As one observes in the world, not only in this country, but also in Europe, in America, in Russia and in China, one sees a growing violence, not only in individual lives but also in the collective. People seem to get violent over such trivial things. In this country they are violent about language, regional language; and they are violent in other parts of the world over war, destruction, revolt, or, as in America, the black against the white - and so on. There is a general tendency towards anarchy, disruption, destruction, and there is more and more aggression. And, as one sees this happening, one asks oneself; why? What are the causes of this terrible, destructive, brutal violence right through the world? I wonder if you have asked yourself this question; why? Or do you accept it as inevitable, as part of life?
     Each one of us in his private life is also violent. We get angry; we do not like people to criticize us, we do not brook any interference with our own particular lives; we are very defensive, and therefore aggressive, when we hold on to a particular belief or dogma, or when we worship our particular nationality, with the rag that is called the flag. So, individually, in our private secret lives, we are aggressive, we are violent; and also outwardly, in our relationship with others. When we are ambitious, greedy, acquisitive, we are also outwardly, collectively, aggressive, violent and destructive.
     I wonder why this is happening now, during this present period in history, and why it has always happened in the past? There have been so many wars, so many disruptive, destructive forces let loose on the world; why? What is the reason for it? Not that knowing the cause and the reason for it will ever free the mind from violence. But it is right to inquire into why human beings throughout the ages have been so violent, brutal, aggressive, cruel, destructive - destroying their own species. If you ask why, what do you think is the reason for it? - bearing in mind that explanations and conclusions do not in any way remove violence. We'll go into the question of freedom from violence, but first we must inquire why these violent reactions exist.
     I think one of the reasons is the instinct which we have inherited throughout the ages, which is derived from the animals. You have seen dogs fighting, or little bulls - the stronger fighting the weaker. The animals are aggressive and violent in nature. And as we human beings have evolved from them we have also inherited this aggressive violence and hatred, which exists when we have territorial rights - rights over a piece of land - or sexual rights, as in the animal. So that is one of the causes. Then another cause is environment - the society in which we live, the culture in which we have been brought up, the education we have received. We are compelled by the society in which we live to be aggressive; each man fighting for himself, each man wanting a position, power, prestige. His concern is about himself. Though he may also be concerned with the family with the group with the nation and so on, essentially he is concerned with himself. He may work through the family, through the group, through the nation, but always he puts himself first. So the society in which we live is one of the contributory causes of this violence - that is, the behaviour which it imposes on us. In order to survive, it is said, you must be aggressive, you must fight. So environment has an extraordinary importance as a cause of violence, and this society in which we live is the product of all of us human beings; we ourselves have produced it.
     Another of these causes is overpopulation. Throughout the world this is becoming a problem, but especially in this country. More and more people are inhabiting the world, and all of them demand, and must have, employment, food, clothes and shelter. They are going to fight for these things, and they are going to fight much more when they live in big towns, which are already overcrowded, with no space between human beings. It is one of the most extraordinary things that the more we have become sophisticated, the more we have become so-called civilized, the less space we have. Go round any of the streets in Benares, or in Rome, or in London, or in New York - see how crowded it all is; and in the dwellings in these cities there is hardly any space between human beings. They have experimented with putting thousands of rats in a small space. When they do that the rats lose all sense of proportion, of value. The mothers with little babies neglect them; violence and disorder increase. So, lack of space is one of the contributory causes of this extraordinary violence.
     But the major cause of violence, I think, is that each one of us is inwardly, psychologically, seeking security. In each one of us the urge for psychological security - that inward sense of being safe - projects the demand - the outward demand - for security. Inwardly each one of us wants to be secure, sure, certain. That is why we have all these marriage-laws; in order that we may possess a woman, or a man, and so be secure in our relationship. If that relationship is attacked we become violent, which is the psychological demand, the inward demand, to be certain of our relationship to everything. But there is no such thing as certainty, security, in any relationship. Inwardly, psychologically, we should like to be secure, but there is no such thing as permanent security. Your wife, your husband, may turn against you; your property may be taken away from you in a revolution.
     So all these are the contributory causes of the violence which is prevalent, rampaging, throughout the world. I think anybody who has observed, even if only a little, what is going on in the world, and especially in this unfortunate country, can also, without a great deal of intellectual study, observe and find out in himself those things which, projected outwardly, are the causes of this extraordinary brutality, callousness, indifference, violence.
     Now these are the explanations, (and we can have more of them, or go into them in greater detail), these are some of the major factors in bringing about this enormous, destructive, cruel relationship between man and man. Then what shall we do? Having more or less established the causes of violence, both of inward violence and outward, then the problem arises: how do we free the mind from violence?
     We were talking the other day to a very prominent politician, (and God save the world from politicians!), and he was saying that violence was a necessary part of life. When a government official accepts violence as the norm then there is something radically wrong, because the world needs peace, not violence. Man must be peaceful, for it is only through peace that he can find out what is true, what is beauty, what is love. Through violence you can never find out what love is, you can never find out, without peace, what beauty is. So to accept violence as an essential part of daily life is a most perverse way of thinking.
     The word violence needs a great deal of explanation, too, because we think violence is merely such things as: the burning of a house by crazy people; fighting the policeman; marching off with a whole mob of people shouting "You shall not!" or, "You must!", or war. That is what we call violence. But violence is much more subtle than that. When, for example, you compare yourself with another, that is part of violence; when you are imitating or trying to surpass another, which is competitiveness, that is also part of violence. The whole social and religious structure is based on this principle of comparison. Measuring yourself against another and so competing with him is part of this violence. It is also part of violence when you suppress your desires. That does not mean that you must indulge your desires. It means that when you imitate, conform to a pattern, whether the pattern be established by society or by yourself - that is, when you are imitating, conforming, controlling, disciplining yourself, forcing yourself - that is also a part of violence. When you obey, that again is a part of violence - and most human beings are trained to obey. And again, this whole Indian structure - Hindu or Muslim or Catholic or what you will - this religious structure based on obedience, acceptance, authority; all this is part of violence.
     So, violence to what? - you understand my question? I am being violent against what? If it is violence against society it becomes revolt; that is one kind of violence. Then there is the violence of obedience, which says, "I do not know, but you do." So you become my authority and I follow you. Please do go into this in yourself, and don't just hear what the speaker is saying. Find out! Is it not a kind of violence when you set up another - it does not matter who it is - as your guru, your teacher, your saint? Whoever it is, once you accept him as your authority, inevitably you must be violent. Why? Why do you become violent when you accept authority? Because, since there are other kinds of authority - dozens of authorities - you feel impelled to assert that your authority is greater than the others. So we have to find out why, in accepting any kind of authority - whether it is social authority, or the spiritual authority of a guru or of a book - this breeds violence. It has, throughout the world; why? When you accept the authority of the Koran, or of the Bible, or of Jesus, or whoever it may be, why does that cause violence?
     What is violence? It is division, isn't it? When you accept the authority of the Gita and I accept the authority of the Koran, you and I are bound to be separated by our beliefs, by our dogmas. Any form of separateness, of division, breeds violence. I hold to my book, to my authority, and you hold to yours. Superficially we may tolerate each other, living, perhaps, together in the same street, or going to the same office, but inwardly we are separate, inwardly there is division between you and me - you the Hindu and I the Muslim, the Christian, the Buddhist, the communist, or whatever it may be. So, essentially, this division, brought about through belief, through authority, through psychological exclusiveness, does breed violence, and not only breeds violence but must exclude every form of affection and love. Please, sirs, observe it in your own hearts; do not merely listen to the speaker. Look how you regard someone who is not of the same culture, the same way of looking at things, who thinks differently from you; the occasions when you consider yourself slightly superior to some one else. When there is prejudice there is division, and prejudice is the most stupid form of thought, and being prejudiced the most stupid way of living.
     So what is one to do? Knowing that we human beings are violent, are separative, (and these are facts, not ideas; not theories, but actual facts), what are we to do? Outwardly there must be one universal language - outwardly, you understand. There must be one government caring for the whole world, not separate governments concerned only with separate countries - India, China, Russia or America - because that always breeds division - economic, social and class division.
     So, first, outwardly, one language - not Hindi or English, but one universal language. Then, again outwardly, a world-planning for the whole of mankind. Inwardly, then, it becomes much more interesting, much more vital, much more demanding.
     Then how is a human being - that is, you to be free of this violence? People have tried every way, for when the monk, the sannyasi, renounces the world, he hopes to renounce not only worldly things but also all the brutalities of life. But he doesn't. You cannot escape from violence by repeating some mantra, and all the rest of that ritual; you cannot possibly escape from the fact of anything. I cannot possibly escape from what I actually am. I can invent a series of networks of escapes, but those escapes will inevitably become extraordinarily important and therefore separative, and so again produce violence. So the first thing is - not to escape from the fact. Do please listen to this; not to escape from the fact that I am violent. Non-violence has no place whatsoever; it is a romantic, unrealistic formula. All ideation, all ideology - what should be, as the opposite of what is - is romantic and not factual. Therefore one must put away all ideals - completely. Can we do that? If we are thinking in terms of non-violence, which is what most of us are thinking, and yet, being violent, we say, "I must not be violent", that "must not" breeds a pattern of being non-violent, that is, non-violence becomes an ideal. But the fact is you are violent, so why bother with romantic, idiotic ideals? So, then, can you be with the fact and not with the escape?
     First, then, there must be order outwardly, and there cannot be order unless there is a universal language and a planning for the whole of mankind, which means the ending of all nationalities. Then, inwardly, there must be a freeing of the mind from all escapes, so that it faces the fact of what is. Can I look at fact of my being violent and not say "I must not be violent", and not condemn it or justify it; just look at the fact of my being violent?
     This brings us to a very important question - I think perhaps the crucial question; what does it mean to look, to listen? For if I do not know how to look, then I am bound to condemn or justify, or to seek some form of escape. It is because I do not know how to look at anything that I begin to condemn it, to justify it, to say "It is right", "It is wrong", "This must not be", "This should be". So I must first learn to look, not only objectively, outwardly, but also inwardly.
     Look at a tree; please, sirs, this is very important. You may have heard the speaker say this often, but really to look at a tree is one of the most difficult things to do. You can look at a tree because it is objective, away from the centre - over there. When you look at that tree, how do you look at it? Do you look at it with your mind or do you look at it with your eyes? - or do you look at it with your eyes plus your mind? Are you following this? If you look at a tree you see it not only visually, with your eyes, but your looking also evokes certain memories, certain associations. I look at that tree and say, "That is a Tamarind". When I say it is a Tamarind, or a Mimosa, (or whatever it is), I have already stopped looking. Do observe it in yourselves. My mind is already distracted by saying "That is a Tamarind", whereas to look at a tree I must give complete attention to the looking. So, to look is only possible when thought in no way interferes with the looking. Thought is memory, experience, knowledge, and when all that comes in it is interfering with looking, with attention.
     Now, it is fairly easy to look at a tree, because it is something outside. But to look at oneself, to see actually what one is - to look at this violence without any condemnation,justification, explanation; just to look at it - to do that you must have plenty of energy, mustn't you? Now, observe what is happening here. The speaker is saying something to you, and to listen you have to give your whole attention. To find out exactly what he is saying you must give attention, but if you are taking notes, if you are looking at somebody else, if you are tired, if you are sleepy, if you are yawning or scratching - or agreeing or disagreeing - then you are not giving complete attention. So, to listen to the word, to the train that is going over that bridge, to listen to the movement of the wind in the leaves, not casually, but to listen to it, you must have tremendous energy. That can only come into being when there is no explanation - when thought doesn't say, "The tree is pleasant", or, "That noise of the train is interfering with my listening", and so on.
     So, can I, and can you, look at this violence, (whose cause we have explained somewhat), can we look at this violence without any justification? Without condemning it, can we look at it as it is?
     What takes place when you give complete attention to the thing that we call violence? - violence being not only what separates human beings, through belief, conditioning, and so on, but also what comes into being when we are seeking personal security, or the security of individuality through a pattern of society. Can you look at that violence with complete attention? And when you look at that violence with complete attention, what takes place? When you give complete attention to anything - your learning of history or mathematics, looking at your wife or your husband - what takes place? I do not know if you have gone into it - probably most of us have never given complete attention to anything - but when you do, what takes place? Sirs, what is attention? Surely when you are giving complete attention there is care, and you cannot care if you have no affection, no love. And when you give attention in which there is love, is there violence? You are following? Formally I have condemned violence, I have escaped from it, I have justified it, I have said it is natural. All these things are inattention. But when I give attention to what I have called violence - and in that attention there is care, affection, love - where is there space for violence?
     So it is important when we are going into this question of violence to understand, very deeply, what is attention.
     Attention is not concentration. Concentration is a most stupid way of dealing with anything. When a schoolboy wants to - rather, is forced to - concentrate on a book when he wants to look out of the window, what takes place? He wants to look out of the window and the teacher says, "Look at your book - concentrate". What takes place? There is a conflict, isn't there? He wants to look at the beauty of a tree, or just to look at it casually; or to see who is going by; or to watch a bird preening itself; and at the same time he feels he must look at the book. So what takes place? There is a conflict, isn't there? He wants to look over there and at the same time he wants to look at the book. In that conflict he is neither looking at the book nor looking at the tree or the bird; whereas, if he were really attentive he would be attentive to both, to everything - to the colour, to the people sitting next to him, to what they are doing to how they are scratching their heads, or taking notes, or not paying attention; he would be aware of everything.
     So violence is not to be fought against, is not to be suppressed, not to be transcended, transmuted, gone above and beyond. Violence is to be looked at. When you look at something with care, with attention, you begin to understand it, and therefore there is then no place for violence at all. It is only the inattentive, the thoughtless, the prejudiced, who are violent. So the stupid man is violent, not the man who is attentive, who looks, cares, has love; for this man there is no place for violence, either in gesture, or in word, or in action. Questioner: Sir, when we are violent, how can we look at it?
     Krishnamurti: Just a minute! Take a breather! I have just finished and you are ready with a question. Just wait a minute, have patience. Because, you see, if you had listened to what I have been saying you would have spent a little thought on it, wouldn't you? You would have asked yourself, "Is what he is saying right or wrong?" You would be looking, you would be questioning, you would not be accepting or denying; you would be just looking. But if you pop up immediately with a question you are really more concerned with your question than with listening, aren't you? Surely. I am not criticizing you, please. So, it is better, if I may suggest it, first to listen. You have your question - put it by, keep to it. I am not saying you mustn't ask; on the contrary, you must ask, you must question, you must doubt. But first listen. Listen to the bird, listen to the train, listen to the voice of the teacher, listen to your father, to your mother, to your government. Listen, do not judge. Just find out what is true - and you can only find out what is true when you are listening, and not agreeing or disagreeing or condemning or justifying. And when you know how to listen then there is no problem at all.
     So your question is - can I look when I am violent? At the moment of violence, at the precise moment of anger, you are obviously not looking. Our reactions are very quick. Somebody says to me, "You are a fool!", and I immediately react. Then I say something out of violence, out of anger, because he has hurt me. At that precise moment of anger obviously I am not looking. So how is one to look, to be attentive, so that there is no moment of inattention? You understand? - you follow it, sirs? You say that I am a fool, and I get angry because I think I am not a fool. I have put myself on a pedestal and I want to protect my dignity - you know, all that silly stuff. So I react very quickly and I get angry. The reaction is normal - if you tread on my toe I must react. I am not dead or paralysed, so a reaction is normal. But what follows from the reaction comes from inattention, doesn't it? I don't know if you are following all this. Wait a minute - I'll go into it a little more.
     Most of us, most of the time, are inattentive. In that state of inattention you tread on my toe or call me a fool, and I react, which is natural. But if I also get angry it is out of an inattentive condition, isn't it? Now - please listen carefully - how is that inattentive condition to be in a state of attention? How is it to be, not become, attentive? - for inattention can never become attention, just as hatred can never become love. So how is inattention to be attentive? Is that clear? Now, when you are inattentive, know that you are inattentive. Say to yourself, "Yes, I am inattentive and I am sorry that I am angry." Apologize and forget it. That means what? It means that you are attentive of inattention. So, though inattention can never be made to become attention, and you cannot cultivate attention, what you can do is to be aware, to know, when you are inattentive. The moment you know you are inattentive there is attention.
     Questioner: Sir, is it possible to be aware when we are inattentive?
     Krishnamurti: Most of us aren't. Most of us are unaware that we are inattentive; why? Find out why we have become inattentive - this is a very important question - why we have become inattentive to everything - to the dirt, to the squalor, to the ugliness, to the poverty, to the brutality of society; to the absurdities of governments; to the chicanery of politicians. We are inattentive to all that; why? Find out why you are inattentive, because, if you were attentive you would do something, wouldn't you? You are frightened of doing something because you might lose your job, or quarrel with your father, or - a dozen things. So you say, "Much better practise inattention". It is much safer to be inattentive, and that is what society wants you to be. It wants you to be completely inattentive about everything; that is, just to follow, obey, accept. Then you are a meek little citizen. You are told what to do, and, like a machine you do everything you are told to do by the bosses, whether it is the political boss, or the economic boss, or the guru boss. So, since we are trained to be monkeys we have become inattentive. But when you know you are inattentive - it doesn't matter a single minute that you are inattentive - knowing that you are inattentive means that you are already attentive. But the man who says, "I am practising attention" is climbing the wrong tree. You can never practise attention because attention is only possible when there is love, and you cannot possibly practise love - what a horrible idea! Is that clear?
     Questioner: Will there be an end to these evil wars and violence?
     Krishnamurti: A little boy asks because he is concerned with the future, with tomorrow, with a world that is becoming more and more violent, with wars, and more wars. He says, "My future is being created by the older generation and they have produced these monstrous wars", and he asks, "Will there be an end to it?"
     There will be an end only when you are non-violent. You must begin as an individual - you cannot make the whole world non-violent in a flash. Forget the world; be, as an individual, non-violent. I do not know whether you have ever wondered what the older generation have done to this world. The older generation have produced this world of violence, greed, hatred; they are entirely responsible for it, not God. They have lived a life of brutality, self-concern, callousness. They have made this world, and the younger people say, "You have made a filthy world, an ugly world", and they are in revolt. And I am afraid their revolt will produce another form of violence, which is actually what is going on.
     So, this problem can only be resolved - this problem of violence, of wars in the future - when you, as an individual, find out why you are angry, why you are violent, why you have prejudice, why you hate - and put them all away. You cannot put them away by revolting against them but only by understanding them. Understanding them means to look, to observe, to listen. When the older people talk about all the ugly things they have made, listen closely, give your attention, which means give your heart and your mind to this. You know, in the past five thousand years there have been about fifteen thousand wars, which means three wars every year. though man has talked about love - love of God, love of my neighbour, love of my wife, of my husband - talked endlessly about love, they have no love in their hearts. If they had love in their hearts there would be a different kind of education, a different kind of business, a different world.
     Questioner: When you are attentive to inattention and you become attentive, doesn't that mean also that the attention you gave to inattention was inattention to something else?
     Krishnamurti: That is a good question, sir, if I may say so. What you are saying is this: that as long as there is a motive there is no attention. Is that the question?
     Questioner: Right.
     Krishnamurti: You are quite right. As long as there is a motive for my attention it is not attention. As long as I love you because you feed me, you flatter me, you do this or that for me, it is not love. So is there thought, or a motive, (which includes the process of thinking), behind attention? Is there? - because any motive distorts. It does not matter whether it is a good motive or a wrong motive, a high motive or a low motive - any form of motive to be attentive is a distortion of attention. Can I, then, be attentive without any motive? I know that the moment I have a motive, (and motive is always profitable or pleasurable) there is no possibility of attention. So, can I observe, see, listen, attend, without a motive?
     Now, who is going to answer this question - you or I? You understand? The question is: can you, can anyone - you, especially, who are the listener who put the question - can you be attentive without motive, knowing that motive is a distortion of attention? How are you going to find out? If I say, "Yes, you can be", that has no value. I say that only attention without motive is attention. Either you agree, or you say, "No, it is not possible", and give it up. If you agree you say, "Now I am going to find out for myself whether I can attend to that bird, to that tree, to that noise, and to what I see is violence - without any motive."So I have got to go into the question of motives, haven't I?
     Why have I motives? Motive is based on pleasure - avoiding pain and holding on to pleasure. There is no other kind of motive. What I mean is, that though there are different varieties of pleasure and different varieties of pain, as long as I am seeking pleasure, in any form, I not only invite pain but also the motive becomes so deeply established in me that I demand pleasure at any price. So, can I look, observe, listen, attend, when there is a motive behind it? Obviously not. Then can I understand this motive, can I look at my motives?
     Why do I have any motive at all? I do not know whether you have gone into this. Can you live, without a motive? And why do you have motives? Are you listening now with a motive, to get something out of the speaker? Obviously you are, otherwise you would not be here. You want some truth - to understand this, that, or ten different things. And when you are trying to get something, are you listening? Nobody can give you anything, except food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps transportation or technical knowledge. Psychologically, inwardly, nobody can give you anything. Do you realize that? So when you listen, knowing that nobody can give you anything - freedom, enlightenment, guidance, and all that - then what happens? Then you are listening. Then you are actually listening, since you do not want anything from anybody; then you are listening, inwardly. Therefore you have no motives. But the moment you want something you are caught.
     Questioner: Sir, you have told us about care, affection and love, but how is it possible to have care between two nations?
     Krishnamurti: Obviously there cannot be. When you are going north and I am going south how can there be care or attention or love? When, as one nation, you want one piece of property and another nation wants the same property for itself, how can there be care or love? There can only be war, which is what is happening. As long as there are nationalities, sovereign governments, controlled by the army and the politicians, with their idiotic ideologies, with their separateness, there must be war. As long as you worship a particular rag, called a flag, and I worship another piece of rag of another colour, obviously we are going to fight each other.
     It is only when there are no nationalities, when there are no divisions, such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, communists or capitalists, that there will be no war. It is only when man gives up his petty beliefs and prejudices, his worship of his own particular family, and all the rest of it, that there is a possibility of peace in the world. That peace in the world can only come about when the whole world is organized, and it cannot be organized economically or socially as long as there is a division. That means that there must be a universal language and planning - which none of you want. Don't fool yourselves - you don't want all that. You want to remain a U.P., or whatever it is, with your Hindi and all that, for which you are fighting. But as long as you are a Hindu with your Gita, with your particular beliefs, nationalities, gods, gurus, you are bound to be at war with another. It is like a man pretending to have brotherhood when all the time he hates people.
     Questioner: Sir, is it possible to be a functionary in the world, in society, and have a state of efficient action?
     Krishnamurti: Is it possible to be a bureaucrat, a functionary, without motive, and yet be very efficient? Is that the question?
     Questioner: Yes, sir.
     Krishnamurti: If you have motives as a functionary in society you cannot function at the top level. It is only a man who has no motives who becomes very efficient. That is so clear.
     Questioner: It is very, very difficult.
     Krishnamurti: Ah, well, sir. To be free of anything that one has carefully cultivated for so many centuries is quite obviously difficult. You understand, sir? You have been a Hindu, or a Muslim, or whichever it is, for centuries, conditioned by your mother, by your father, by your grandmother, by tradition, by society. To be free of all that, not taking time - to throw it all out immediately, without struggle, without conflict - that demands, again, a great deal of attention and observation. It demands observation of your thoughts, of what you say and how you say it, of the manner of your eating, of everything; and that requires a tremendous revolution. But who cares for all that? You want a comfortable assured life, and that is all you are concerned about.
     Questioner: What is your idea about a third world war?
     Krishnamurti: You know, there used to be a slogan which said, "This war, like the next war, is a war to end all wars". You haven't heard about that?
     This boy wants to know what is my idea about the third world war. You are very silent, aren't you? The third world war - either you prepare for it or you don't. If you are going to be an Indian for the rest of your life, and say, "My India, my country, my government, my..." - you follow? - and another part, like Pakistan, also says, "My country", and, "I must have this, I must have that; or if capitalists and communists both want the same thing; you are bound to have another war. But probably world war means total destruction, because now they have atom bombs which can destroy millions of people in a few minutes, and both sides can do this. America can do this and Russia can do this, and all the other nations are joining in this game, each with its own little bombs. So on that world scale of destruction I do not think there will be a third world war. They cannot afford it, since they would destroy themselves, though they might have little wars and skirmishes. But we must be concerned not with World War Three, but with whether each one of us is contributing to war in our daily life. You are contributing to war when you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, capitalist, communist, and all that. When there is no love in your hearts you are bound to create wars.
     Questioner: When man sees so much poverty and sadness why is it that he loves his life?
     Krishnamurti: A little boy asks that. Why do you love your life? Because it is the only thing you have. One is afraid to die. When you grow up you are going to face this. You are going to be poor, (please note this), because the population of India is increasing explosively, so that there will be a thousand people for one job. So you are going to grow up into a world of poverty and sorrow, so long as there is no world planning, so long as there is no world government. Until governments are concerned with man, with human beings - with feeding man, clothing him, educating him, giving him a way of life - there is going to be poverty and misery. And that depends on you and on nobody else.
     December 10, 1967