in the status -- the standing of the father in the community. In such a case, you see, death of course is an historical event. You can see immediately that it means the position of a man in the community that -- that has to be replaced. If the father is governor of Massachusetts, at his death, the -- everybody knows that death means succession.

Now you and I have separated the retirement and the physical death. And what formerly, in a monarchy or in an aristocracy, you see, has to happen at the -- day of death--succession, you see, that somebody succeeds them--today is separated in two events. Retirement, on one hand, you see, or election; and physical death on the other. And for this reason, Mr. -- Mr. Henry James, Sr., could say, thinking in these terms of a -- of a -- complete division of the physical life, you see, of his and his office in life, his position, that funerals were formless events, that it was all crazy.

But gentlemen, if -- I would invite you to look it -- at this. There are really the foun- -- the cornerstone of history are four events. And there are no others. Out of this, all history is -- these are the bricks out of which history is made.

There would be no history if people wouldn't die; there would no -- be no history if people would not be born; there would be no history if people didn't have to marry; and there would be no history if they didn't have to have a -- an office. What I call a "calling"; you can call it a "profession"; you can call it, you see, "an employment," today, you see. An activity, a -- a station in which you would do something.

So we come into this world passively, you see, and we go out, and we do act- -- actively, we -- we act--I mean, "calling" is the most general term for it, but you can also in modern terms call it "employment." I hate it, because it is not selfchosen. It is foreign-directed, you see, "employment." And I all -- wish you all that you will -- never will feel employed, but always feel active. That is, you will always be -- I -- you cannot live unless you feel called to do what you are employed to do. If a man is only employed, he hasn't yet appropriated, so to speak, his -- his station in life. And then you have to give notice and go elsewhere. And marriage, which is the founding of the next generation.

All these -- these four events today are broken up into -- into separate events. If you take marriage -- as long as a man can only marry once, and specially a woman, there is one event in life, you see, one incisive event between birth and death, in your physical nature. Today, when you have four divorces and five marriages, and you have obviously the same event broken up into five -- it is the same with death. If you have retirement, and if you have dismissal, and if you have unemployment, you get this -- with death, you get it o- -- broken up into two events, at least: retirement and physical death.

Now in my case, you see, I came to this country in the middle of my life, in '45, and started a completely new life. Did nothing again what I did at home, and did everything different from what I never was -- had been able to do at home; so I think I have died very completely in the middle of my life, because I could not take with me anything, you see, which I had achieved, or owned in -- in Europe.

Now most Americans know -- have in their families such an artificial death in some of their ancestors, you see, who in the same manner had to give up a full existence, a full life, you see, were retired in Europe, so to speak. You never assess sufficiently the historical break that this creates, you see, in -- most genealogies of American families.

With employment today, similar- -- formerly, a man had one calling. He was a doctor -- from -- and it's very significant: a man who had a calling down to 18- -- 1900, never went on vacation. The -- the -- the vacation is an invention of the time of em- -- mere employment, you see. Today people need a vacation, you

see; and for the worker today, the struggle for the vacation is the struggle for a continuous life, for a meaningful life. It's I think the greatest social problem today: to give the employed people vacations, you see, and also to make them realize what they should make out of it, you see, and not just bus rides and tourist enterprises. And it hasn't been solved, yet.

Here, my friend, {Donald Meyer}, my colleague here whose -- who -- whom I here now, so to speak, replace at this moment with you, has a very good idea. He feels that the -- we shouldn't have a 40-hour day, or a 30-hour day -- not -- but it would be more important that any employed person could have a whole year off every four or five years, you see, to study, that this would be much more meaningful for his existence. And -- though he would waste all his time at juke boxes, and in Greyhound buses, you see, at weekends. And I think the -- the organized pleasure of weekends is an indication that people are completely ruined by their ways -- they are short-lived employed, you see. They are all shortcuts to happiness.

He -- on the -- what Mr. Meyer suggests I think is very -- has very much future. I have insisted -- I've just come from a -- address I had to deliver in Germany on January 30th for a large audience in the so-called Paulskirche, in Frankfurt, which is the largest hall in the city of Frankfurt, where the German parliament of 1848 convened. So it's a very solemn place. And I invoked there that industry of the industrialized spheres of the world couldn't go on unless every member of industry served the colonial and underdeveloped countries one or two years, you see, as a service -- in a service capacity, that the mere showering of industrial products, you see, on these countries would lead them to a tremendous upheaval, as you already see it at this moment. And so it was my point, too, that the modern industrialized humanity doesn't need weekends, but it needs whole years of breaks in their existence.

By which I only mean to say that here again, the new thing which you now realize -- must realize is that down to 60 years ago, a man did not have a vacation, if he was a professional man. And a farmer didn't have a vacation. He had holidays, sure. He had a sabbath. But to go on vacation was simply unknown except for the luxuriously rich. I mean, for the bored people. And you know what God thinks of the rich people. You know it? Do you? Well, you just look at them, how He made them. So, they aren't the best.

So here you have again and -- this difficulty for you to understand history is that the brick out of which his -- history is built--people's lives, birth, deaths, marriage, and calling--are broken up. Here, by divorces, so that a man has four wives and more of course, if one -- a wi- -- woman has four husbands. And death, you have it broken up by retirement, and by emigration. Employment you

have broken up by many employments, you see, by change of employment, so that your constant being in a station of -- where you represent a function like a -- like a brick ma- -- mason, or a jeweler, or a doctor, or a lawyer today disappears behind the fact that you are just in business, that you are just doing something, you have a job. The very word "job" has replaced the word "calling." And with birth, the physical, the medical aspect of this has overwhelmed people. The father is totally excluded. That he gives a name to the brat is today a mi- -- matter of minor consideration. The -- people do not realize that the historical event of a birth is that this child is recognized by the father.

You know, in former days, in former centuries, and I think they were very reasonable, a child did not exist in society before the father hadn't take it up -- taken it up and given it -- recognized it as his child. So the historical event for society was the recognition by the father; the physical event in nature, was the birth by the mother. The two had to go together.

This had very great advantages, gentlemen, because -- an idiot and a Mongol- -- mongrel, simply these people were -- these children were not accepted into society. And we haven't solved this problem by a long shot, who must live, you see. Where is the limit? As you know, we keep people alive who -- where it's very doubtful that we should. And you know how many families -- not how many, but that families are destroyed, because suddenly they are -- they are for the rest of their life, you see, beset by this problem of having their mongrel to -- to live with. And -- and no -- no softness of heart, gen- -- can -- can bring you over this problem, over this hurdle. Must every semblance of life, you see, be preserved? And it's again with this keeping alive of the dying person, you see. You can overdo it.

I know a hospital, fortunately, where in such a case, the doctor simply says to the nurse, "You know what you -- have to do." And it's a bad society in which such virtuous doctor runs the penalty of death, or of -- deprivation of his office, you see, because he just does right. And the whole community is such a coward, and so timid that they -- doesn't dare to face the necessity that not every life deserves to be lived. And everybody -- you tremble. But at the same time, when you have 40,000 people killing -- killed in auto accidents. A very strange society. The 40,000 in -- in auto accidents deserve to live, because they are not idiots, you see, supposedly. But -- not one idiot can be killed, but all the people on the highway can. Very strange society. Life is very cheap for the people in the middle of life. And it is very precious for the newborn and the dying. I think it should be the other way around.

Well, I -- here I come to the fact that the -- the mother and the child in your imagination are the only people concerned with birth. And this wasn't -- is

a -- quite a new thing. In former days, as you know, a father had even to go to bed with the woman in order to make him feel that it was his child, too, and that he acquired a tremendous responsibility for this child. And the -- the -- the break between the illegitimate child and the legitimate -- child was -- is just in this one thing: that a child had a father in one -- you see -- under -- in one place, and the other it hadn't.

Now today, there are no fathers. There are just second-rate mothers, I mean. The fathers play the role of the vice-mother, and vicarious mother, and -- push the perambulator. And since a father doesn't educate his children, and isn't their moral sustenance, doesn't give them their religion, they don't -- the meaning, of course, of the whole relation of birth to history is darkened.

But if you look at the Quakers, or the Baptists, even, "Theoretically," these people said, "nobody can inherit Christianity." And yet you know very well that there are Quakers stocks now for 300 years, and Baptists, you see, for 250. In other words, even in -- in the religious denominations--which say that nobody can inherit religion, you see--the heredity of religion has made itself felt. Down to 1800, you couldn't escape it. A father would donate to his child, you see, his relation to the universe. His spiritual heritage is ver- -- was very real.

I think nobody in this country ever mentions this riddle, how all these denominations, you see, become hereditary. But down to the Mormons, they are. It is only nowadays that the -- most religious sects, you see, have given up this -- this inheritance status, this heredity status. The Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as -- can see, are not able, you see, to go on into the next generation. Wouldn't that be true? And all the -- the -- the crackpots in this -- the secular sects in Los Angeles, they don't.

But from the -- all this religious heritage, and especially from the heritage of the Republican Party, I mean, from the membership in the party, in the Middle West, I mean, you just are a Republican or you are a Democrat by birth. And that is decisive for the parties. They couldn't exist without this. Don't laugh, Sir. But you have quite --.

(I'm not laughing at you. I'm agreeing with you.)

Good.

(Don't fight me.)

So I -- I want to give you the brick of history here. Now the -- the bricks out of which history is built is the experience of human beings, you see, that they

are born into this world, into a heritage of law and order, which they are subjected to, because they have a father. And that they are allowed to choose an em- -- a calling, a profession, an employment, whatever it is, a station in life, by which -- to which they contribute actively, you see, which they represent, where they hold office -- where -- you can call it today with a -- with a cheaper word, "function." But I do think that the word "office" is in order. Everyone has an office.

When Greta Garbo plays the -- Christina of Sweden -- have you seen this -- movie, still? Or is she forgotten? She played the queen of Sweden, and there was a shoemaker. And he visited her in her palace in Stockholm. And -- and the queen then had to put him right. He wanted to rebel. And he said -- she said, "You go home," you see. "My office is to be queen, and your office is to be shoemaker."

Now that's a good, Lutheran, of course, doctrine: that every man in his -- has his calling. And the lowest, as much as the highest, you see, has an office to fulfill in life, you see. We all hold office from a -- a commission from our maker.

Today, however, it is very difficult to believe this, because if you have 52 jobs within 20 years--I had a friend who -- who achieved this record. I wrote -- published his life for this reason; I published the biography of this man, because I felt that in order to understand modern- -- modern industry, you see, you had to face the fact that this man, you see, had had this number of jobs, and therefore was deprived of his relation to his -- to what he did. You see, he couldn't treat it as a -- as an office.

My comfort has been: I have al- -- also had many j- -- offices. I don't think I ever called it a "job" in my -- inside myself. But life -- your own life is your office, the whole of life. And all these various employments are little notes in the symphony of your office.

If you see that in your consciousness the fact that you do inherit tradition, politics, religion, climate, language, mores to an extent that is outranking anything you can contribute during your whole lifetime, you see, you would suddenly see that the entrance into the world of soc- -- of history is much more of a weight, and deserves much more to be balanced with a physical birth than at this moment seems to you valid. Even -- you can -- say that in your consciousness, the -- the -- acqui- -- acquisition of the English language, of the American slang, of your local traditions here in Southern California, of your school days, of your vaccination--of all the things that society does to you--of your learning, you see, being toilet broken, anything -- wearing dress, knowing what dress to wear when -- it's very important, you see, to know where you are. In a swimming

pool, you are differently dressed when you are in church. That's a tremendous education, you see. All these things which you -- which you neg- -- think nothing of it, are your birth.

Now the baptism, or circumcision, or taking into the community -- any ceremony that marks off this event, that you now are growing into the traditions of the community, they are formerly -- treated as more important historically than the physical birth. Our church registers for this reason, registered down to 1870, I think, the baptism only, and not the birth. Because baptism meant the name around which now all the forms of historical life could crystallize. You as the bearer, you see, of historical manners, mores, convictions, laws, at- -- attitudes, dresses, customs, became the im- -- historically important person, or were made the historically important person.

So our church registers did register the baptism. And very often, we don't know the day of birth. With Martin Luther, we are not quite sure whether he was born on November 10th, but we do know that he was baptist -- baptized on that day, you see. So sometimes people would take the child right away to the -- to the fount, and sometimes they -- they didn't.

In other words, may I make myself understood? Birth, as an historical event also consists of a -- quite a number of events--and I would say it begins with the diapers, with the swaddling clothes, and it -- ends up with the walk to school. Now this is a long story, and it goes down to UCLA, that for 20 years you are born into society, into history. Because what does it mean to be born? You are not held responsible. Every mistake you make is more or less forgiven you. It's still an unreal, you see, a playlike existence. To be born means that somebody else is still responsible for you.

Now take mistakes made here in this section with -- of you. Can be forgiven. It's given to the wind, you see. It doesn't stay with you. Whereas later on in life, it's very different. On the highway, the mistake you make, you see, is held against you. It goes on record.

So it is overlooked by you, that you still rely on this historical birth. But it is also broke- -- fragmented today -- fragmentarized, broken up into these little events in life, and so not one of them looks very important.

So just as much as you have 50 employments, and just as much as you have five marriages today coming to you, the kindergartens, and the ch- -- school, and the high school, and the college, and the various psychological phases of a child's growth, you see, today to you are just separate entities. But for history, of course, they all mean that you are still prehistorical beings. Birth

means the entrance of a child into a preparatory stage, and I call this intentionally--to shake you into consciousness--into -- you are prehistoric.

We are prehistoric as long as anything we do is not held against us, or in as far as it isn't held against us. You see, where things can be obliterated, where the parents simply can say to the child, "Well, we forget about it," you see, where you have this obliteration, you have fatherhood. And since God forgives -- this meaning of God's fatherhood, that to the end of days, we still are His children, and He obliterates, He forgets what we have done. And we can start afresh. But not -- in society. Society of course has to pin down some responsibility, you see, on somebody. And so we have a criminal whom God can forgive, but the law cannot. You see the difference? Quite surprising, really.

But all these doctrines from the -- from the -- see, from the realm of the religious tradition today I have to conjure up as your own experience, because modern society has managed by multiplying these stimuli--by speaking of "stimuli," instead of "events"--to take you out of history, to make you unconscious of your real historical position between the generations. You are in history only if you can form a generation consciously between the laws of the past and the promises, or programs, or prophecies of the future. You are only in history if you can say, "This one thing is over, this order of society, and I'm going to start a new one." And for this you have to look backward, how you were born into society by these acts of, you see, training, education, breeding, what-not, and if you can also know that it -- takes a lifetime to leave any dent, that to th- -- your dying day, you are clothed with one office that is total. That the measure of your life is not of our own making, but that God--or the creative process, or however you call this; I don't care; I call it "God"--that God has invested in men His way of -- of continuing creation. You and I do the creating. That's our business. He has -- and therefore He has made men to live 70, or 80, or 90 years. And He has also allowed us to -- to -- to concentrate, to give away our life for a great cause, earlier, which --. So I would say when a lieutenant dies on the battlefield at 20, he invests 50 years of his life expectation, you see, into this event. And therefore it is much more effective than the day in a sick-bed, you see, after 70 years of life. He does something with his whole life. He compounds it, and it explodes; and therefore leaves of course a greater mark. If you invest 50 years, you see, of -- of unli- -- -lived life into such an act, you leave a mark.

All this to you, it seems to me, is -- has gone out of existence, because you are spellbound by the animal kingdom, by Darwin. You really believe that we live like animals. That is, our physical existence is the whole story. Obviously, my dear children, since man is in history, this isn't true. The same human stock, the same way of coming into this world, you see, has existed now for -- let's say, 10,000 years, 15,000 years. Yet every generation has changed the picture of the

globe. And if you look here, at Los Angeles, I think you will admit that from the desert to the water tower, and to the aircraft factory, and to Hollywood, it is quite a march of events. And every generation has done something to change the human character; that is, the human activity, the -- and that is history.

And therefore, the physical death, the physical birth, gentlemen, the physical ma- -- act of mating, and the physical, playlike activity of running around in a desert, so to speak, you see, is not what makes man into an historical being and -- is the condition of history, but only that we are heirs, as I might call it, that we are founders, that we foun- -- form a group, and that we -- fill a whole office.

Now what's the difference? Formerly, of course, when a person married, he also held office. I mean, you -- you moved into a homestead, you see, and you began to farm, for example. And before, you were part of your father's household. So marriage, and -- and office, and employment formerly were very close together, you see. Usually the day of -- the day of a man ceasing to be an apprentice, or a fellow becoming a master also meant that now he was ready to have a house.

I want you -- invite you -- marriage is forming a household. All this today is destroyed. Most people try, when they marry, not to form a household, but to live in a -- in a ki- -- with the kitchen and out -- go out for lunch. And so again, this is destroyed. Marriage today does not mean housekeeping necessarily. And -- especially when the wife also goes to work. Housekeeping and office-holding I want you to see as out -- the direction of a man's position in life to the -- towards the outer world, and towards the inner world. Marriage means to create an inward order, an interior, so to speak. You -- you go to an interior decorator if you want to furnish your -- your home. You see, this word is very significant. You want to have intimacy. Inside you want to be of something, you see, by which you brick yourself off against the outer world. Marriage is the forming of one cell out of two bodies. And the word "house" or "home" of course is the expression for this direction inward.

And the office-holding -- if you elect a president of the United States, why is he holding office, gentlemen? What is the -- the max- -- the simplest criterion for any office-holder?

Compared to a woman who enters the house of her husband--and disappears, so to speak, behind the doors, you see, there--and -- and doesn't want to be seen, so to speak, like the widow of Tyrone Power, I read yesterday, said -- she stated very bluntly: she would have nothing to do with the public, you see. Any office-holder faces the public. That is, private and public, outer and inner are the

antagonisms, you see, in -- for the act of marriage, of intimacy, of intimation, so to speak, and the -- any office is extrovert.

I can prove this to you by the simple fact: anybody who holds office represents to the outer world the community in which he holds this office. If you are doctor and you go abroad, they say, "It's an American physician." And you can't help it. America comes unter -- under scrutiny, because you are an American physician. You represent America, you see, in medicine, as soon as you go abroad. The same is true of an American student who goes to Heidelberg, you see. "The American students behave like that."

So all office-holding, all -- all -- represent- -- all--how do you call it?--all function is representative of the whole group inside which you function. Again, I -- I recommend this to you as a kind of rediscovery of historical -- the historical bottom principle, you see. We all in our public functions are representing the community in which we function. If a governor of Los -- of California goes to -- to Mr. Khrushchev, or the senator of Minnesota, Mr. Humphrey, you see, Mr. Khrushchev doesn't speak to Mr. Humphrey per se, but he receives him because he's the senator from Minnesota, you -- obviously, you see. And wastes his time on him.

Why do I say this? Do we have another blackboard? No? We should have.

The historical brick, which you and every one of us is asked to represent the -- the element out of which the--you can also say, the "molecule," this block of humanity which you and I are, you see--in the case of marriage creates an interior, a house, a home. In the case of a calling, it becomes representative to the outside world. Perhaps I should make this sign more clearly. Obviously the -- the most pronounced representative of the United States is the president. But he has only the highest office. Everyone of us to a minor -- to a minor degree is also representative of the group inside which he has this function. Now a -- a thinker, a philosopher, of course, tries to have a function for the whole of the thinking universe. So they are -- not everyone represents America. You can be -- a member of the senate in California, then you would represent California through this office, and not the whole of America.

But any office, whether you are a -- blacksmith, or whether you are president of the United States, is representative of the group within which you function. No blacksmith can function if he has no horses to shoe. So -- that he is a blacksmith inside the agriculture or industrial society, you see, only makes him into a blacksmith. They -- we -- nobody holds office, nobody can be employed, except as a representative of an order in which society cooperates. We all, in our division of labor, have offices which together form the whole of this historical

pattern.

So the disagreeable thing for the -- for the American mind at this moment is that his representative function he will negate. He says, "I'm independent. I don't approve."

This happened to me Pearl Harbor Day, on 7- -- December 7th, 1941, I had a class. And I -- the 8th. It was -- this was Sunday evening. And Monday at -- noon -- as a matter of -- of fact, at 1:30, I had a class, and I was very excited, and I said, "Now we have war."

Up went a student in the true, anti-historical spirit of a good -- good, boy and said, "No, we haven't. We still can deny -- refuse to go to war."

And I said, "Pardon. But there are two people engaged. The Japanese want war. And if they want war, you can be forced into it."

And he said, "No. We simply decline to -- to accept Pearl Harbor."

There you have the -- you see, the -- the i- -- the i- -- idea of staying outside history, you see. If -- if you do not agree, history doesn't take place. You understand? This is carrying it, I think, very far, you would agree. But I think it's the American first reaction: "Let's not be taken in. I want first to examine this," you see. "I am not representative, as an American citizen, of an event that has befallen the nation. If I'm not in it, I'm not in it."

And I think this is quite interesting, because it ta- -- it keeps you -- restrains you from accepting history, you see, as a process within which we are already, you see, found, whether we like it or not. Now the same is then true of the -- the other thing. We are shot into history by this process that from the stable in Bethlehem, and the--where the donkey and the -- the ox, you see, connive to accept the little baby--Jesus is shot into history year after year. And the scene in the temple where -- at 12, where He teaches, of course is an attempt to show this upward movement into -- on the historical scene. To you, a child that is born is already on the historical level. I decline, you see. The -- the physical baby that is born in the cradle, it has to be lifted up on this level in which it can become pers- -- a person through marriage and a person through office. And if this isn't done to him, you get juvenile delinquents, for example. That is, they tire on the way -- into history. This is, I think, the real fate today of the juvenile delinquent, that he -- he is fatigued. He has -- on this march, you see, he suddenly is at the age of 12 deserted, so to speak. He has his hands no longer lifted. One reason is that he is not -- no demands on him, of a real, you see, imposition on his -- on his character. And he's not -- he -- people from whom nothing is demanded are the unhappiest

creatures in the world. They can't grow.

Just as you have to -- to tie a vine, you see, to the tree so that you can grow up, so a child has to be tied to the demands of the elders in order to become itself able to stand on its own feet. And our school system is, as you know, one of -- of making you forget that life is hard instead of showing you that it isn't. And I think our own society is so anti-historical--Los Angeles is a case in point--that most children no longer reach the level of history. They mate, but they don't marry. They confuse sex and marriage, which is two absolutely different things. And -- so they remain brute animals.

And if I -- put it this way, you see: here you have the baby; here you have the child; here you have puberty; here you have love -- capacity to love; and here you have marriage. Now these are every seven years quite distinct phases. And in order to be able to found a home, this takes maturity. You have to be able to distinguish between your passion of love, and your sobriety in love. You have to distinguish in love again -- between sex urge, and what is love, which is connected with your willingness to sacrifice for the -- the person you love. There is no love without the balance between lust and sacrifice. But sex is mere -- happening, so to speak. Sex is -- is before issue. You can do nothing about it. The way out of -- of -- of sex, as you well know, is selection, where you will sacrifice.

I mean, I've seen many a boy saved on a Saturday evening, because he was on the way to -- to do anything to throw away his -- his physical strength. And then a good woman just on the street says to him, "Come and have a cup of coffee with me." And the whole sex urge boils down, you see, quiets down, and this day is passed off erotically, by affection, but not by -- with an -- act of sexual helplessness.

Now as you see, the importance of the historical fact of birth--that is, of baptism, of -- the relation of father and child--is that it did invite the parents to consider this road from birth to the child's marriage, and the child's employment in -- by the wider society as their responsibility. You understand, that the mores of the country, the customs, the laws--they couldn't be devolved on a school. The Parent-Teacher Association hadn't been in- -- invented, where the teachers tell the parents what to do. It's a very funny association. Do you ever go to a PT- --? Wie? You know this, how difficult it is, for the parents to -- to have a voice -- real voice in the matter. Isn't it true? Or, how do you find it?

(I think -- I think it does -- I don't think it's uniform. I think that in many cases, the -- the teachers are so -- so much abdicating their own position, that the -- then the parents tell the teachers. They have to tell them -- they some- -- something has to be said. And in other situations, I think that where the teachers have

a strong organization, that then they tell the parents. So I do think it changes. I don't know what it is here, in Los Angeles.)

Anybody any experience with this?

(I have a -- I know of an experience of entire corruption of -- someone using your -- their -- their power for money, trying to make a teacher lose his job because he flunked his student, and went to the PTA, and the board of education. And this teacher received calls from board of education, asking him to reconsider. And the case was really clear-cut, that the -- the kid was cheating. And it's just -- just sickening to see what could happen, especially when you think of education.)

Well, Mr. Sherwood Adams, a trustee of Dartmouth College, and his son went to -- Mr. {Goldfein's} son went to Dartmouth College.

(He was my classmate.)

He was your classmate.

(I know him well.)

And -- and {Gary Earl} tutored him. You remember {Gary Earl}? And I am still in close touch with {Gary Earl}. When the story of -- about Sherwood Adams broke in the papers as a secre- -- you know, private secretary to the president -- or assistant president, I was reminded by {Gary Earl} of the fact that exactly what you say happened. Mr. {Goldfein's} son was found cheating in the finals. And the faculty voted that he had to be -- you see, severed from college. And the vote was taken, and was unanimous for dismissal. Then the president suddenly stood up and said, "Mr. Sherwood Adams, trustee of Dartmouth College, wants you to reconsider the case."

And the votes were second -- taken a second time, and Mr. {Goldfein} was -- stayed in.

(This is better, because in the -- in this instance that I cited, it didn't even -- at the very beginning they said, "You know, don't do it." They -- the principal of the high school told the -- the teacher not to -- not to do this, here.)

Ja. Perhaps we -- you begin to understand that since we have no historical relation now to birth and death, but a purely physical, that many people stan- -- remain outside history. This is the staggering event. And I think if you go and see this humanity here, this -- your first impression, that they do not know where

they are living, when they are living, you see. It's just purely accidental. They live from day to day. They live very well, as a matter of fact. And that's just the reason why they have absolutely no notion.

I was asked -- asked the other day by a group of very serious secretaries of labor unions what they should do to educate the young women between -- between -- before the age of 20. Could they send them to Bible classes, or -- lift their sights in some way, that they wouldn't throw away all money and everything for lipstick. And -- and I had to answer them, that if they couldn't interest these girls in the next five years of their lives, there was nothing that deserved to be put into their lives, by reading or so.

I said, "You can read the Bible in the life of 24 hours, as a stimulus, as an interesting story about Susanna and her bath, you see, and that -- then it ranks with -- with Esquire. Or you can make a child aware of the fact that she has a long life to live, and that the tensions which carry a person along, over 10 or 15 years, you see, should rule the powers that rule the day. Just as in -- relation between marriage and sex, this is absolutely necessary, you see, that sex is overruled by love, and love is overruled by marriage. And -- if a woman is sick, that doesn't allow a man simply to go haywire and to say he's no longer married. And if the -- his wife grows ugly, there's no excuse for him to run after beautiful woman, you see. So all the urges are simply to overruled by a higher law."

And -- I said, "If you cannot in- -- in- -- inject into these poor girls' existence something of this long-range sentiment, or expectation, or fear, don't abuse all the good things--neither Shakespeare nor the Bible--because they will all fall flat. And they will be never -- available, even later not. The terrible thing with -- with the classics is--and the Bible--is that if they come to you at an age where you live from day to day, their power is destroyed. And you will say later, "Never again will I touch these books," because you have this memory that you abused them, so to speak, for a momentary -- flicker of interest, in which, of course, they could never compare to the comic strip.

And I th- -- I would of course in this country abolish the reading of the Bible, of all serious literature, before 25 or 30.

[tape interruption]

If you have to read the comics, then read them. But then don't read anything else.

This is very serious, gentlemen. It all has to do with the idea that the whole process of -- of growing up is a process of your own action, that nobody is

-- that you are all self-made, that you pick and choose. At the age of 20 -- 12, you tell your child, "{ } you go to the movie," then you go. Or you say, "I want to see television," then they have to allow it. If the child is not born by the father's spiritual, you see, historical act of proge- --or how would you call it?--procreation, or -- you see, if this is not an act of the parents, then it is of course -- becomes -- is -- thought of as being an act of the children.

And this today I think is the rule in this community, that the child is already considered somebody who selects for himself. I have seen children of 4 being asked to select on the menu in a restaurant what they want to eat. Well, that's madness. But everybody does it in this country. It's absolute madness, you see. I have also known a family where the child was destroyed, because it was asked to distinguish composers and conductors -- it was very musical. It was a kind of musical genius. The parents were so proud that they inquired from this child at the age of 2 who had composed this--Beethoven, you see, and Haydn. At 4, my son who is a psychiatrist, got this case; and the child was destroyed. Nothing could help him. It had been overstimulated,you see; it had been overtaxed. And here was a genius destroyed by this idea that a child, after it's born, it's all under its own steam. It's in his own boat.

Gentlemen, you are not in your own boat as long as something is not held against you. As people understand that what you say is not serious, because a person is in history when his word can be held against him. This is the -- the break in your si- -- social situation, you see. Wherever, the -- thing I say makes me, because I'm quoted on this, you see, and people say, "That's the man who said this," I'm in history. Before, I'm not.

This is the only decisive diff- -- difference between a playboy and a real man. Or a girl -- a woman and a -- little, laughing, ignorant girl. As long as you giggle, well, people say, "She's -- it isn't serious." But as soon as she has -- can cry and say, "Here I love this man, and I'll elope with him," she becomes Juliet at the ripe age of 14.

And of course the -- the limiting concept of history therefore is always this simple fact: in every one of us, there comes the hour where you have to stand upright and say, "You may take my life, but this I cannot do." You see, you cannot commit adultery; you cannot commit incest with your sister, even if the people say, "If you don't, they -- I will kill you." The Germans have tried this with the Jews in Poland. For their -- for their pleasure, they tried to make -- break down the morality of the Jews. Just for their entertainment, you see. Say, "We'll kill you, but in our" -- in their presence, perform, so to speak, you see.

There you see how serious this whole question of historical existence is.

There are limits to any man's endurance. And there are things you cannot do, even though they kill you. And -- this may be a limiting concept, but it is evaded in this country, although this is the most bloodthirsty country in the history of the world. I mean, there have been more people killed in the settlement of America, you see, than in any other country. If you read the story of the Indians in this country, here in California, it is just awful. But -- the -- it is denied today that people can live in history without ever being -- having to decide the question: "You are -- will have to die for this cause." Yet no war is possible, you see. No public law can be upheld if there is not a policeman who is willing to take a chance to be shot dead -- down by the robbers. You see, it would break down your system of order.

And as long as you are -- you must -- every one of you, this is a very personal decision, should -- should begin to scrutinize his -- your whole upbringing is against every word I say. I am perfectly aware of this. But you have bought it at the price that you are outside history. You are all living, preferably, outside the historical -- you are statistically, you see, important. But in history, the -- only the people are -- who are statistically unimportant. Because the statistically unimportant at one point resist the trend. And -- if a crime is committed by everybody--everybody lynches Negroes--one person has to stand up and say, "No." That's how it begins.

My greatest historical story in this -- respect is the story of a -- McCarthy anecdote. McCarthy had his -- Mr. {Caspar} and other similar individuals going down South. Now I don't know if it was {Caspar} or somebody else, but it happened in 1948 in a city in the South. A small city, perhaps 10,000 people, in South Carolina. And this rabble-rouser came to town, and everybody went, because it was the McCarthy days. You haven't lived through them, probably, but there was real excitement in the country. And it was like the Sedition Act of 1795, you see, the whole nation was -- thought they -- they were betrayed. And -- and I think still there was some cause for this excitement. So I -- you mustn't think that I -- I have something to say in favor of the purge of McCarthy; because when I came to this country, I've been persecuted--because I was not a Communist--by the educated people. So I know there was this "fellow traveler" business to a tremendous extent. I was a reactionary, so -- and I was denied all promotion here, and all acceptance, because I was a reactionary. And a very wise man at that time said, "Why don't you join the Communist Party?"

And I said, "But I can't."

And he said, "Well, but -- then your future in this country would be assured." This was in '33.

So -- I only want to say, I'm not partisan in this story, ou must -- you must understand. I'm only descriptive of what happened. Because -- of course, was a louse, he was cheap, and didn't deserve any pos- -- personal credit. And this rabble-rouser came to this town in South Carolina, and set everybody against everybody. There were 1,000 people in this -- in this gathering. It was very great excitement. And you felt that one match, you see, could start a conflagration. And -- so everybody was on edge, what would happen.

And after he had ended his harangue, an old man--and they always have been the saviors of -- the historical continuity in this country, I think, the man over 70 or 80 -- like Stimson, and such people, you know, the secretary of war in -- under Roosevelt--and he said simply, "My friends, I have grown up in this town, with Protestants, and Catholics, and Jews, and Negroes. And we have always got along very well. I think the speaker has not understood this. So I propose that we all now get together and accompany him to the railroad station." And so it was done.

And I think that's -- there you learn how history is made, you see. History is made when an automatic trend suddenly is interrupted by a personal act for which this man takes the responsibility and allows himself to be quoted. It's very simple.

But you cannot -- now of course after this has happened, I go around -- into this seminary group here of yours, and say, "This is representative of America, of the American small town," you see. Because he simply created an office -- a function, you see, which is nowhere written in the -- in the -- in the Constitution of the United States. But I assure you, the Constitution of the United States can nev- -- not function one day without such an event happening, you see. If not one man comes forward, you see, and says, "This is not right," you will -- there will be no Constitution of the United States.

Take you another case. Down to 1939, the good will of the whole earth was enlisted on the American side by the missionaries that went all over the globe from America. Travelers of good will. They were journalists, they were real missionaries, they were doctors, they were dentists, but people all over the globe. And I have met with them.

And when I was a boy of 10, I was approached by an American in Switzerland. And I have never forgotten it. He tried to -- to proselytize me, so to speak, and to -- and was deeply impressed that -- a man with a -- with a great top hat, you know. That was still the way they -- he -- he traveled. All gre- -- a giant of a man. Now, I was a very small boy. And here he was, bending over me, you see, and saying where I came from; I came from Berlin, Germany.

"Oh, that's a very dangerous city," he said, you see. "It's so secular."

And so I never held these expressions before, you see. He talked German.

Well, I only meant to say, this man traveled around the globe and everywhere represented America; and they were fully aware that their life was their office. A good American has this feeling, that his whole life is invested in this one adventure, you see, of doing -- getting God's commission. And I have met these people--and I know of many others--what an effect the existence of these free travelers of Americ- -- from America had all over the globe.

In 1939, it was discovered by the department of state of this country that there was nothing in the Constitution saying anything about passports. From this, they gathered that since it wasn't mentioned, it was not the birthright of an American to get a traveling passport abroad. And they usurped, as you well know, by now the -- the power to say where you can travel. By this they controverted, they inverted the whole Constitution of the United States, because the United States had been founded as an open part of an open world. And obviously, if you give to an institution of the government the right to decide where you can travel, you reverse the whole situation. And from the open frontier, which is a passport problem, you see, we simply are now a closed shop. And we are not any better than Russia. My letters are censored when I write to Russia. They are censored not in Moscow, but they are censored in Washington. And nobody cries. Because you are so statistically minded, that you say, "But nobody says anything. Why should I?"

One man went to court, you know. And the Supreme Court now is, of course--it hasn't been quite settled, the question--but I assure you that your whole future and the whole future of humanity is at stake at this decision whether the state department can retain your passports, or whether you have a right to go to Holland whenever you want to go. That's very important for your own life. And -- and you are -- don't care. You say, "Oh, I can't do anything."

The one person who cares makes this passport case into a stepping-stone in history. Can't you see this? If there is not such a man who says, "I sacrifice my fortune, my time for it, my lifetime, to go through with this, through all the different courts of appeal," nothing will happen.

I mean, if you -- I here, I do nothing. I arouse your interest in this matter, but am I really engaged in this? No, I'm quite aware that I'm only mentioning this to you, you see. I'm not yet in history. I'm playing with the idea, so to speak, that some one of us should make the sacrifice and stay put until this is solved. And you may see that a teacher of history is -- is still only fooling around with

the story, you see. I'm not making history here in this seminar by telling you this. I'm quite aware of my very secondary role. But I think it's a beginning, at least. I have to tell you at least that it is an issue, have I not?

And if you begin to see this, certainly, you will have -- make an office -- a man becomes representative in history if he makes one issue his issue through his whole life, whatever that may mean. And the test of this is: is he willing to perish? Not that he should seek death, you understand. It's not a suicidal thing. But that he should be willing to pay the penalty. To -- he -- simply if he go -- I go now to the Supreme Court and say, "-- The state department has withheld my passport to China." As you know, you know, they -- they do this.

I have a friend, Bill Hinton, who went to China just the same. Now this had tremendous consequences. His mother has the -- had the -- was the principal of the famous Putney School in Verm- -- in Vermont. And many of the parents of course were good, you see, old-fashioned, wealthy people; and they were frightened to death. My son went to school in the same class with Bill Hinton at this school. So I know the story very well. Well, Bill Hinton said, "Come," you see -- water? or how do you say? high water or? Wie?

(Hell or high water.)

"Hell and high water, I go through with it." He's still in -- he went back to China. He testified before the -- foreign committee of the Senate. Well, he is still an old-fashioned American who knows what it takes to enter history. He said, "You can break me, but you cannot take away from me the decision that I have the right to find out what is going on in China myself."

Now the whole period of American history from 1776 to 1945 I assure you is at this moment jettisoned by your generation, because you don't give a damn for this issue. It is the one issue, because it makes America into a different nation. It makes them into a nationalistic nation, if the center office in Washington, you see, can decide where you move to. The whole legislation has been in this direction. I cannot live in Europe now without losing my citizenship, because I'm a natural- -- -ized citizen. The -- the people of the United States are so fed up with immigrants that you have made me into a second-rate citizen. I am now a citizen since 1940, and just the same, for 20 years now -- after -- 19 years I'm a citizen. I came to this country innocently in '33 and didn't take out my -- came on a visitor's visa, because I didn't understand this whole rigmarole, you see. So I could have had -- become a -- a citizen much earlier. However that may be, that's my own mistake. But still, the law says now, you see, that a person who is -- under -- in the opinion of the state department absent from this country too long in the first 25 years of his citizen rights, can simply be deprived of his citizenship

without due course of law, without any proceedings. He simply -- his passport is tak- -- American passport is taken away from him. No answer given. No reasons given. I live under an absolutely arbitrary regime. It's just as bad as taxation without representation. Or even worse, because I even -- not a citizen. And I have no appeal.

The courts in this land have nothing to say in the matter. We are absolutely treated as second-degree people. Who cares? This law was picked over, you see, under the steamroller of the Republicanism of Mr. Eisenhower's jubilant entr‚e into the good old folk ways of 1750. And he became a Presbyterian, and that was all that was needed to set the country right.

The -- the intent not to have to do with historical problems, you see, is overwhelming. And it is a -- therefore quite exceptional that history can take its course. It is against the will of the majority of humanity, you see, to take upon -- themselves the burden, you see, of the question that has to be solved at any one moment. Now, look at the passport question. It has to be solved now. If you forfeit this privilege, you see, within the next five years, so to speak, the -- never will America be again an open country. I don't say a "free" country, but the condition of freedom is openness.

Now immigration has stopped, you see. But the -- the corollary to emigration, which is never mentioned in your textbooks, is not immigration. But how would you call it, this free roaming, you see? The right to roam over the globe is essential to the whole American story. Where would we be in South America? Where would we be in Panama? Where would we be in Mexico? If you read any American's reminiscences and memoirs, you see, how many people have -- have gone to all of these countries, you see, and made for good will? I mean, {Douglas Stier}, at this moment, the -- the Quaker, is -- is in South Africa. It's very important for the rest of the world, because here is a man of the -- you see, Quaker -- faith in this African turmoil, you see, terribly im- -- important. Now should he be made dependent on the wisdom of some official in the state department who says, "It's good to go to Africa," or "not good to go to Africa"? You see, what -- what difference it makes for your and my right to enter history. A whole field of action is either, you see, left open to my decision, or it's -- I'm just a--how would you call it?--an instrument then of a -- of a deliberate policy of the central government.

And I feel very strongly on this, you see. Now that I depend for my passport on a decision of the state department, nothing that I do is completely free. So a -- an amount of dignity is taken away from my action, because everybody in the foreign world will say, "Oh, he got a passport from the United States government. Then they must like what he's doing. He's a propagandist." You under-

stand? That I'm now tainted with propaganda.

I went to Yugoslavia, this last fall, which is a very important corner of the globe, as you can see. It's betwixt and between. Well, I was in a very -- I went on my -- at my own expense, but I did go as a delegate of the United States government, because otherwise I wouldn't have gotten a passport. And I felt denigrated, so to speak; you see, I felt belittled, made small. Can you see the -- the difference? Because the people said, "Well, obviously the United States have an interest that this man go. This is not a disinterested party to this. I -- They gave him the passport. They even allowed him to speak in their name."

So we are -- today, the -- the horror of the world is that any American who goes abroad no longer is acting as a free human -- a Christian agent, but he's acting as a representative of the United States government. And -- I think the poison comes from this. We would have had peace long ago if there were still this -- was still this overflow of free American agents. Yes?

(One thing -- the thing is that you are saying, we still are representative of our own country, whether they label us officially "Americans" --.)

Oh, pardon me. I said explicitly, you can be representative for Vermont. You can be a representative for the United States govern- -- the United States. But any function has its own area of meaning. A doctor is not only an American physician. He can also stand for medicine. And -- you see, and a -- a physicist can be -- stand for physics. You know, Mr. Oppenheimer died for this. He was deprived of his position here with these -- with atomic energy, for the -- for what reason? You know the story? Because he said, "I can communicate with all physicists of the world," and so he talked to a Communist physicist in Paris. And this was the only reason why this man -- who's n- -- now the head of the foundation at Princeton, you see, of Ad- -- Institute of Advanced Studies, was not allowed to stay in the American, you see, atom -- Atomic Commission, and why we have this fool Teller now, instead.

So it is very bad, you see. The -- you represent different -- you always represent. I -- I stick to that, you see. But you -- you can -- represent Christianity, can you not? I mean, this man who talked to me in Switzerland, with his big top hat, this great top hat, he didn't speak as an American to me, but I saw that Americans still cared for the rest of the world. This is the -- enlarging this, isn't it? But now I don't think that Americans -- are -- can -- would say this, "They care for the rest of the world." I would say they carry their American interests everywhere. That is, it's America first.

Can you see this -- the difference? The slight overturn in -- the twist in

this? Then I believe that Americans will go to great lengths to help the Armenian children, you see. Now I saw it's -- in the interests of the American government that some Americans should go and help the American -- the Armenian children. That's a -- quite a change.

And I can only tell you that propaganda is an invention of the last 40 years. Mr. -- Lord Northcliffe, you see, the English journalist, invented this. He had a kind of -- he was -- himself died from persecution mania, and from syphilis, and -- and -- this is not unimportant, because propaganda has re- -- is -- is a similar fever pitch. It's something of -- from which you -- we all suffer. And propaganda I think makes world peace highly improbable. As long as you have propaganda, everything is distorted. You can only hope that everybody will distort everything so that nothing will work any more. That's the only hope we have, that all propaganda will be -- will be, so to speak, counteracted by counterpropaganda.

But this has never happened in the history of the world. The word "propaganda" is only -- was invented in the year of the Lord 1916. I think this is very important for you to know this. The secular word "propaganda" is a word of very recent standing. And I think it has made man's historical role in society, you see, highly difficult, because anything we do now is treated -- under this aspect of -- of propaganda. And it's -- it is stay-collared, so to speak. And Heaven knows how you will implement any acts of yours to make sure that -- they do -- they do not rate you as a -- you see, as just a spy, or just an agent of -- of an -- of Mr. Ford, or -- you see, or of the government, or of some corporation. It is not propaganda only in politics. It's commercial agents, even more so, isn't it?

I -- can -- give you a nice case. A -- the chief of press of the -- Lufthansa, which is the German airline now--corresponding to Pan American; I mean, it's the only airline they have--wrote a very sensible letter to the paper, which I happened to read, about car driving. And he's a -- driver himself of -- you see, of -- a man of 50. And -- and he has driven many different cars. And he complains that American discipline on the road is so much better than European discipline. Anybody who has been to Europe -- who has been to Europe? Well, you know this, how true it is. And he tried to introduce American mores. And so he said, "Cut down on your speed limit. You cannot go at -- at hundred miles an hour on our narrow roads. In America they only go 50 and 60 miles. Why don't you do this, too?"

Thereupon a shower of letters came to this paper. I read them. And it's just incredible. The -- the -- the climax was reached when the editor of an automobile paper -- motor -- for motorists, said, "Well, why do you listen to this man at all? He -- after all, he's with Lufthansa. Of course, he wants to slow down the

driving of the cars. He's just making propaganda for flying."

And -- and -- it's only to show you: here was a man simply soberly discussing the problem of the road, and immediately he was considered a propagandist for the -- his bread--how do you call it?--his bread-and-butter employer. The -- it was quite interesting, because the -- then the paper itself got very mad indeed and upheld the right of this man from Lufthansa to say what he thought about car-driving on a road. But we live in this kind of world today, that nobody is believed for anything.

And -- since this is so, gentlemen, you will see that witness to the truth is the historical role of man. In order to get yourself in a position where people s- -- believe that you mean what you say, you have to strip yourself from certain securities, from certain niceties of existence, you see. They want to see this risk. This man of Lufthansa, you see, could only prove his point if he would still persist with his policy about cars on the -- on the highway--Lufthansa or no Lufthansa, you understand. Before, it could never be proven that he is not a propagandist.

Now you haven't to take a man seriously who has ulterior motives, obviously. And as you know, history in the last 50 years in this country has developed a tremendous search for ulterior motives. And this is why the whole story I think had to be brought home to you. You -- you see, the ulterior motives have abolished the whole American history. Mr. Charles Beard has said that Jefferson and Washington had ulterior motives in writing the Declaration of Independence. And this idea of ulterior motives has been -- made an attempt to make history into a science. And to penetrate behind what people stood for--or said they stood for, you see--into their being really instruments of propaganda for ulterior motives is just { } that there is something you do not say. Isn't that true?

And "ulterior motives" therefore is just another word for treating everybody as a propagandist. And -- so the -- the -- this history -- school of historians--this is what I wanted to say today in the first place--this school of historians which surround today you in the -- your textbook and so, has tried, you see, to find ulterior motives, in order to get rid of this entrance into history by personal conviction. This is -- there are no personal convictions. Everybody says something but means something else.

In this moment, you see, the whole history is depersonalized, because then the man who fights for the passport against the state department, before the Supreme Court, is again acting for -- again for something else. You never know what people mean when they say something. And I think that's how you are

treated, you see. Everything is just allowed to fool around with the -- with the words he said, with the laws he writes, with the letters he -- with the speeches he makes. We have a situation, of course, where the president doesn't make his own speeches. And so we are totally poisoned. Nobody believes anything what is { }. So why should a man believe when the girls propose to him, as they do today? You see, everything is perverted.

I saw -- did you see the squib in the paper, yesterday? You see, "Sure, I married her," somebody is overheard here on the beach. "Sure, I married her. She wanted me more to marry her than I didn't want her to marry me." That is, it's all minus. It's all negative, you see.

So my first word is: if you rediscover man as a brick in history, and would admit that to be born is not a physical act for the -- society, but that somebody undertakes--parents, guardians, you may even say in a very meaningless way, "society"--you -- take the responsibility of building up a baby's prehistorical situation into an historical situation. If you could bring yourself to see that to be born, you see, is the deed of the community to you, that you are prehistorical, that to be born is not something you do to yourself, you would have to destroy, of course, this notion of the self-made man.

You have to decide: is man self-made, or is he born? But birth is nothing physical, you see. Birth is something that takes place over 20 years. Man is born into society, because he's only man if he can understand under what conditions he can become a full-fledged member of this society. Before, he is not in history. If you could replace this, you would get rid of the two agonizing things of -- of -- America which are self-contradictory. One is: man is self-made. The other: man is just under trends and is statistically, you see, can be statistically be gotten. That is, he's not self-made.

You see, the -- the new child is said -- to, "Oh, you do it yourself. You select your -- your menu when you are 3." And the grownup person is told, "Oh, you are just a product of your environment." "We have statistics that will tell us how many refrigerators can be bought; you have nothing to say about it."

I once had a discussion with a man of Madison Avenue, one of these tycoons, you know. And I said, "But I don't care for a television. I won't have one."

And -- finally we discussed these things, and -- he was so annoyed. Finally he said, "Well, you are statistically unimportant." You see. And that finished me in his eyes. But it -- I began of course to look up, perk, and think I was a great fellow. I am statistically unimportant. Then I am important in history. Can you

see this?

The condition for anybody to be -- an -- historical individual is that he is statistically unimportant.

So we have the -- the choice. Your tradition is--and it is the -- for 150 years the official reading of -- of man's existence on this globe--that we are self-made in our -- as children, and as young men. And then we enter society, and there environment, propaganda, ulterior motives are everything. Because if a man is a -- after all, the product, here, you get all these technical terms: trend, environment, propaganda, ulterior motives. Hypocrisy, by the way, is the most general -- common denominator for all this. It's the hypocrisy of the made man, but the self-made man is able to break through all this at the age -- at the ripe age of 6. How he does it, is a mystery. These -- I think these are mutual- -- two mutually exclusive concepts. I will say that a man of 60 may begin to be self-made, gentlemen, you see. But how a boy under the pressures of modern society at the ripe age of 15 should be self-made, I do not understand. That's against the official creed of this country. Yet it is believed.

You have the -- the story, you see, of the boy who -- you see, from rags to riches on the one-hand side, you see, that he can make good, you see. You know, like the blond girl who came back with a mink coat from New York to -- to her father and he said, "Well, have you been a good girl? A mink coat?"

And he said -- she said, "Oh, Papa, you don't know how good you have to be in New York in order to get a mink coat."

So let's have a break here.

[tape interruption]

Or you want to dance?

What did I ask you to bring to class? The Book of Samuel.

({ }.)

Anybody who is interested in this so-called scientific approach to history may do well. I don't want to make it prescribed reading. The History of History, by Mr. Shotwell, who was the great gun at Columbia University, and president of the -- the inspirer of the Carnegie Foundation for Peace, and a leading mind at the turn of the -- I mean, down to 10 years ago, Shotwell, History of History. There is an -- a rather astonishing misunderstanding of the Bible to be found. He

called this book The Interpretation of -- The History of History. And as I said, I have respect for the man. He has achieved many things, and certainly has done a -- a lot to introduce the problem of a world history to this country.

But then he has a strange chapter on "The Old Testament as History," page 107 to 142. Now this is in the seminar room here. It's one of the few books on the -- ancient history which we have, "Gift by {Genevieve L. Morris}," God bless her, "to the library of the department of history, the University of California." And I'll take it back there, and every one of you ca- -- perhaps can read the few pages till next time on this -- on "The Old Testament as History." Pages 107, following.

It's the most radical -- or the most fashionable version that only in the last 10 years, so to speak, is beginning to break down, I mean, in -- in {Albright's} book, From the Stone Age to -- to Christianity, there is a very recent attempt to -- to -- to digest this anti-historical view of the Bible by Mr. Shotwell.

(You're recommending {Albright's} book?)

I think it's a -- an important book. It's not the end of the story by a long shot. I think -- well, I have many things to say myself because I'm working in the same field, but I think it's a great step in the right direction.

(Was a Johns Hopkins professor.)

Ja. Who knows the book, by the way? You ha- -- you ha- -- have you read it?

(I just read a section.)

Wie?

(Just part of it.)

Well. The problem before us, gentlemen, before the house is: what's the contribution of the Greeks to history, and what's the contribution of the Jews to history? There is only history in the Christian era, in the full sense of the word. That's all -- three theses you will not believe at once, but I think it is true. And we are on our way out of history at this moment, if we do not, so to speak, recollect the contributions made by Israel to history, by the Greeks to history, and the unification of the two strands in the historical tradition of the -- of Christianity.

The first thing that all pre-Jewish, and pre-Christian, and pre-Greek hist-

ory has done is to add to the length of the historical process, arbitrarily, thousands--or more than thousands--of years. Now that's a fact you can test very easily. The Japanese history allegedly begins in 661 B.C., but in fact it only begins in 300 A.D. That's a typical attempt to add one millennium. Why that is so -- but I have found it true in several such chronologies, you see, that the mythical, you see, addition is by and large 1,000 years. Must be something in the human imagination which works in such a way. If you get to Egyptian chronology of the pharaohs, you have a hundred thousands of years added, you see. The Great Year of the Persians, that's an imitation of the Egyptian year again. Three hundred twenty-three thousand is the era of Zoroaster -- not Zoroaster himself, but the -- the Persian tradition which was then later built on this.

The -- the chronologies before the Christian era are all attempts to exaggerate the length of time with which they deal. "Mythical" means longer.

Now the boldness of the Jewish history is its brevity, briefness. Human history is --. And this now is very important, gentlemen. If you -- I ask you the question: which his- -- kind of history makes man more responsible, and which dispenses more with his own action: the longer or the shorter? What would you say? Wie?

(I'd say the shorter.)

The shorter. Wie? What?

(The shorter.)

What does the shorter?

(Makes man -- what was the question again? Were -- were responsible -- responsible?)

Makes you less responsible or more responsible.

(I think the shorter makes you more responsible.)

Quite. You see, all -- I went to Calgary, Alberta. I had to spend there a whole week, and was very tired. So I didn't know what to do there. I had to wait for my money. So it's a very obs- -- abstruse situation. So I -- the only thing you can do in Calgary, Alberta, except to go to the Swedish church, is to go--and that's closed on weekdays--you can go to the -- to the geological and zoological park there; they have --. And there are tremendous monuments to these primeval animals. And they are all there in clay, you see, in -- in natural size. And there

the counting reads, "600 million years," "700 million years," "800 million years." And the more you read these figures, you see, the more you vanish, yourself.

And I'm very convinced that the anti-historical bias of this country is embodied in this gloating over these alleged astronomical figures, you see, of the animal kingdom. And -- man before 100,000 years. We know nothing of any of these things. The history of man is very short. It consists of perhaps 50 generations. That's long enough to be interesting. And long enough to hold you responsible for it. All the rest is bunk. Not "history is bunk," but the elongation of history into these mythological depths is bunk.

Now I -- I can't give you all my reasons for this, but I want to bring out the fact that Greek and Jewish history have one merit. They have shortened the history that matters. That is never mentioned, you see. It's very important, because they have pinned down man to a -- a range of time within which your own lifetime matters, you see. And with 600 million years, you'd better give up right away, I mean. We'll just settle it.

I have always laughed at this Co- -- statement, "Since Copernicus, we know that man is -- is a grain of dust, of sand in the universe," because the vanity of this statement consists in that we are terribly proud that we know that we are a grain of sand on the universe. The contradiction is just as much with -- as with the self-made man and the environment. It's exactly the same contradiction. On the one-hand side, it took man 5,000 years until Copernicus found out that we were just a grain of sand on the surface of the globe, that was within a system of stars, and that was again and -- within a system of stars. So we're absolutely nobodies, but the whole history of man was -- is concerned with finding out that we are nobodies.

Can you see this? It's exactly the same relation between, you see, we -- we are able to find out that we are just products of our environment. For the individual, it's exactly the same story as -- that it took the -- humanity till -- down to the year 1543, until Mr. Copernicus--or later Mr. Galilei--did find out that we were absolutely nobodies on an earth that is nothing, you see -- the sun that is nothing, compared to 400 million light years in the universe. What do I conclude from that? I think it's all nonsense. It doesn't help me at all. I'm not -- I'm not the wiser for it. I'm not -- I'm just paralyzed.

But this is the American story. I do- -- can't open one American dictionary or book on Copernicus without--or Galilei, for that matter--without this stock phrase, "Since him, we know that man is just a grain of sand in the universe." You have heard -- seen this phrase, too. Yes, but the vanity consists in this: that now we know that we are a grain of sand.

So, you see, on the one hand, they give; and the other, they take. They have to leave something. It is, of course, the adoration of the human mind, you see. He is -- he is a { } nonsense on the -- in reality, in the flesh, and his mind is gigantic. He has found out about this -- it has found out about this.

Now I prefer to be somebody in my carnality, in the flesh, you see--real, now--and to hell with my mind. What do I give to -- for that, I mean? That's just vanity. Shall I stand before the mirror and say, "I know that I'm nobody"? I don't see -- have no interest in the matter. It gives me absolutely no measurement for my own behavior. Quite the contrary. It -- it elates me on the one hand, immeasurably, you see, as -- as a mind; and it dismisses me as a real person immeasurably -- on the abyss of nothingness. Can you see this? And you all are brought up with this absolute overrating of your mind, gentlemen. Your mind is -- is a scoundrel. You -- your mind can prove anything. And if you want to abolish responsibility, it will prove to you that you live a thousand million years on earth, and therefore, you are not responsible for being inane, and a scoundrel, and -- and a paranoiac, and so. It's your privilege, because who are you, after all, you see? A nobody. But if you are a somebody in a--I mean "body," you see--then you better correct your mind with all its lame statements.

It is the relation between body and mind that is at stake in this whole naturalistic approach, you see. If man is a -- is a -- is a carrier of historical life on this earth, his mind is in -- put -- has to be put to service. As you well know, the mind itself is indifferent: to good and bad, to future and past. The mind can prove anything. To tell you the truth, if the ladies allow the -- the mind is known to be a whore. And just as a woman is only somebody who -- if she can be faithful, the mind has to be ruled by the heart. And otherwise, the -- the mind -- if your heart is wicked, your mind will always prove anything to your heart's pleasure. Anything. You can prove anything.

There is no crime -- there -- slavery in the South has been proved by the most beautiful minds of South Carolina, that -- that the institution was wonderful. I just read Mr. Wilberforce's speech for the abolition of slave trade in the English House of Commons the other day, and where -- where he fights a Mr. {Norris} who said, "How beautiful for these Negroes to come to America, and to come to the colonies," you see, "and to work there, and to sing," and so on. And he says 50 percent of them were killed on the boat. Well, he rejoiced, Mr. {Norris} had said, because the mind can prove the slave trade very well.

So despise the mind. A mind that is not ruled by the whole human person and his character is absolutely worth nothing. It's a whore, a harlot. It's available. It's a -- like a juke box. I mean, you put in 10 -- 10 cents, and it plays.

But we come from an era--and this is Mr. Shotwell's era--where the mind was thought to free. And the -- so the bodies were -- become despised now: all pagan chronology shares this, by making history longer than it really is. And mythical history, gentlemen, is always diminishing my own responsibility. Because if the world has gone on for thousands of years in one way, you'd better acquiesce. The myth is basking us in a rocken -- in a rocking chair -- rocking chair. I think you hear still in the word "myth" this quality of -- of unhistorical, you see, repeated movement. It's always there. You can't get out of it. It's just there.

If you say long enough that Los Angeles, you see, is the -- is the -- is a myth--which it is--your responsibility is all in the space, in Los Angeles. You can't do anything about it. "People in Los Angeles just behave like that," you see. So the pattern is set, and it's from time immemorial: the climate, the climate, the climate.

And it's very similar with the mythical -- attitude to history, you see. "From time immemorial." Whenever you say, "From time immemorial," you are adding to the burden of established forms of life.

When the -- Pope Gregory VII broke away from the abuses of the feudal era, in his famous struggle, you see, of investiture against the interference of the secular power, the -- the royalists, the imperialists, the adherents of the king of France, of the king of England, of the German emperor, said to him, "But you can't do this. For 5,000 -- for 600 years the Church has been ruled by the emperors and by the kings. And -- what are you going to do? How can you break away from this?"

He said boldly, "What? Does this make any difference? The devil, as you know, has ruled the -- humanity for 5,000 years before Christ came. Did this make any -- difference for the Lord? Just for this reason did He finally have to come."

Now -- I -- you see the boldness of the man's emergence against myths, against the immemorial, you see. The immemorial is not -- that is, by the way, the -- the true reason why the Bible and the theolo- -- -logians have upheld the theory of the fall of man. If -- because if -- if man has been rotten, criminal, environmental, the product of -- you see, of -- of his society, always as a creature, then history cannot take place, so to speak, in our own day. The fall of man means that we can do something about it, because at first, you see, there is no prescription, so to speak, for any abuse.

The importance of the story of the fall in the Bible has nothing to do of

course with history, but it creates a condition of history. This is why the ancients -- Jews were so terribly hip- -- being his- -- in history and knowing that the future should be different from the past--that's what they stand for, the prophets, you see--they had to say, "Don't believe that anything that was, because it is there, is good."

And in this sense, I think you all must believe in the fall of man, the story of Adam and Eve, because it means that man has an act of freedom, even in the very first moment. There's nothing immemorial. You can never say, "Because it always has been, it must remain this way." I do not see how any naturalistic historian can get out of this, if he's the burden of -- of proof is on the changer, then. Once you say, you see, "It has been there for 600 million years."

So the length of history has been abolished by the Greek and the Jew- -- and the Jewish tradition. Now I think when we come to Thucydides, you will find that it is overdone. This history is -- just the own -- his own generation. He knows actually nothing about anything that is going on before. Have you -- Thucydides already there? Well, it's just contemporary history, you see. There is no -- no other history for him.

And the Jews have been very careful--we have -- we'll see later in Genesis how they have gone about it--to emphasize the relative shortness of history without pretending that the present moment is lost of all continuity, is deprived of all meaning of previous stages or future stages. But it's a very complex situation.

In the Book of Samuel, we have the first book that is contemporary -- and it's contemporary history, of which we can say that it was written. All the other books preceding Samuel are written later than they were recorded. That is, they were oral traditions, it seems, to a large extent. There were inscriptions, probably stone inscriptions, you see; there were documents. But that the book, the historical book was written con- -- contemporaneous with the event is -- is not to be believed. In the desert, they didn't write the books of Moses. Bu- -- although I think the record is very precise, and much more genuine than -- than people have cared to admit. But -- but Samuel is written more or less in the way Thucydides is written. And that's why I think it is quite important for us to -- to look what the -- what is interesting -- the Israelites in history.

That I would say from the first the Jews are interested in the anti-mythical element. The Jews are the enemies of myth. This is so simple that it is really hard to -- to deal with people who now call the Bible itself a story full of myth, you see. The -- the whole Bible is written against myth. That's the tendency. You may say it's a very tendential book. And a partisan book. It certainly is absolutely

biased against myth. That's why it was written. And -- that's the whole raison of the Jews. To this day, they stand against all mythology. They say, "Virgin birth? Myth. See? So we can't become Christians."

Now that may--from my point of view, still I think the virgin birth has a -- has meaning--this is -- goes too far. But the Jews simply decline to accept any mythical story { }, you see. And that's their quality to this day.

So to call the Old Testament "a myth" is really an incredible aberration of the human mind.

If you look at Samuel, he has to find out that's -- the problem. Yes. Why is this an anti-mythical book? Because it should show in this -- in these books, the two books of Samuel, and the two books of Kings must have been written under David and Solomon. And the reason why they could afford to have a library of books, and needed it, was -- do you know when -- when David governed, was king of Israel? Does anybody know?

(Around 1000?)

Ja. From -- he must have lived from taus- -- we know it, I think, not to the year, I would say, but 1030 B.C. to 960. And that's an important date, because, you see, it is much before Thucydides and Herodotus lived. And it's just a hundred years after the alleged date of the Trojan War. The Trojan War supposedly took place in 1187 B.C., and David has governed from 9- -- 1030 to 960.

According to my own insight into the prehistory of this, you -- I may tell you that I believe that Moses left Egypt in -- around 1300 -- 1280. That's the usual time now, by the way -- given for the last hundred years, many hundred years to this event, because it was under Ramses that he left.

I have recently published a book on the relation of Egyptian history to Mosaic history, and so I feel a little competent to cope with it.

This is not unimportant, because the Jewish prehistory, then at the year of the Lord 1000, you see, or 960, when David dies, and when we can date Samuel -- place Samuel perhaps, around this time, is not so very long. The Israelites only had a -- as the -- the -- the people of the exodus -- of leaving Egypt only a history in the eyes of their -- of their childr- -- their grandchildren, of how many years? 1280 to 960 -- how ma- -- much is this?

(Three hundred.)

Three hundred -- 50 years. So by and large, like the American people at this moment, you see. From 1620 to 1960 brings you up, and just as you feel free to deal with the Pilgrim fathers and have Thanksgiving, so {Easter} in days of David corresponds, you see, by and large, to the celebration of Thanksgiving in this country with regard to historical continuity. You can see this.

And I think that's quite useful for you to realize that the story of the -- of the existence of Israel, at the moment when they begin to write books, is brief, is not mythical at all. It's not li- -- as in Japane- -- Japanese history, dated back a thousand years more, you see, but in the full light of history around -- in the countries around, I mean. The Egyptians at that time had a history of 3,000 years. There's no attempt among the Israelites to lengthen their story artificially. Quite the contrary. It's very short. Because, as you know, the Jews even admitted that { } was a common ancestor, that they were only a branch of the Semite family, that the Israelitic history is inside, inside, inside any boxes of more complex histories. And no pretense made. The modesty of the Jews is that they have never claimed to exist from the beginning of the world. The -- the impudence of all other nations is that they call themselves "earth-born," { }. The Greeks, for example, "They { } in Greece all the time." That's how Thucydides begins his story, and Herodotus, you see. The -- Athenians said, "Never has there been anybody but Athenians in Attica." You see, the Jews know that this is all bunk. The greatness of the Jewish story, you see, is that it begins with Cain; and all other nations, except the Jews, have insisted that their own story begins the story of mankind.

Now the truth of the matter, as you have here -- how many tribes you have in California? Do you know how many languages -- tribal languages there have been spoken here in South- -- Southern California? Any idea?

(What's a tribal language?)

(Indian.)

Oh, you know what a tribe is.

(No, I was -- I thought -- you maybe had some other --.)

Well, like Hebrew, you see, a language by itself. Well, 138 languages have existed when the Spaniards came to this country here. Hundred thirty-eight in Southern California alone. Only -- as the tribes were only 2- -- 1,000 -- 2,000 heads strong. And every one of these tribes has a mythology by which it is derived...

[tape interruption; end]