Conversation 881-012

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Actually, that isn't the problem with this country.

That's never been the problem with any country that went down between these.

If you look at the civil relations that have passed, and the ones in the present that have gone, and the civil relations in the present that are going, and I said, what goes?

They're not the lower classes.

The acre, the farmer, the worker, etc.

are the leader classes.

When the leader class grows, the civil relations head.

He had a phone.

I said, right.

And I talked to the leader's wife.

They were the ones that came together.

And by the leader's wife, I said, well, what do you think?

And it was like, oh, I said, not just that.

I said, this was a shock to him.

Because I said, the average person that thinks that the American businessman, for example,

He's obviously a stand-up guy with a very great character.

I said, they're totally wrong.

I said, when you look at the situation, some of them are.

When you look at the average businessman today, he's a manager.

He's not a self-made man of guts and drive and all the rest.

He's a man who plays it safe and all the rest.

And as far as his views are concerned, he's also learning from his kids.

who are going to the elite schools and come back and doesn't want to be completely untouched by them.

And I said, for example, the war is not just a war.

It wasn't that.

It was just trying to bring some kind of decent peace.

Or whether it was the issue of ADM trying to maintain strength so that we could get a deal with the Soviet Union.

Or whether it's the, whether it's any kind of issue like this.

We have precious little support from ADM.

Well, that's one of the people that we should have had it from, the establishment.

The church is hardly any except the fundamentalists, the Baptists, some of them serving Catholics, then some of the fundamentalists and so forth in the South and West and so forth and so on.

And of course they're standing around the better.

But as far as the better so forth, the church resides to be a quaker.

The underclass and the Episcopalians, of course, are the worst Episcopalians.

And the Presbyterians, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

A dead loser.

And this death, of course, is of course, of course, of course.

We had no support except from the Billy Grahams, the Billy Grahams, the second most remarked member on that, that he's not respected as being a leader.

And the second group that we should have had support from, the educators.

Yes, the educators and the college presidents, we followed their students to faculty and so forth and so on.

Faculty work was much easier than our students.

And by the time they got to it, and we found, for example, the freshmen of the college, you know, and I have unique knowledge, were much stronger and much happier than the seniors.

And as they went through, as they went through the graduate schools, we lost them.

And all of us, I mean, one of the best classes in our group, which we learned about, is that they should be masters.

They're the businessmen.

And the businessmen should be.

They are.

Because they're conservative.

They're not baloney.

They're conservative.

And frankly, salvationists, they should be.

And I always hope they are.

Seeking their hands.

But in terms of standing for principle and the rest, they've got no guts.

And they didn't come in.

And they didn't stand up.

And I said, curiously enough, I said, it's hard for anyone to believe.

I said, the only support, which is quite true, we had some business support.

We had a couple of Midwest South West, we had a couple of Midwest South West as far as the classes in this country.

When I, I remember the third, because before I had a speech, and that's what I brought on the speech, I remember the third, 1969, called the Great Sound of Purity.

It came from this country about 65%.

And we won the election for that.

Where did it come from?

The people who stood by them.

The people who some way or other had the feeling that it got to be an accident.

For a variety of reasons, they were against them.

The streets, they were working.

They were, they were necessary.

They were all actually arrested.

They just believed it, right?

Where were they?

The laborers stepped in.

the father, the middle American type of a guy, the Main Street businessman, not the Wall Street businessman, the member of the Chamber of Congress, not the member of the NAM.

So this is very hard for him to understand.

I said, so you have got to direct your book to the leader class, the leader class in America at the present time.

You may not feel as strongly as I do, but I know where it's going to go.

And I can tell you that the leading class in America is very, very serious.

I have them at the White House all the time.

There's a curse on me.

They supported me from so far.

But I know why they supported me.

They supported me solely because they thought I was going to win.

I'm not saying I'm not going to win.

from 1963 to 1972, a decade of educated incapacity.

Educated incapacity.

The theme of the book is this chart up here, you see, why they take incapacity.

Now, the term cross-referenced, as you read it before, he used the term training incapacity, which he meant the inability of educators and sociologists to understand certain simple issues, which they wouldn't have understood if they had that training.

You know what I mean?

is that the more educated you are, typically, the more limited the state of a prestigious institution.

But let's be honest, issues like this, this,

But that's what we see.

Just this word is being read to you.

What is it?

It's this word.

I remember when I was in high school, my education was so stupid.

Basically, when I was, and I'm not putting it in personal terms, but, you know, in terms of personal terms, my years in Washington, D.R., and so forth, I moved along with these people.

I realized how bad of a child they are.

And they probably realize how shallow I am.

And so I like to talk very carefully.

And the point is that I cannot understand why this lack of character, this lack of character, and I suppose a lot of it goes to religion.

And I don't think religion is ever going to come back on me.

It's coming back to me.

It's really been there.

The other faculty in the West, this is different in my case to speak here,

An old Western Christian country wishes on its prime, except the U.S.

The U.S. is back on the sweep and it's gone.

All of it.

It also comes back to Germany and France.

Germany is gone.

Italy is gone.

Italy.

Italy was number two.

Yes.

Well, even the, even Spain and Ireland for example.

Black Brexit on the Christian.

Done.

Finished.

The United States, though.

Finished.

The United States has a strong movement towards Orthodox revisions.

All of the Orthodox, Sanctuary, Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentecostals, and so on.

They claim they have given up.

They have given up.

Yeah.

And this is the interesting thing.

If you think of the counterculture as a reformed type of, this is what we're trying to do, change, this is bio-change we're talking about, was a conscious attack by the counterculture.

The biggest bill in the United States is the counter-reformation.

Those are the counter-counterculture.

Yes.

This counter-reformation is basically like the Jew, you know.

You don't have a spokesman for it.

You're just beginning to be a spokesman.

Your spokesman is basically Andrew Wallace.

Yeah, George.

Yeah, George Wallace.

As Cameron Marker, if you remember that book, made the comment, the strongest candidate you can have in America would be a non-Soviet, non-racist Wallace.

Yeah, but you see, Wallace is racist.

No, but don't make that joke.

You can't make it better.

By the way, Wallace is trying to play non-racist now.

He's trying to become non-racist, non-sovereign.

Well, I agree with that, by the way.

He can't do it for others.

I don't believe it.

But that's not...

I don't think that's a critical thing.

You feel that way.

No, but it's... Racism is basically disgraceful.

That's one of the reasons why the non-racism was a swing in the United States.

Because even the racists know that racism's not very long.

They're ashamed of it.

The average man is a racist.

Anybody who doesn't vote is a racist.

A fascinating piece of the paper this morning was an interview with a racist man.

He did it in one of the suburban counties.

And I say that.

The guy's a laborer.

His two daughters were arrested for being invited to a integrated school.

And they talk about how they view blacks.

And they just like anti-racism.

I think they continually denied themselves all the way through.

Of course, they were in the hands of a poster reporter who was second.

But it's interesting how they disliked, disliked, disliked, all the way through.

It was an interesting little fight that really hit me in the eye.

I said, here it comes.

It was an Irish camera.

It was.

She brought me a letter that had come in, and she gets all of my personal mail, and it's kind of the responsibility of trying to send things to my parents and so forth.

And this letter was to my husband.

I have a cousin.

My mother is an older sister, and an older sister has a son who's a doctor.

I think this is a rather sad situation.

The doctor, who was about three years younger than I, was my previous doctor, but he had a terrible brain problem.

And as a result of the brain problem, among other things, his brilliant young son took LSD and had suicide about eight years ago after my mother had died of sickness.

So there was a terrible man in the fight.

The doctor came to the inauguration.

It wasn't one of his daughters.

It was the daughter of Isaac.

Her father was a racist.

It was terrible.

My secretary brings me in and says, you must answer this question.

I'm going to answer it and say, I'm sure you're going to answer it.

The point is, I'm not here arguing that case.

I thought it was a relational matter.

And in the end, that's the solution that comes.

But the point is,

On this whole area, I digress, but I'm going to get back to what you said.

When you say Wallace has been a spokesman for, I am becoming, how is it that I'm becoming a spokesman for, and I want to say four years ago, if I believe, but what did the 37 issues, first of all,

Hard, hard, non-competitive fellow transvestites, the poor and the black and the...

Right.

Well, part of it is exactly that.

One of the things that shocked me about the pact, the pact with Blair, is that both at the beginning of the Times and the Washington Post got to do their skin.

Not because they had bellows, but they don't regret it.

Oh, I know.

It really is the reason you have to do it.

Yeah.

And most importantly, I like the idea.

I think it's a layer.

It's a layer of shit.

Yeah, it's a layer of shit.

Now, less sensitivity, which we all have, by the way, even since you and me.

Sure.

And let me make a second question, if I may, sir.

In your first administration, you were also on the sensitivity criticisms.

You're not now.

No, I am.

Now you're not.

This is a back-to-back.

You have to, I couldn't care less, let me say it isn't.

I, we have to care about how they affect others, absolutely, but the other thing you have to care about is that sometimes they may not have that idea.

You know what I mean?

No, no, no, I'm, let me, I mean, there's probably too much of my staff here, and each of our good staff actually are,

But the trouble is, too many of them will read the news now.

They will become obsessed with the topwriters.

I know the topwriters have the point of view, but also they've got very difficult reads in the name of their mind.

But don't get out every day and think that what you see in the Times and the Post and have seen on CBS News is what is right.

No, it's worse than that.

It's clearly wrong.

And should not affect, and what they're gonna do is to get up in your skin and affect your views.

But you see, for me, okay, 25, 27 years of life, and one of the reasons that somebody came to this is that I probably have, I have no personal enemies to pressurize.

I've never read anybody on it.

I've never done it.

I've never called on it.

I've never complained to the phone.

There's others who do it, but I don't.

But I have the worst impression of any president in this century.

It's very simple.

It isn't that they hate me personally, but they disagree with what I stand for.

And also, a lot of more solid reasons.

They know I don't care.

That's part of that.

That's part of it.

Yeah, but that gets back to that argument that you made about how you can mitigate what you're saying.

How do you mitigate what you're saying?

They believe a thing.

Tom Wicker, I showed this thing to Tom Wicker when I was with him.

Now, Wicker admits he's here.

But he says he wants to be here.

He wants to be the joy of our culture.

He thinks it's great.

Yeah, of course he thinks it's great.

Oh, I know he does.

Now, he's, I mean, where would Breslin be?

Breslin is also here, but he wants to be the joy of our culture.

That's right.

You see?

It is.

You see, there's no generation gap there.

The difference between the fathers and the sons.

The sons have moved, and the fathers have grew.

That's interesting.

I know something about Breslin.

He was the commencement speaker at my son's graduation.

Where does she stand there?

he totally sold that to the students yeah that's very good criticism was just that i mean

Absolutely correct.

How do we communicate?

Absolutely.

There's three things you have to do.

The recorders have got to be careful.

They cannot lose signal.

My wife loves it when the vice president says, feed snobs.

You can't use them.

Look, she said, all these feed snob drugs should have feed snobs.

But look how fat.

You've got to be fat or we're going to aggregate you.

You've got to have nothing to do with this.

You can't be called a man.

Second, you have to over-prove your case.

Over-prove it.

Because you're talking to people who really don't want to believe them.

And are very right.

Right.

Which means you can only hit a situation where you can over-prove it.

Avoid the case where you have trouble proving it.

Right.

Now, you're lucky that you can over-prove it.

You can't cite chapter and verse.

On, you mean certain issues.

There's certain issues that they had wrong, that they don't understand.

And he probably knows that.

But isn't the greatest problem, just for a moment here, and I'll suggest it, isn't the greatest problem for an intellectual?

And you would understand that because you're one of them.

Isn't the greatest problem for an intellectual to be proved that he is wrong?

I'm sure there is one thing.

So therefore, you've got to let him gracefully get off.

No, no, no.

The effect's going to be the following.

Those who refuse to accept the wrong will become overruled.

The actual criticism goes up, not down.

So those on your side are very important, but they don't get to join your side.

Oh, there's some truth to this particular issue.

You don't get the moral support you might want to get, or the moral credit for it.

But the country has changed.

And that will eventually, you know... And that will impact these people.

Oh, sure.

It affects them very, very easily.

Because there is a power.

There is a power in all sorts of survival.

And also, they're basically decent people.

Take, for example, you look there.

Oh, sure.

And they're basically decent.

That's the problem.

If they weren't decent, you could get to them very much easier, much easier.

I think scoundrels can be bribed or blackmailed if they come to their house.

They take them there and they're pretty emotional.

This is crazy, but it's actually, that's correct.

And they're, they think you're funny, that's why.

There are times, for example, consciously arrested, consciously thought that it was their job to get a sign between them.

Losing.

That was a goddamn.

Now they want to lose.

They want to destroy the chances for peace.

And they want to destroy the chances for aid.

Because they want to prove they were right.

They have to.

There's no way for them to explain a successful selfie thing.

They can't explain it.

There's no way.

So if a selfie thing succeeds, they have to eat dirt.

There's no other choice but to eat dirt.

When you make a selfie thing, you show it succeeding.

You show that you can.

No, you make it succeed.

Selfie thing works.

Here, I believe, for example, see, one of the problems...

Even in the 11th or 13th speech, the one you just mentioned earlier, I'm really honoured that at that speech, they said this is the most important speech made by any American president, except for all of them, all of them's papers, including the government's papers.

The fact that it was the only honest, honest speech was important.

Because for the first time, a certificate of liberty was given to the American people in a legalization program.

It was a chance, a way to do it.

Yeah, a way to do it.

Now, what was weird about the speech, I would argue, my colleagues disagree here a little bit.

What he did, he said that his speech had two aspects.

One, here's a program which might work.

Then you said, you threatened the Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, with all kinds of retaliation for trying to clear the program.

I would let that out.

Because the theory of the left is that this entire problem of victimization is an attempt to get a one-year pause so we restore respectability and let us take over North Vietnam.

Now, if you believe that, then this means the United States is having hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killed to preserve its respectability.

Yeah.

That makes sense, Colonel.

They're right about that.

You see, the only possible program that states can have is to say, we're taking not a bad chance of victory, but a good chance of victory.

It's got to be good, not bad.

You see.

Secondly, it's got to be very clear.

I'm going to send you some V3 scenarios I've got published inside the review, inside the Amplify, which makes it clear that the V3 policies

It may have been a mistake.

It may have been right.

It's very hard to tell.

But what an absolute disaster that the people think.

There's no development in the history of what it would be otherwise in our opinion.

I mean, we've never settled for the uneasy, whatever it may be, peace we presently have.

In other words, the very, very simple of a tune coming from the United States.

That was what they wanted all along.

Their price was to go, you know what?

My people suggest that in 1969, we could have gotten the same piece we got in 77.

I don't understand.

It's because, well, they wouldn't have given it to us in October.

They wouldn't have given it to us in November.

They wouldn't have given it to us until they won.

December the 8th came, and they had to re-open the box with an R, because their price was over $400,000.

Yeah, but they had something else to say.

In 69, they wouldn't give you that piece of the question.

Why?

Because two had no strength.

But there's now many men in the arms of South Vietnam.

And they can prove every word.

They can't do anything wrong.

It's nothing like at one point, quite a battle in the arch, you know, it's putting in a lot of more tension.

But I think the South, you're talking about analog.

Those were epic battles.

I believe that history will record it, maybe 50 years from now.

I wonder if the monster was recognized as an epic battle or not.

Which one?

What happened in Greece in that year?

Most of us don't know.

In this case, it wasn't recognized.

People just don't want to recognize it.

That's right.

The people out there, the reporters, couldn't understand it.

They couldn't understand it, the reporters.

As he guessed, it's very important for the U.S. public relations policies to force the facts on the reporter.

Now, very often, we pay a very big price for a little improvement, because medical proof doesn't work.

The amendment went to be in Cambodia.

That was a tough decision.

I said, that's correct.

I don't even know if he would get out of the lake.

That would be absolutely a cut of casualty.

Yeah.

John, I remember taking my wife to a meeting in this office every morning.

The Pentagon did this small thing about a cell phone.

The Pentagon.

They sent over and I said, now, I've got to prove this is working.

And I said, I want you to send over how much you're picking up of the cash.

We picked up 12 tons of this or that.

I'd say, please translate it into how many weapons.

And I couldn't get it to do it.

And finally, I sat down with a piece of paper and figured out what the hell it was.

And every morning, I wrote it down.

Today, we got five of them.

And then they sent it over.

We got 30 pounds of rice.

And I said, we got so many plans for that.

We had the same.

And so we had five of them.

We got five of them rifles today.

That was all that we put out.

We had another thing just the other day, John.

We made another.

Okay, I'm gonna wipe this.

Take it off.

It's still pretty good.

We had a marvelous follow-up group in here who had just picked up the biggest narcotics by a friendship.

And the talking gave it to me.

He said, this is great.

This guy, Ricard, they picked up.

That's the biggest trouble we've had.

He was responsible for bringing 15 tons of narcotics, of heroin.

Now, 15 tons of heroin doesn't mean 100,000.

So I figured out 15 tons is $900 million.

doses of heroin, which is four for every American.

And that's the kind of stuff people get around.

That's just kind of the talking paper.

Nine, nine million doses.

We figured it out.

I asked a guy here, and he said nine billion.

That's all right.

He still picked up.

But the point is, coming back to the communication, how do you protect your human beings?

You would have said, I'm going to talk to a restaurant.

No, I wouldn't say that necessarily.

Uh, well, what would you do?

Oh, you'd like to have a kind of off-directed conversation with, with, with, with the inspector people.

Where you went through their record.

Their record.

And ask if you have more.

Yeah, you have to talk about this very carefully.

You've got to be the, I must suggest this, but do it.

Yeah, yeah.

You've got to pick the battleground where you passed away.

Yeah.

There's no point to knock on it if you haven't done that.

So, what happens?

Well, it's hard to say.

It isn't very good.

You don't get an apology as hurtful.

We don't want an apology.

That's right.

They all talk, for example, and you should know this, is that they're all talking that they created the impression that the president should react because he doesn't feel he's got credit for anyone.

That's what I've never talked about.

I want credit for the president.

I want credit for the guy who died.

I want credit for America.

That's what's at odds with me.

Americans should be proud of this, this whole big peace war.

It can't be.

It should be.

There's a lot of things wrong with what happened there.

There's a lot of things wrong with what we've done there.

Look, any visualization makes mistakes.

I like it in some ways.

The big peace war was a lot better than the French.

It was automatically better.

But most of you didn't know you didn't have to.

You see, I have a little problem with our army guys, to be honest with you.

The big mistakes were made in Vietnam.

I've spent many hours with General Abrams on this.

You have to win the war in a way in which the people understand it.

There's no point in the war if you're going to lose it.

That's not the point, it's too strong.

If you lose it too much, you see.

Now we've also made three big technical mistakes in the middle of this war.

We've made four mistakes.

There have been five major studies in the middle of this war that have been done.

Three, if I'm not mistaken.

All five have the same recommendations.

First is rule of the standard.

We still don't have a rule of the standard here.

The entire purpose of these wars, these are police wars not military wars, the purpose of the military is to protect the police.

You don't have the police to protect.

And we don't have a civil war standard.

And it takes about 20 times as many soldiers to replace the missing cop.

It's the fact of the 20th.

That is the number one problem here.

The second problem was counter-intelligence.

These are counter-intelligence wars.

We ran this war on 12-month rotation people.

It takes two years to find them.

An enemy that you will not report to a changing fix.

They won't report to them, sorry.

You're quite there.

1800, we can't see the 1800 rotation.

It doesn't come at all.

I saw a page you wrote on that.

I'm doing intelligence, but I mean, the drastic thing is that one year, doing a tour of a building was absolutely ridiculous.

You can't tell.

For some people, they're on the walk.

They're on the walk, and that's what the counterculture is about.

It can't be done.

People are working, you see.

As soon as the accident happened, the village indoctrination.

Here we did the medium.

Now, we're good at that kind of stuff.

We are.

Yeah, we're great at it.

We have the best lunches you can sell in the world.

These people will be rich.

We make them rich.

And look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look

In poor countries, the kids wear matches.

You can't afford new clothes for every day.

You see, in races, in countries you're well off, the kids always have, not always, but in many, many countries, have new clothes at their school, always.

You see, so I asked them, you know, those kids go to school, we asked, you know, it's like, you see, everyone had new clothes, and those things would match.

Well, now it does then.

I said, they can't tell a rich guy from a poor country.

They just can't tell their kids.

We really have to train them to see.

Train them to listen.

You know the phrase book by me?

It's an absolutely accurate phrase.

Completely accurate.

The system of education is bad.

It's getting much better.

The other one.

The fourth thing is the profit tax.

Now the great sectors have a profit tax by accident.

I'm not talking about the two great groups.

There's one group which is out there in the north.

It's really kind of miserable people.

They can only trust these, you know, certain things.

I take the Queen, roughly, from the result that I had here in 1948.

That was an area where they and I didn't drive with lights on.

As I said, this is the Thomas and Sir Harry ball.

No problems at all.

Now the Wagon Army refused the Wagon Army.

Just refused to fight.

Because the Queens themselves didn't say what they had done.

They had done it accidentally.

Basically, they've done the same program Thompson recommended, which we recommended.

What we recommended to Thompson was very, very separate from what Thompson recommended on a program three years earlier.

I guess it's a dirty pool.

You can tell me how much you loved it.

Yeah, well, we recommended it in 68 or 67.

And so that's just it.

Thompson doesn't have a program to talk about.

It's an awesome book.

It's very good.

I reviewed his book.

I made a comment in which he really said, we don't think he's great.

We take his advice and follow what we want.

He is brilliant.

Right.

He's good enough.

Right.

He's very good.

The...

You had to.

You know, on that record, we don't rule the streets anymore.

You know, this is a dead problem.

Remember, Teddy's goes up there and takes a picture of it.

All those guys went to our school in Panama.

It's a first-rate school.

I would give half the credit, you know, because of that school in Panama.

We do not in Vietnam do 10% as good as that school in Panama.

You see, they don't know how to do it.

Our military modules are better than in Vietnam.

Now, there's reasons for that.

You know, the French have a saying, to know what's in the pit wall.

I don't believe that.

I don't believe it.

But to know what's in the pit wall.

I'm the agent of talks in the Pentagon and the Saigon, which almost lost our connection to the Pentagon completely.

In 1967, I made a comparison with a European leader.

I said, it took like three and a half years to find a general.

I wanted to find out what was in one great church.

President Johnson has to start a play.

Whoo, very hard work to make two group of major generals.

Lincoln started by the way, good man.

The West, the West will never forgive him.

He's a decent guy, he's a decent guy, he was a very decent guy.

I mean, I know this is an unfair remark, but there's two things there.

He had folks attached to that issue.

It takes a generalist to win wars.

And he was an ordinary guy, but he's an older man.

Yeah, he got fired at the end.

He was fake.

For example, the Laotian, the Cambodian thing was carried on by a considerable bird, and if we hadn't lost General Tree there, they would have scooped up the rest of that thing, and Cambodian would be a better shape than it is today.

The Laotian could have been one, and actually it helped, it helped too, because of the attrition, but there, the problem was the neighbors was flattened his ass back in Thailand, and you know,

as rather than being up there and getting out of the air support zone.

So I know a little about it.

But by the way, it was the most simple, very bad proclamations.

Two sentences were illustrated.

A, the kind of press conference where he said the object was not to catch them, but to disorganize them and pick up their shades.

You see, very poorly at that point.

He said, hey, go to catch them.

The general in charge didn't understand that point.

He told the reporter he was going to catch them.

So when they got there, they were gone.

And then he said, well, that's what we've got to take the shades.

But that's what it doesn't look like.

You've got to say it before.

And that was like a series.

And he understood it.

But we made that at the press conference for some gents to understand it.

So that killed it.

I'll tell you, there was a big mistake that was made.

At the same time that the ocean operator was operating, you had a fantastic big operation with Vietnamese in your book.

All you can now do, I would say, the purpose of this operation is to block them from going to Cambodia.

Then it's a success if it's a failure.

Of course, it blocks.

That speech was never made by the American spokesman.

We were sick, you know, they were told.

Yeah, well, we told them.

I told them at the beginning.

We told them to teach themselves.

It's very, very, very good.

But it's very, very good.

You have to, you can't take those opportunities that one of the, you see, the main thing is the success.

The list of speeches is to make the little else our wish for success.

Even though none of the successes should have been found.

Well, it turned out, I would say, we're probably, we're fortunate to come out as well as we have at this point.

But you figure this, I mean, you stopped at that point.

It's amazing, it's amazing that we even got the deal.

Senator Fulbright says,

But after all, we've heard the story before that he was around the corner.

So we're going to cut it back.

Let's take a look right now because that's the problem.

People like Fulbright and not the Times because it can never have a trial.

But Fulbright and Mansfield and others applaud him as a China nation.

and the Russian regime and the foreign control and the rest.

And they say, well, these came a little late, but we're back to Vietnam.

I'm leaving on Vietnam.

That was going to end it.

The China-Russian regime, if you know, involves a game we can't even talk about.

And it's so skillful, but so interesting.

We now are coming this year to do much more important negotiations and promotions involving eight current and three long weapons.

And also important negotiations with Warsaw Pact that will determine the future of Europe, their psychology, and also regarding the mutual production of horses.

And now for the full

to urge unilateral reduction before we go, because peace is here.

In other words, the thing is that, God, sir, we are.

Let me, you know, let me point this out to you.

I know that one of the things that caused great consternation in the beer community, in the electric community, and the rest, was a maid in the city.

And of course, in December, the people were bombing each other for purposes of each work, but the maid in the city, as you could well realize, people said,

And around here, it was a pretty long decision because they let in the cabinet supporter.

I'm not saying they didn't support him.

He did.

They didn't support him.

So I had to do a move.

I let the cabinet minister come.

But anyway, he was only there for a few minutes.

The point that I make is...

They supported, they opposed it for the wrong reason.

They said, but you've got the Russian son coming.

And if you do this, then the Russian son of mine will be cancelled.

Now, first, they made it right.

But the point was, as I said to them, I said, if we don't do this, then it's very likely that the North Vietnamese will succeed in their offensive against the Hispanic.

If Russian tanks are running through the streets of Kuwait,

I don't know.

That's what I said.

I do know.

That's what I said.

You can't go.

That's all.

And as a matter of fact, it was quite one very hairy evening.

I had this reading on that.

They were much more respectful than I had.

You cannot say the same is true.

The same is true.

Take the Chinese.

This has to do with a little bit of...

very, very difficult part of our foreign policy, why we stood by the Pax on Indian-Turkic helping laws.

Now, we know that the Indian Pax has no friends in the United States.

Everybody loves the Indians.

They share the Indians, but it's terrible for the people, generally.

I spoke to you, I was there for a few indivisions.

And when I see any of them, I don't see how they were reproduced.

Nevertheless, that's another story they can't be heard about.

But that's not a subject.

I talked to all the Indian-Pakistanis, the people of Montreal, and I said, have we not made a gesture toward Pakistan?

The Chinese should do it now, too.

And the Russians should do it now, too.

See, it all was all part of the Great Panic.

And what we, and here is a place

where, if I may say so, the old British establishment, even perhaps the present press force of British and Britain, would stand by a Prime Minister.

The American establishment not only doesn't stand by, but it refuses to understand.

I agree we should like to have a better relation with the upper middle class.

I can talk intelligently .

and so forth, and so forth.

But believe me, I would have to say that he's a loser.

I don't mean by that, and I don't say anything that's going to irritate him too badly, and I don't use the plastic wrapper and all that sort of thing.

But as far as trying to win that, you can't win it.

No, let me give you the case.

What I mean, the fact of the matter is that he's got a business plan, so you don't trust him.

I mean, if he made a gesture, he's got to be polite.

You don't really trust him.

But take the life issue into account.

The Pornography Commission said there's no evidence that pornography does any harm.

What do you mean by that?

That little boys won't break up with the girls.

Old men won't break up with the girls.

As far as I know, that's probably right.

Good guess.

What is the pornography issue in America?

The issue is the following.

The average American family wants attention and sex as a religious matter, as a moral matter, as a matter of good taste.

That's right.

Open property, supported by the state, available at one of our stores, destroys that attention.

So it completely destroys the American family, and the American family wants it, their religion, their morals, everything else.

Not the rape machine, the soup, the skirmish.

Now, the general standard is that kids have to be in high school.

The average American wants to have sex education in schools.

By which he means, education affects their lives, so girls should get pregnant accidentally.

Education gets pregnancy.

The other one, the other group that has a border of education feels the tension that sex is sick.

They want to have sex should be life-like, calm, creative, joyful, interesting, fun.

So the first thing they do is they start teaching technique and orgasm in the school.

Now, some of these parents will go to their shoes on.

They don't want creativity.

They don't want .

Now, if you explain to the Board of Education system just how this hurts the middle class, they'll understand something is the case.

You see, there's a case there.

They're not bad people trying to destroy the American family.

They don't understand they're destroying the American family.

There's another argument, too, that I think is in there, which might appeal.

first can see the ground.

There are people that prefer to, you know, have it all done.

Have them have the sex and everybody run around and they can do what they damn please and so forth and so on.

Take all the mystery, all the glamour, basically we call it tension.

It's mystery against man and I've always said that

You showed me a woman that one of the least sexually attractive costumes for a woman is basically a bikini, unless it's a very unusual one.

You showed me a woman with a Chinese limousine skirt, marked South Vietnam.

A Chinese limousine skirt?

With a panel over it, riding a bicycle.

That's a farm.

And I've read F.R.

and others.

But let's come to something else.

Fundamentally, to me, the problem is it's an infringement on the right choice.

the people of this country now.

Some people happen to be square.

Some people do believe in the serving.

Some people are prudish.

Some people are sensitive.

That is their way.

I can give you an example.

When I saw that Brantford piece, it was a cover of Time, the week of the inauguration, and the next week it was a cover of Newsweek.

I don't mind that being Esquire, and I don't mind being Plato, but Time Magazine has read if I'm seven years old, and eight year old, and the rest, and it should not be there, and I will not allow the damn magazine out here.

I have my staff reading for me.

So, why am I against it?

Because I'm against, I mean, I handle all the Supreme Court, and it's because I was once before the court on a matter that was related to it.

But you know, redeeming social value.

So that's the funk.

That's the funk.

There's no redeeming social value in that brand of movie.

And yet, as a result of those damnable arguments we've been having, and why can't you talk about what you have noticed here, what you've said, what you've talked about?

Look, one of your things.

Look, Max, why have you come down the term?

I haven't told Mike Coles why I've come down the term.

Now, that's another one of my things that I can say.

No, no, no.

I'm not going to lie to you.

I used to have those marbles and turds by Justin.

Yeah.

And, uh...

I think that one thing that moved on off of that, and those editorials were mustered, I would have told you when I was the vice president, right?

Then they came along.

Then money moved to the sort of the, the, the way on certain things, you know, the, the rather the marvelous things that they were trying to do.

And, and by that I mean, a monitor article, I, I should not monitor that, it's just too much, and so I, I don't understand.

But anyway, they moved to stuff that I didn't understand.

So it all characterized it.

And then from that they moved to sensations, snares of rest, just like the Saturday Composite.

And then finally, they moved straight on for an hour.

And they don't, they don't lose their readings, they don't lose their appetizers.

And the appetizers, they, you know, they actually asked me to see, why do they advertise food?

Because we're Americans.

They said, I, if you were the last appetizer in the world, I would advertise in your rank.

And they were, and you're not the last.

And they wrote that, they told that to the advertising people, who told them that Likert wouldn't live, you see, Likert can't sell.

They didn't say anything.

They have a lot of square advertisers to pick that up.

See, look at those readers.

Like the newsreaders, they'll read Likert.

Unfortunately, as I said, the Likert company is corrupt.

I don't know if Asperger likes that, you see.

They're out in the square.

And it was not the last time it happened to me in the world.

We don't have to support this kind of job.

You see, the funny thing is, the problem that you've got to go through is we look at the upper class and say, oh, it's my wife's birthday.

Oh, but I've got to say, I've got to say that we...

You see, actually, anybody that saw this person one of your way, that's such a silly try to stare at me.

But actually, beyond that, any individual wants, when they talk about, you know, uniting the country and all the rest, and my good friend from the Christian Science Monarch, I'm honored to be a part of this, and don't you think that maybe if I, and she, did not become

I would divide this country in such a vicious way, unbelievable.

I said, I'd directly divide the country.

But this is the last issue.

Let me do what I do.

I am appealed to by your point that the reason I think it's better, by your point, we ought to communicate this on our own.

Because I admit we don't have much communication.

You have to communicate.

But you won't modify that.

You've got to write it.

You're the president.

I said you have to write that.

You'll get more vicious against you if you split them.

It gets mannier.

Yeah.

You see?

So viciousness goes up.

But I believe that effects fix the way of times Washington Post.

You can't fix Harvard or the Navy if you're with the West.

No.

Maybe you have a good extension.

Maybe.

Many times we fix other decent people.

Wicker is a very nice guy.

I don't know if he's married, but he's a very nice friend of mine.

Uh, he's a good-hearted fellow.

He's a good-hearted fellow.

He's a decent guy.

Frank was a decent guy.

He wrestled, basically.

He wrestled.

I, my word as a person, I think his columns aren't as nice as his columns.

Oh, they are.

I spent 12 days with him.

And it was very funny because I didn't take as much time as I have right now.

But the point I want to make is I believe there are about 10 to 12 subjects, various subjects, which you can get through with the argument.

I don't mind if anyone should do what you call that and don't do it that way.

Yeah, I think it'd be great if you had the best sense of that.

And getting through doesn't mean that they're going to apologize.

I don't want to apologize.

Just so you understand, they had it wrong.

You can't make a person apologize.

I'm almost vicious as well.

I don't want to make a person apologize.

You've got to be materialistic.

You've got to use grace and so forth.

They want you to apologize.

Oh, I don't know.

They've, they've, they've, they've felt, I, I, I've heard their, you see, they, the problem they have with me, I know the record of what they're impressed with, and all of their colleagues, as opposed to me and Joe Craft.

You see, the worst thing you can do in the election is to do it wrong.

So I started off early.

They were all,

It wasn't that it was the guilt person, but it was who this was.

He was one of them.

He was established.

I couldn't repeat it until I actually read the transcript.

Have you ever read that transcript?

Yeah.

Until I read that transcript, I couldn't believe it.

That man had to be innocent.

If you read the transcript, you had to find out.

It was limited.

I don't remember when I asked.

Oh, I can give you that.

And I said, have you ever been changed before?

And I said, well, he resembles the cross.

And I said, well, I was just, you say, well, this is the man.

And this is the man.

And I was about to take this on.

And I said, well, I remember this day.

And I said, well, he said, well, the man that I remember is the cross.

And I said, well,

he said well he said i wonder if i could ask him if he's ever had anything worked on his teeth

Well, I wonder if you could give me the name of the dentist who did the work on this tape.

This is a broken case, but this is what I did.

I said, I must treat this.

And you need to talk about it.

He was clustered on the roof for several years.

We gave him a car.

We gave him his car.

He threw away the car.

That children had to check with his dad to see exactly what he did to his teeth.

That killed him.

Anybody that read that transfer met a lawyer.

Now, the department then came to the district.

Then came to the Vegas Fund.

Then came beyond that, of course, to come back in 68.

Which we all understand.

They, I understand it.

And that, of course, I, the cruelest thing was the war.

Because the war, it just, it could be done.

And frankly, it was, it was not easy.

But, and we have no feelings, and we should have no feelings.

As I said, I, I mean, it irritates him on my hard times around here.

I never take him around.

I never shut him in, you know.

And I'll send this one to you.

Great.

But now, the main thing, I want these 12 things specific to our writing.

And John, I want that study, and then I'm going to put, put it on the back, and you will see well, as far as vacations and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

Two.

My boy would care.

All right.

Well, then, maybe we could call this a girl.

I don't care what my team is.

There's two.

Greg.

The boy's old.

Uh, 40.

40.

Greg.

Mr. Lew.

I'm going to talk to you again.

We'll keep in touch like that.

I agree that a lot of the stuff didn't help.

No, I'm going to see you later.

I'm going to see you later.

Let's go.

Well, I'll tell you, they're out there.

I've been seeing the Republican Club presidents at Harvard and all the Eastern schools.

They ask to come in and see the place and so forth.

They're good people, you know.

They're there.

They give you a lot of water.

I mean, they understand we're interested in the constitutional question.

They're water students, and all of a sudden, they leave.

Maintain separation of powers, and I explained to your people.

And that we were— Properly.

That's very different from what I was going to say.

And it made a great deal of sense to me.

And you know the famous—if they ever ask you what the Sherman had in his case, you know what the answer is there.

He was charged—he was charged with an impropriety.

There's no charge here.

Of course not.

If anybody is charged here, you'll go down and testify.

Sure.

I mean, like, nobody's there.

I'm charging all of them, or anybody else that did that, correct?

True.

And same with Dean.

That's the point.

We're not trying to keep anybody away from the check.

I could never make the date on the cooperation.

That's where it's damn hard to get that, you know, get it to pick.

I'd go along with it, perhaps.

You know, I was arrested right on what you had said yesterday.

They had, and I've...

You mentioned the fact that Klein needs to be meeting with the chairman and the ranking member.

And that seems to handle things all right.

And I hit again the cooperation and so forth.

They said that, did your comment yesterday mean that there would be no more, if the iPhone was going to the full capacity?

I said, yes.

I said, it was very clear that Klein needs to be working out with her.

How does she handle it?

Because we want to make clear we want to cooperate.

We want to provide the facts.

We want to provide relevant information.

And then I took them to that line.

Don't you think we're on very sound ground?

I think so.

Absolutely, Mr. Mayor.

I don't think a lot of work is wrong.

I can tell you something.

It's unbelievable.

We all believe it.

If you want to know, I'll help you find it out.

And I'll get it in the library.

It should have been something about a person, a man, a military location.

I did it clear yesterday.

We will have a meeting tomorrow.

We will have a radio tomorrow.

I frankly think we've had enough this weekend.

it's not a very safe

My people really, in other words, Pat and Hugh, are very pleased.

I'm pretty much giving them all that time.

And I'm particularly, you know, in my mind, trying to get out of here really free, except that, uh, that I, uh, I, uh, see what Dr. Kahn would like.

Would you like coffee, tea?

I'd love to eat very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

Well, I'm just trying to think what he first met.

He was a crane, I think.

He came to work.

We were backing up, and we had a talk in New York.

Oh, yeah, that was very, very much so.

Before the election.

Yeah, this was, I think, Bill Bartman raised that, if I remember.

Of course, yeah.

That.

He was, he mentioned to me, raised that sort of,

Let me ask you something first about the Foundation.

Are you actively financed?

Do you need more people?

Do you want more?

No, we need to operate on the verge of bankruptcy.

We're trying to change our policy.

The reason for that is we have always spent our money on housing sponsor research when they have money come in.

We haven't read about 2 million a year, which is 1.8 million as contracts.

That's not wrong at all.

What is the situation in regard to, if you were to do certain studies and so forth, would it be, would it be, for example, would it be, would it corrupt you at all if you were to undertake any kind of government study?

We have 135,000 now.

You have 135,000?

State, executive office, NSC.

You have that much?

You need a little more.

Or would you want it, or would you ever want to practice it?

No, but before we go there, there are two kinds of things we're trying to get at very hard.

One is to study the song for yourself, but you have a national origin.

A what?

To study the song for you, but you have a national origin.

This is from the National Endowment for Humanities.

And it's an attempt to create a background in the American people and in the intellectual community and in the elites, so that the bicentennial comes around.

you can make certain kinds of speeches which would be taken seriously.

Which, if you don't create this background, then it won't be taken seriously.

It's an attempt, in effect, to break the regular canvassism in the 20th century.

And, as I say, it's the end of the world.

Well, all right.

One of the questions, if you undertake that, is how long would it take you in a project, what would you like, a year?

Well, basically, there's a bunch of spaces that I'm going to describe to you.

Let me show you something I couldn't.

Sure.

I'm going to jump in on this part.

Could I ask Earl to come in here?

And I'm going to have a lot of Barbie artists here to show you.

I'm going to show you a small piece of it.

I'm not sure how much we can get in there.

She didn't ask me where the other piece of glass was.

What did they leave about the future?

Ask her.

Tell her to come down.

He's got it.

Colonel Vaughn has this idea that we use the opportunity to organize the important places of pollution, the decision making is getting too tough, everything's going wrong.

This is not a worldwide belief, intellectuals.

If you stump a young child, literally, a bright young child, say, in the United States, 10, 12 years old, and ask him how well he'll live, he'll take not as well as you did, because you used up all the resources.

And this is like two hours when you say this now.

At the university's 50th birthday, 85% of the people take home more.

Now, if you believe this, then everybody who jumps out is doing God's work, because he's funding this use of resources.

Everybody who increases productivity, who works hard, is doing work with them.

If you believe this, any bureaucrat who slows down a license application is doing God's work.

You see, this is the basic attitude towards your culture and society.

The way we put it is this.

Imagine the world's people were on a raft, three billion people, dying of thirst, and you would just decide to take a shower and last a pound of water.

That's the biggest difference in the world.

Now, you can make this picture very persuasive, I don't mean to go through it, explain why it's so persuasive.

You have to be intellectual.

And by the way, this was wasted.

This is what the patient would need to be correct, from a post-injury perspective.

This you believe to be correct.

If you were in question, the average guy on the street, do you think he'd come out of the bar on this side of the street?

Oh, yes.

The average guy on the street.

The average guy on the street is going to have exposure to, say, the CBS, I don't think it's been off, because they've been off the energy, they've been off the environment, they've been on the water, they've been on the energy.

No, he doesn't live.

He just doesn't live.

He doesn't know any of the others.

One of the interesting things about that is actually, the average person is immune to propaganda on things he thinks he understands.

We found out, for example, in the Aryan Creek practice, remember the ten years of domination by the Russians?

No, thank God.

If you go to the South, if you go to the South of France today, for example, I'd be there last month.

They're not good Catholics, you know why?

In the 13th and 12th centuries, the Allergy of Heresy was wiped out for the last man, and there became Catholics.

And for 600 years, the Catholic Church, the best propagandist group in the world, propagandized those families.

It still has to fail.

But I'm a fool seller.

You find people are very weak Catholics.

People are lying.

They're weak Catholics.

They're not as strong as I thought.

But I've heard some Catholics that are generally weak Catholics.

Well, they've always been more worldly.

They're not.

You know, they're not Catholics.

But I'm talking about their...

But then they're... Actually, some of them are here in total control.

Still, they're not quite true to their life.

Because when I muttered to Charles that basically this was the outside world forcing foreign religion on him,

You see, and while they could teach their own religion, because it was deaf, they never really adopted the foreign religion, as much as you would have thought they would have.

You see, you have the sanctuary of the Czech Republic.

To understand the 68 crisis, you've got to go back basically to 1520, when the Czech nation was wiped out, but it's a big mistake, it's still Janos, the Protestant, you see.

And they don't, a lot of these companies are fighting the world outside of Soviet Union, very good companies.

It's a country in which rhetoric and belief have always been separated.

For 350 years, there's no heroic act to check history as a group, since 1720.

They've been fighting for farmers, they've fought well in Greece, but the good sort of fight is their only hero.

That's the man who really stands out as an accountant.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, one of the things I hear is that the average guy, if you tell him something at home, the guy at home seems to believe it.

You know, apparently.

I'd say, how can I not change it?

The only exception to this is a good university can change a guy around.

And it does.

They just change around themselves.

That's why I suppose that universities are dedicated to each.

Whereas across the country, it's not quite that different, but that tells something.

Yeah, well, it's as strong as that.

There are about 9 million young people in academia.

Not 9 million.

If you take really prestigious universities, they were about 3 or 4 months ago.

Only four of us.

Yeah, yeah.

The faculty is about eight to one.

Nine to one.

The faculty is about nine to one.

Nine to one.

Four of us.

That's about a million kids.

If you go to these sort of five million kids who are more than nine grand square kilometers square yards, they would like to be the money.

Yeah, we did well.

We did even.

Yeah, we did better.

Yeah.

And the white kids didn't get much better than even.

I'm talking about the number first was me.

Yeah, they had more than half of those kids.

I said, well, if you go to the Mount Pelvis kids, they've got a lot of young people.

The dumbest campaign I've ever made was the one that the dumbest that I've ever made was looking at 85% of the young people.

Yeah, yeah, but they can't wait for it.

It was crazy.

We told them it was crazy.

It's basically the politics of the average American.

You're caught a little bit careful, I guess, with what you are.

No, I'm not.

I just want to say, I don't want you to listen to the first part of this, because it may involve something that I think is a way of studying this that you discussed.

This is something we want the National Balance of Humanities and NSF to support.

And I may discuss it, but I'm not sure that he'd let me go over it very fast.

We want to do a study of the long-term prospects of mankind.

We believe, we've done it, it's a six-phase study.

The first phase we've already done, it's about a man-year, if you don't have enough money.

And this is a study which basically makes it clear that with current technology, you can handle as far as we can see every problem that comes up.

You don't have to depend on proof of the technology.

And that's the idea, we had the spectrum come out that way.

That means we can now get out what we do, so I've done a bunch of science.

I've stayed at other places with Pichai and so on, and said, if we can't deal with drugs, show me the problems we can't deal with.

So where do you want to stay at the moment?

Currently, I'm not.

Now, the second phase I hope to do this year, which is about a five-month-year study, is to do it right.

You do the study of the tail.

You look at food prospects of the tail, not just grain.

You look at living accommodations, even settlements, not just density, but population.

Roughly speaking, we need to support 20 million people, 20,000, I forget, worldwide.

at low and middle class standards.

Not appropriately middle class standards, exactly.

The third case of study I want to do next year, you meet in the academic community, you've done this before.

What you do is you have, say, a conference of testing people on food issues.

You've made 25 friends, 25 enemies.

You know, a little extreme, so it's really a genuine conference.

You pay 10 of them, five of five, about a thousand dollars apiece to make presentations, write papers.

You make these people meet before the conference so they talk to each other.

There's no dialogue at the desk.

You know?

You pay another $1,000 to repair your high-space for publication.

You build up 50 reviews.

The review has to be technically fair.

And you explain it to them.

Some of you find it terribly hostile, but they'll all understand it's serious.

You ignore this message, you see.

In 75, you do exactly the same thing for a big leaders.

That is, you pay $2,000.

I had to be able to read it.

I'll tell you, it was $2,000.

It was $2,500.

You just take it to the press worldwide.

In 76,

that if you wish to, you say this is the Vice-Attorney.

You will write her back 200 years, which is the Vice-Attorney.

You'll write her back 100 years.

You'll write her back eight years until you get into your administration.

You'll write her up to the year 2000, the next 25 years, and show her every single problem America has today can be solved as a result of the policies you have started in the next 25 years.

See, you can't do things in 10 years or in five years.

25 years always can.

But 25 years later, what I would like to have, the thing that intrigues me about this is the bison-tank connection.

The fact that this could be ready, and you might have to put your deadline just a bit, so you've got to start talking about doing the whole year of bison-tank.

That could take a lot.

And maybe we can create something here.

What I would like to see, John, is to see this kind of a study financed.

Uh, general, now that we have acquired all of those, I don't know, uh, how do we find out?

Uh, well, if anything, it doesn't have to be, it doesn't have to be the rescue counselors.

No, I understand.

Uh, the rescue counselors, I've had some men who are, uh, it's what it's called, they're, they're safe partners.

Can you write me, uh, a kind of a proposal, a paper to what you need?

What you need?

Oh, my gosh, uh, this is very much, this is very much, a great deal of money.

but it's something that what i mean is like we need ideas we need to get into their example john

and all of our VF work, and I mean, I wonder about the, that big country.

We should use the word crisis, even when we used to watch the, the, the, the fighters.

That, as far as the enemy, maybe it's a problem, but it can't be solved.

But...

The whole, I think the main thrust of the Fairly book was not what it told about Kennedy, but what it told about the crisis orientation of American writers and scholars.

Everybody wants to be in crisis.

And so, like the example of today, the crisis is food crisis.

Now, food prices are high.

Now, they're going to go higher.

and then turn the enemy area to go down.

And nevertheless, right now, it's a blue crisis.

Everybody says, do something.

Probably do the wrong thing.

Why isn't the day, the day of the crisis, a month ago it was, it was a month ago, I mean about six weeks ago, the number one subject was still the war.

But the minute the war is over, they've got to have a crisis as soon as it gets out.

Now they don't leave there for a couple of months, and after that the water came to make that a crisis.

But the one thing they had is, not that some of them are not legitimate, but I, I have a claim to the fact that, uh, that uh,

Well, it makes great rhetoric.

It's a way to charge people up, and it makes great speeches.

I mean, we have a great crisis, and this is the greatest jump we've ever had.

We've got to get going and get people looking and charged up.

And they like to be told, and everybody likes to think that everything he's done is a great work.

Well, that is true, that nevertheless, in terms of what we do, we couldn't make a greater mistake than to act that way.

And also, I'm not sure why you don't want people to go to sleep.

You don't want them to get excited about the wrong things, and particularly you don't want them to get, and particularly the leader class, this is what we're talking about here, the leader class in this country is the weakest, most finest, most useless group of people I've ever seen.

I have to tell you what I have to tell you about that, because they don't ask, all right?

And your people should make a study of it.

You know, of course, there's been a lot of sentimental things about the field of history here.

I have talked before, all the professionals, each for over an hour, the amazement about these men.

Here's a guy I spent four years in solitary, never saw another single, you know, 40, four years in solitary before they began to see other people.

But they come out, and there's a strength of character that is actually could be sealed, could stick with them.

But you see, and I think you see the plodding bastards we have running around here, and it isn't just the Monsanto, the partisans, the people that come out of the colleges, the universities, and so forth, and it's hard to find anything on that backbone.

Not that these issues are important to the kids at the universities.

Not.

I don't know.

In fact, I showed this to SDS about five years ago.

And they said, well, you're not going to live here.

I said, when you spent six weekends here to prove you can't spend a living, they said, no.

I said, you don't know what I'm talking about.

They said, not these issues are important.

They said, you're not going to live in the house without trying.

And I know.

They're smart.

This was in 1527.

Now this, I say, is healthy.

Notice the move from Dante to here is what the Athenians did, what the Romans had to do eventually.

It's very hard to keep the Kurds and Attic operating in a rich, safe side.

Very difficult.

And I think that in situations like this,

You go to the 60s, you get the prestigious versions going here, which I don't like personally, you understand, but it's telling you, because the versions were going here in the early 60s.

In the late 60s, they went here.

This is sick.

Now, I believe you can turn about half of the back.

This is a better way to read.

The one that God, the one that God, the one that God, the one that God.

That is, of the million kids, only God has said that they have a serious commitment, you know, to this kind of, this is the same thing, but the same thing.

This is for American national character.

My grandfather was here.

Now, if you like him, you can put him here.

If you don't like him, you can put him here.

It's the same policy, by the way, roughly.

I was raised here and here.

Actually, I was raised here, but I'm going to say here.

I was raised here and here.

I'm going to say here.

The in-theme prestigious persons is here and here.

Now, you and I look at that and we think of it as being like this and this.

They look at themselves as being here and here.

You know, now, in a sense, it's not the point of the perspective that some actually are here and some actually aren't here.

In your public's perspective, Ponte, it's the way you look at it.

All right, this is America right here.

These are the prestigious persons.

Now, this is so badly up here, but even up here, you can't run a country like that.

You need this guy to run a country, basically.

By the way, middle management is here in our place, increasingly, middle management.

You can't have a big organization like this.

I don't know exactly what you mean.

This is where the backbone is.

This was the patient that came to the stretch.

And they went down here.

They went here.

Very fast.

See?

It's very hard, particularly if you're at the procedure.

And, of course, Bobby's over here.

This is Bobby.

Not quite.

He's up here.

They were both of us.

He, one of his, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he,

but things children don't is apparently promptly identified as main supporters this past year, or year.

That's the biggest problem, isn't it?

Yeah.

We're talking about the first time.

Many years ago, this kind of thing.

Uh, let me, let me back up a second, by the way.

Uh, you, uh, you have a really bad news-disagreement report.

Yeah.

I did an article on it last week.

And I described it.

Who was on it?

Now, this is a really bad news-disagreement report.

In the, uh, in your Q&A.

Yes, right.

They took out, they took out numbers, uh, two, three, and four.

Uh, they took out, from the last day.

They took out three, and they took out, uh, six from the last.

And they took out the cell.

You can imagine that.

A little bit of it.

They took out three little visitations.

Yeah, well, that's what I've heard of this.

All of them were best renovations.

Right.

And they were one of the best presbyterians.

Right.

Well, that's the problem with these people here.

And, uh, I'm not really mad at them, but they're not good enough Jews to become presbyterians.

Those listed groups there, I would argue, after 1955, were the best part of America.

Since 1960, they've been a disaster.

The findings have changed.

You mean up until 1955, a good deal of what was good in America came to those groups.

Yeah, the leader class.

They were the kind of people that the Eisenhower administration had in and around.

I remember they were the establishment.

They were the establishment.

And we came from it.

And they were the establishment.

They were both the establishment and the people who attacked them ethically.

The deputies, the Unitarians.

See, they were both the establishment and their critics.

That's right.

They were both groups, and both were healthy.

Both the establishment were healthy and the critics were healthy.

Yes, they were, you see.

They all went with Joy-Love culture.

Their whole group is Joy-Love culture now.

You know, those last two columns.

And the country can't take it.

It's not a Joy-Love country, it shouldn't be.

Let me ask you for a minute.

First off, what intrigues me is that I've been trying to get something in ultimate, to get some intellectual content in this whole vice and general thing.

This could be helpful, because we need several lines up.

This could be helpful.

But remember, in doing it, we've got to have ways that it's manageable.

No, actually, this is meant to be the basis of a serious self-examination of the role of America in this century.

Is the role of America only here or...?

No, no, worldwide.

I'll tell you what you can say here.

You can say that all the problems of the world that are related to wealth and poverty can be solved in a matter of years, mainly because of the leadership of America and Japan.

It turns out Japan has a big role to do the right things.

And they don't have a role right away.

They're looking for a role.

I have a role in Japan.

They live in a higher county in the U.S.

It looks like we're passing out the 1985 now.

Yeah.

I said that about the other section.

Yeah.

What advice would you not have to hear in the foreign field?

First, before we get into the foreign field, John, do you see what I'm trying to ask?

Could you give, in terms of this,

We've got an awful lot of work to do with the domestic council.

Could you put, could you feed into the con organization some of the things that we're doing?

I mean, actually, it's not a problem.

Now, for example, if we're going to be, like, I know that another thing, which I would like to use the pressure software before I bounce on some time on some other things.

You say the point that it's important for the president now to open a dialogue or some communication with the underground class.

How do you do that?

We had a really good noise in here the other day of John Irvin and I having a very long hour.

I believe that the biggest failure of your administration is that bylaw.

In some ways it's the only spectacular failure of your administration.

How do you do that?

You've got to do it at their terms.

At their terms, not yours.

They will listen to you at your terms.

The first and foremost thing, you don't give an ish.

You don't give an ish.

If you take out three bad tempered sentences, which are pretty sickly put in there, or four for what it was now, that speech is a research document.

You should have seen it before I did, of course, and others.

Well, he can't afford any bad tempered remarks.

He can't afford any bad tempered remarks.

He just can't afford them.

That speech, you see, I use that speech, and I have to edit out this paragraph, unfortunately.

Then I say, I said to my friends, I say, why are you so angry at this speech?

That went on for a very, very long time.

He says, I'll defend to the death, the correctness of the speech, but I'll attack to the death's right to make it.

That's a twist on the usual.

But it's a brilliant speech.

It's a brilliant speech.

But the people who were doing the problem thought it was just an attack on them.

They had no concept that their speech was right.

They had no idea they had a sociology where they talked to themselves.

Do you think it would have changed in a few days, in two paragraphs?

No, it doesn't change that at all.

But it makes it possible for me to say that the speech is perfect.

To change that, you have to have good documentation.

You have to give examples that are persuasive.

You see, it's not a normal requirement on political speech to give documentation.

That's a research requirement, I'm not sure.

But you have to get through to the New York Times.

You can't get through to the New York Review of Books.

You've got to start with the two problems.

The New York Review of Books is just going to be there.

Nothing you or a white professional will say will change anything there.

But the New York Times should get through to the New York Times.

But I haven't said that.

Then they have to quit serving.

It's expensive serving.

For the last four years, you have to learn these issues over the long run.

So here's a list of the ten issues which the New York Times and Washington Post have been wrong about.

The chart said it, you see.

The latest in the Times Magazine, they're saying that Law and Order is not a covert anti-negro.

The latest in the Times Magazine.

You see, the latest in the Times Magazine from the end of the survey, that it was not a covert anti-law and order.

All right, the last end of the survey showed that 81% of people voted for you voted for patriotism and morality.

That's the end of the survey shows.

The editor-in-chief paid for that survey, argued that it would be put on racist grounds, of course.

He had six editors on racist grounds.

Now, I was on top of Tom Wicker and Frank.

In both cases, I took that one.

This was on the platform.

I didn't have a chance to talk, you know.

I said, I said, look, take the Rosenthal editor.

The editor-in-chief was perfect.

The editor-in-chief had a survey.

There were only two problems.

The first problem was the next problem.

We said the exact opposite.

That's the other joke.

Now, they thought that Roosevelt was reporting the act of the second day.

So they said, look, we've got the second day.

Roosevelt was telling us he was wrong.

I said, no, no, read that thing.

He said, throw out the first paragraph, one last paragraph, you'll find that it's the exact opposite.

People vote unethically, but they're racist.

You see?

Now, it'd be easy for the world to end with the New York Times, if you really want to, that they had every one of these nations wrong.

And that was so wrong, it sounded great.

Well, that changes the New York Times.

You point out they're wrong.

That changes them.

You see?

And here's the deal.

You have a great advantage here, which is not normal.

They've been so darned that they haven't protected themselves.

I mean, they were so sure that they were right.

You mean that they stuck their neck way out and they didn't really protect.

Not many people protect themselves until the heart's shut it off.

Yeah, they put them in a cavity or a cavity there or something like that.

They haven't done that.

You see?

So you can really, you can help them.

That's fine, that's what I'm saying, you can change it.

You see, now, when you talk to them at their terms, you'd like to tell them, now look, talk to your own young Yakovitch Paul.

He's a good Paul, he's a young, talented Yakovitch, he's the best in the country.

You pay more for it.

He has shown that you've got to turn to Rome.

Why am I saying that, sir?

Don't sit there, because if they take the bus and shoot it, I've got to take an advice if I speak to it and notice the bus.

I started off by saying, how many people must discuss this in 1910?

Except the South has no racist issues to consolidate schools, better schools.

How many of you remember the first thing a minister told you when he wanted to save a house?

Neighborhood schools.

If you check, people paid 5-10% extra for neighborhood schools.

As well as me.

It means if the average tax worker sends his kid on by bus to a better school than necessary.

But many, maybe most, wouldn't pay 5-10% extra if they could avoid it.

It's clear that it's a big matter for David's cause.

Yes.

Let me make a second comment.

With everything, you're going to be surprised to learn that if a public master stood and she sent people long distances to bad schools that somebody would check, literally you're going to be surprised.

Raise your hand if you'd be surprised.

No way to raise your hand at that stage.

They've done the same thing.

How many of you believe that they were supposed to be bussing as Nazi racists?

Not having their hands go up.

They used to have suits.

They were Jewish friends.

They still believe that, but they think they were Jewish racists.

Yeah, okay.

That's a good example of an education.

They've had a shift a little bit.

Yeah, I understand.

I've also seen the data.

They remember they paid for their own schools.

Sure.

They remember they did theirs.

They don't need to catch the people long distances to look to bad schools.

They've put people far above 74% against bussing.

It's 29% against segregation.

You'll find a captain for you.

They don't.

Why don't you assume they have the worst possible odds?

Maybe they're decent people.

Then you go on.

Let's see how dumb people can get.

Take a neighbor like, with the big cross name, say, we don't have a situation where neighbors, 20, 30 percent, they go to the middle class and stay.

Kids go to school, separate kids, makes no progress.

If you start busting kids out of that school, you tend to make a lot of money.

What do you think they would want if a schoolboy picked us?

We'd be perfectly satisfactory neighbors.

And we should have any segregation.

20% of people in school wouldn't even want it.

That's the one thing that's not going to be segregated.

We'll have a successful takeover.

At this point, the people in the units are sick.

What happens is maybe 10% hate my guts and 20% are shaken.

I mean, really shaken.

Sure.

See, because they realize their crime.

I had to go to the voters over here.

They were wrong on every issue on that list.

I didn't prove it.

Our position is this.

Let me ask you a question.

And I will reiterate history.

I cannot prove, but I guess based on my recollections, I was making this.

This, uh, went to Captain Denton.

He was the first man off the plane.

A very thoughtful man.

He was seven years and a half there, not just four years, but so many years, so many, so many, so many years.

I mean, they were impressed with those guys.

They came out of the Army.

And Denton's going to write a book, and he's probably going to sell it.

He's going to write about what he sees about his country, and he's going to do it.

He said he saw it going in because he didn't read it because he didn't have a good speech and didn't think it perfectly and all the rest of it started in 64, 65, 65 in this caption.

So it really is bad.

And he, his book is, he's going to write it.

Maybe they should go to a remarkable document.

It's a very thoughtful document.

And the point that I made to him, I said, we've got a relationship, but what are you talking to?

And he said, well, I'm trying to write, or basically, what do I mean?

He didn't use the word common people, but he might have been common people yesterday.