Лингвистические особенности суггестивного политического дискурса (на примере выступлений президентов Дж. Буша и Ф. Рузвельта)

Президент Америки посвятил доказательству жестокости, беспринципности, вероломства и нежелания Саддама Хусейна сотрудничать с ООН существенную часть своей речи. Он огласил многочисленные факты нарушения иракским режимом принятых им обязательств, для того, чтобы лишний раз внушить делегатам, что Хусейну нельзя доверять. И это обстоятельство Буш подчеркнул многочисленными повторами, реализующимися в параллельных конструкциях.

        In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687 demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise.

        In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

        In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise.

        In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Как известно, с помощью повторов величивается число людей, чье внимание будет привлечено к факту или событию.

Для этой части обращения также характерны инверсии.

        To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments.

        By breaking every pledge - by his deceptions, and by his cruelties - Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

        In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations.

        By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

К тому же Буш ссылается на весьма авторитетные и достоверные источники, которые в очередной раз подтверждают опасность иракского режима:

        The U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive.

        The Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue [returning of mi] reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for - more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

        U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declaredЕ

Еще одним ярким средством привлечения внимания, к которому прибегнул Буш, являются риторические вопросы. Они погружают слушателей в суть проблемы, заставляют их серьезно задуматься над ней, что является одним из наиболее действенных способов беждения, тем более, если учитывать всю предыдущую информацию.

        We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?

Очевидно, что оружие массового поражения в руках человека, поддерживающего террористические организации, представляет огромную опасность для стран, борющихся с ним, так как это может привести к еще большим потерям среди мирного населения.

Далее Буш продолжает действовать на чувства, эмоции и профессиональную гордость членов Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН. Он говорит:

        Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?

        Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

Здесь он оказывает давление на аудиторию, настаивает на том, что ООН должна быть последовательн в своих действиях, и если ее резолюции не исполняются определенными странами, то они должны быть принуждены к этому. Иначе нет смысла в существовании Совета Безопасности, так как он будет существовать только на бумаге и реальной силы представлять не будет. Очевидно, что страны - члены ООН не желают демонстрировать подобных слабостей и поэтому представители этих стран должны доказать свою значимость, возможно, даже, применить силу. Принятие необходимых решений будет полезным для всего мирового клада, что и является основополагающей целью существования ООН. Большую роль в данном контексте играют контрасты "to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence" и "serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant"

Далее президент стремится донести мысль о том, что если не предпринимать никаких активных действий, если оставить все так как есть, то последствия могут быть плачевными, даже катастрофическими. Это требует определенной решительности, и медлить в данной ситуации - непростительная ошибка.

        To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Эффект достигается с помощью контраста, причем здесь имеет место трансформация традиционного фразеологизма

Как известно, Организация Объединенных Наций создавалась с целью поддержания мира на нашей планете, и Ближний Восток в данный период времени является горячей точкой. учитывая опыт Второй Мировой войны и возможности современного оружия, дестабилизации обстановки нельзя допустить ни при каких обстоятельствах.

В этой части своей речи американский президент снова прибегает к приему конформизации.

        If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future.

Тем самым он подчеркивает неотделимость своей страны от остального мира, тверждает, что положительных результатов можно добиться только вместе, координируя общие силия. А частие в любом благом деле всегда "греет душу" любого человека, будь то простой рабочий, либо политик мирового масштаба. Это способствует возникновению желания принять частие в этой акции.

Для закрепления этого эффекта Буш широко использует модальные конструкции, которые являются завершающим штрихом в его политической игре.

        We can harbor no illusions.

        If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account.

        Еthe purposes of the United States should not be doubted.

        If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future.

        We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress.

        We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather.

        We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind.

Заканчивая свою речь, Буш говорит о том, что Америка будет добиваться этих целей, и он призывает присоединиться к нему в великом деле, целью которого является благо для всего человечества.

        By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

В данном примере использовано обращение, которое, как известно, активизирует внимание слушателей.

Итак, подводя итоги данного исследования, следует сказать, что в речи президента Буша, целью которой являлось внушить делегатам необходимость начала войны против Ирака, использовано большое количество стилистических приемов: многократный повтор местоимений

Таким образом, президент Буш, обращаясь с речью к Генеральной Ассамблее ООН, использовал большое количество приемов беждения и внушения для того, чтобы получить поддержку со стороны мировой политической элиты. Глава Америки хотел донести свою главную мысль, что его целью является достижение мира и процветания на Ближнем Востоке, а для этого необходимо покончить с диктаторским режимом Саддама Хусейна.

1.2 Языковые средства суггестии в ежегодном послании президента Рузвельта к конгрессу США (6 января 1941 г.)

В 20 веке человеческая цивилизация сделала огромный рывок в науке, технике, образовании, развитии межкультурных отношений и массовой коммуникации, начались активные процессы глобализации. Однако это столетие наряду со всеми вышеперечисленными положительными достижениями имело и крайне негативные моменты. Оно было самым кровопролитным за всю историю человечества. Наша цивилизация пережила две мировые войны, в которых погибли десятки миллионов людей.

Для любой страны частие в боевых действиях является сильным даром. Это приводит к большим человеческим жертвам и истощению экономики. И вполне естественно, что ни одна страна добровольно на это не пойдет, если для этого не будет серьезных причин, таких как защита собственного суверенитета или борьба за мировые ресурсы и передел сфер влияния. Соединенные Штаты Америки не являются исключением из этого правила.

Когда началась Вторая Мировая война Соединенным Штатам казалось, что она слишком далеко и не представляет прямой грозы. Однако по мере того, как масштабы боевых действий увеличивались, для президента Рузвельта стало очевидным, что рано или поздно она дойдет и до его страны. Осознавая это, он решил обратиться к конгрессу для получения одобрения на активное частие в войне. Однако подобное решение является далеко не простым и требует взвешенного, рационального подхода, поэтому Рузвельту в своей речи необходимо было бедить членов конгресса в необходимости данного шага. Для этого он изложил свою точку зрения в ежегодном послании к конгрессу, которое состоялось 6 января 1941 года.

Его речь можно разделить на три части:

1) объяснение нависшей угрозы и необходимости вступления в войну;

2) описание же предпринимаемых шагов;

3) поминание общепринятых демократических ценностей, то есть то, что необходимо защищать от любых посягательств.

По ходу своей речи Рузвельт использует большое количество стилистических приемов, они очень разнообразны и у каждого есть своя специфическая роль.

Вначале президент делает упор на том, что данная ситуация, то есть война, является беспрецедентной. Для этого он использует эпитет "

Использование большого количества стилистических приемов, целью которых является привлечение внимания, естественным образом настораживает слушателей, погружает их в суть проблемы и заставляет их отнестись к теме разговора очень серьезно.

Далее Рузвельт делает небольшой исторический экскурс, поминая самые значимые войны, в которых участвовали американцы. Посредством семантических повторов он передает одну и ту же мысль - что нацистское движение представляет собой самую большую грозу для американского континента за всю его историю.

        Since the permanent formation of our government under the Constitution in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And, fortunately, only one of these - the four-year war between the States н- ever threatened our national unity.

        We have even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific, for the maintenance of American rights and for the Principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case has a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.

        While the Napoleonic struggle did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain nor any other nation was aiming at domination of the whole world.

        And in like fashion, from 1815 to 1914 - ninety-nine years - no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.

        Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this hemisphere.

Рассмотрим приведенные примеры более подробно.

В первом примере использована аллюзия на конституцию США. Это сделано не случайно, так как на ровне подсознания члены конгресса видят грозу тому, на чем зиждется демократия Америки - основному закону их страны, принципу ее существования.

Далее Рузвельт говорит о том, что ранее Америка частвовала в войнах, целью которых было процветание ее сограждан и защита их конституционных прав. А сейчас гроза нависла над ней самой, чего ранее не было. Эта идея подчеркивается посредством разнообразных стилистических приемов:

        Употребление эмоциональной частицы

        Капитализация существительного

        Использование концепта "нация" (

Для американцев, впрочем, как и для жителей любой другой страны, эти ценности являются очень важными. И чтобы обратить внимание аудитории на грозу для них, тем самым, спровоцировав инстинкт самосохранения, президент использует следующие выражения:

Таким образом, для конгрессменов становится очевидным, что от них зависит то, каким будет будущее их страны - либо мирным, если они выступят против агрессоров в составе колиции, активно помогая союзникам, либо же их страна будет порабощена вражескими захватчиками.

Далее президент делает акцент на том, что демократии всего мира находятся под угрозой.

        I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world - assailed either by arms or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.

В данном предложении Рузвельт пошел на некоторую хитрость, начав со слова I

Далее приводятся дополнительные факты, подтверждающие опасность для множества стран, они не дают аудитории расслабиться и закрепляют достигнутый эффект посредством очередных стилистических приемов.

        During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

Эпитет

        Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the union," I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

В данном случае обособление

Достигнув первоначальной цели, Рузвельт использует фразеологические единицы, которые в данном случае формируют у слушателей образ очень опасного и вероломного врага, с которым в одиночку американцам не справиться.

        In times like these it is immature - and, incidentally, untrue - for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

        The nation's hands must not be tied when the nationТs life is in danger.

        We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the ism of appeasement.

        We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.

Опытный оратор в своих речах избегает потребления очень ярких образов, так как они могут отвлечь внимание слушателей от сущности поднимаемого вопроса. В данных примерах ассоциации лежат на поверхности и фразеологизмы, которые использует автор, легко воспринимаются, делая речь более экспрессивной:

Ц

Ц а

Ц а

Рассуждая о тех, кто производит много шума и мало делает, Рузвельт использует метафору sounding brass (made of metal and played by blowing) and a tinkling cymbal (a flat round musical instrument which is made of brass which when hit with a stick or against another cymbal makes a loud noise), называя музыкальные инструменты, которые ассоциируются с грохотом военного оркестра.

Крайне негативный образ врага также формирует использование полисиндетона.

        No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion - or even good business.

Здесь особое внимание деляется обособлению

Завершая свою мысль, посредством повтора президент в скрытой форме предлагает начать войну как можно скорее, так как мир диктатора не принесет их стране ничего хорошего, те, кто рассчитывает н политику миротворения агрессора, в конечном итоге окажутся в проигрыше, так как остаться в стороне в данной ситуации не представляется возможным.

        Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

После этого Рузвельт переходит к следующей части своей речи, которая касается национальной политики, он перечисляет шаги, которые необходимо предпринять для решения сложившейся проблемы. Однако в большинстве случаев перечисление каких-либо пунктов томляет слушателей и, чтобы этого не произошло, оратору необходимо сделать свою речь более вариативной, использовать приемы привлечения внимания, менять интонацию, обращаться к аудитории и т. д. В данном случае президент использует анафорические повторы.

        That is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.

        That is why this annual message to the Congress is unique in our history.

        That is why every member of the executive branch of the government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility - great accountability.

В последнем предложении Рузвельт намеренно точняет вид ответственности, так как слово responsibility (от responsible - having control and authority over something and the duty of taking care of it or them) является нейтральным по значению, в то время как accountability (от accountable - someone who is accountable is completely responsible for what they do and must be able to give satisfactory reason for it) означает ответственность власти перед обществом, обязанность представителей власти (президента, депутатов, парламента) отчитываться перед избирателями в демократической системе.

        First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

        Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

        Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principle of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers.

В данных примерах посредством серии параллельных конструкций, сочетающихся с повторами, передается мысль о том, что представителям властей необходимо абстрагироваться от какого-либо политического влияния и приверженности к своей партии, так как в данном вопросе это недопустимо. В военное время все внимание политиков должно быть направлено на защиту страны, что выражается использованием соответствующих слов:

Затем президент Америки называет же предпринимаемые шаги по пути перехода мирной экономики на военный лад. Он говорит, что в разных областях спех переменный - где-то достигнуты большие результаты, где-то приемлемые, но существуют и сферы, над которыми надо очень много работать. Однако в любом случае необходимо стремиться к большему, предела совершенству нет:

        And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

Таким образом, он призывает к полной самоотдаче не только конгрессменов, но и всех американцев, на достигнутых результатах ни в коем случае нельзя останавливаться. Эта мысль реализуется в параллельных конструкциях в сочетании с повтором

        I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

Плавно переходя от себя на всех американцев, Рузвельт дает понять, что этой точки зрения придерживается не он один, что это общее мнение.

Но для выполнения поставленной задачи необходимы дополнительные ресурсы и полномочия. Хотя Рузвельт просит этого от своего имени, но он просит не для себя, для общего дела, для стран, которые же активно сражаются в войне и которым эта помощь жизненно необходима. В данном случае очень ярко реализуется прием конформизации.

        I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.

        I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations

        Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves.

        We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

Целью модальных конструкций в последнем примере является стимулировать конгрессменов к выполнению необходимых действий, в противном случае это будет означать предательство дружественных стран, которые отстаивают общие интересы, иначе они будут оставлены на произвол судьбы. Но если Америка поможет этим странам она не останется в проигрыше, вполне возможно, даже выиграет. Чтобы подчеркнуть эту идею Рузвельт использует повтор-подхват глагола repay.

        For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or at our option in other goods of many kinds which they can produce and which we need.

Иными словами, американцы сами решат, что они получат взамен, это своего рода бартер, который в определенных ситуациях может оказаться намного выгодней.

Далее президент США предлагает конгрессменам выступить в роли благодетелей и спасителей мира, что, несомненно, играет на чувствах аудитории, заставляет их вжиться в эту роль.

        Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

Частое употребление местоимений

Но при этом от них зависит также будущее их собственной страны, их собственных детей. И в их силах сделать это будущее светлым и безоблачным.

        The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend on how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt.

        The nation's hands must not be tied when the nationТs life is in danger.

Во втором примере посредством трансформированного фразеологизма

Но даже во время войны президент озабочен потребностями граждан, он знает, что им необходимо для нормальной жизни. Эта мысль подчеркивается серией параллельных конструкций, которые приводятся ниже.

        The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:а Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all. The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress.

И он знает, что необходимо для этого сделать:

        We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

        We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

        We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

Посредством анафорических повторов местоимения

        I have called for personal sacrifice, and I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.

        I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today.

Далее Рузвельт говорит о том, что в случае победы весь послевоенный мир будет основан на четырех основныха свободах, чтобы подчеркнуть это он использует эпифорический повтор:

В конце своей речи президент Рузвельт противопоставляет новый мировой порядок, к которому стремился Гитлер, демократии, которая основана на этих четырех свободах, дружелюбии и моральных принципах.

        That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

        To that new order we oppose the greater conception - the moral order.

        The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

        Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.

Это противопоставление достигается посредством контраста, повторяющегося существительного

Итак, подводя итоги данного исследования, следует сказать, что речь Рузвельта изобилует различными приемами, целью которых является доказать правоту президента США в необходимости активного вступления в войну. Наиболее яркими и частотными являются: конформизация, различные повторы (анафоры, эпифоры, анадиплосис и семантические повторы), эмоциональное "

Таким образом, Франклин Делано Рузвельт мело осуществлял свою политическую стратегию. Он планомерно, шаг за шагом беждал конгресс США в необходимости активного частия в войне, при этом очень эффективно прибегая к методам внушения и беждения. Речь построена в правильном ключе - из одного тезиса вытекает другой, что в конечном итоге приводит аудиторию к тому решению, которое им внушал президент.

Заключение.

анализ литературных источников показывает, что публичное выступление можно рассматривать с двух точек зрения:

Во-первых, как подстиль в рамках публицистического стиля, что обусловливает наличие у него особенностей и функций последнего. При этом стиль публичного выступления стоит на грани стной и письменной речи, его главная цель - беждение, воздействие на аудиторию.

Во-вторых, ораторская речь - искусство, берущее начало еще в античные времена и приобретающее большое значение в современную эпоху. Это связано с повышением роли общественно-политических деятелей в жизни стран. Политик должен красноречиво и доступно излагать свои взгляды, так как этого требует специфика его профессии.

Президент в своем выступлении, так или иначе, должен представлять свое видение современных ему проблем. В то же время речь должна отвечать потребностям аудитории, на которую ориентирована речь.

Исходя из этого, были рассмотрены речи двух президентов Соединенные Штатов, произнесенные ими в преддверии военных действий.

Рассмотренные речи Буша и Рузвельта имеют ряд общих черт, так как их объединяет общая военная тематика. Кроме того, анализ этих речей позволил выявить основные характеристики политической речи с правильным применением суггестивных параметров: простота лексического и синтаксического состава, употребление слов и фраз разговорного стиля. Обе речи построены на эмоциональной основе, что способствует созданию суггестивности. Это осуществляется за счет использования в речах слов с яркой положительной и отрицательной коннотацией. Причем одновременно с этим Америка, в речи Буша и страны ООН, противопоставляются агрессору.

Кроме того, обе речи изобилуют разного рода повторами (анафорами, эпифорами), задача которых - донести до слушателя основную идею. Во многих случаях повторы сочетаются с параллельными конструкциями, силивающими экспрессивность речей. Однако в речи Рузвельта присутствуют также семантические повторы и анадиплосис.

Общим для обеих речей является использование стилистических возможностей местоимений (конформизация), призванных либо объединить оратора с аудиторией (

К тому же, оба президента используют трансформированные фразеологические единицы, которые делают речь более экспрессивной и яркой, инверсии, привлекающие внимание аудитории к определенным моментам, и модальные конструкции, целью которых является стимулирование аудитории к осуществлению активных действий.

Однако при всей общности каждая речь, безусловно, обладает спецификой.

Так, в речи президента Рузвельта присутствует большее разнообразие стилистических приемов, что делает его выступление более ярким. Необходимо честь, что его послание было адресовано к американцам, для которых характерно обостренное чувство патриотизма и гордость за свою страну, поэтому Рузвельт часто обращался к концепту нации. Немаловажным фактором в данном контексте является подчеркивание надвигающейся грозы для американского народа, их ценностей и клада жизни.

Отличительной чертой речи Буша является использование риторических вопросов, которые активизируют внимание слушателей и лишний раз заставляют задуматься над поднимаемой проблемой.

Как показала история, Рузвельт полностью достиг намеченной цели, в то время как Бушу так и не далось бедить подавляющее большинство стран в целесообразности начала войны. Корни неудачи Буша необходимо искать в том числе и в восприимчивости аудитории к суггестивным методам воздействия. Делегаты ГА ООН являются очень опытными политиками, которые не первый год работают в этой области и знают все подводные камни данной профессии. Таким образом, они лично продемонстрировали то, что даже если вам пытаются что-то внушить, в чем-то бедить, пусть и очень мело, вы должны критично относиться к получаемой информацииа (тем более из ст политиков), анализировать ее и только потом решать верить этому или нет.

Непрофессионалы могут воспользоваться определенными средствами для выявления суггестии в различного рода текстах. Для тестирования текстов можно воспользоваться (при работе в Word) пунктом "Правописание" в меню, именно статистикой добочитаемости, которая оценивает текст по четырем параметрам: ровень образования; легкость чтения; число сложных фраз; благозвучие.

Однако рациональнее анализировать скрытую суггестивность текста при помощи специальной профессиональной лингвистической программы "Экспертиза текстов внушения" (версии "Диатон", "Словодел"), которая дает представление о подсознательном восприятии вашей словесной продукции на различных ровнях языка, учитывая реакцию девяти из десяти носителей языка (что, с точки зрения воздействия на массу, довольно бедительно). Тем более что эта программа может быть использована как для анализа, так и для синтеза текста.

Учет суггестивных показателей при построении политической речи для воздействия на аудиторию является одной из главных составляющих спешного политического деятеля. Следовательно, суггестивные особенности построения текста представляют большую научную ценность для дальнейшей разработки правил построения правильной политической речи.

Список литературы.

1.  Адамов Е.А. Выдающиеся ораторы древнего мира и средних веков. М., 1961.

2.           Аксенов В. Искусство художественного слова. М., 1975.

3.           Американскиеа президенты. 41 исторический портрет от Джорджа Вашингтона до Билла Клинтона. Под ред. Юргена Хайдекинга. М., 1997.

4.           Апресян Г.З. Ораторское искусство. М., 1978.

5.           Аристотель. Поэтика. Об искусстве поэзии. М., 1957.

6.           Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка. Л., 1981.

7.           Афанасенко Е. В. Роль семантического повтора в реализации речевых стратегий в политической коммуникации// Романо-германская филология: Изд-во Саратовского ниверситета. Вып. 4, 2004.

8.           Барлас Л.Г. Русский язык. Стилистика. М., 1981.

9.           Бернштейн С.И. Язык радио. М., 1977.

10.Бехтерев В. М. Гипноз, внушение, психотерапия и их лечебное значение. Донецк, 1.

11. Бехтерев В.М. Объективная психология. М., 1991.

12. Варшавский К.М. Гипносуггестивная терапия (Лечение внушением в гипнозе). Л., 1973.

13. Веретенкина Л.Ю. Амбивалентность манипуляций// Филология и культура. Материалы < международной научной конференции. Ч.1. Тамбов, 2001.

14. Гальперин И.Р. Очерки по стилистике английского языка. М., 1958.

15. Доценко Е.Л. Психология манипуляции. М., 1997.

21. Морозова О.Н. Функции обращения в тексте политического публичного выступления// Вопросы германской и романской филологии. Вып. 2. Пб., 2003.

22. Никитин М.В., Юданова Е.Т. Языковая суггестия

23. Ножин Е.А. Основы советского ораторского искусства. М., 1973.

24. Общественно - публицистический стиль речи. Под ред. А.В.Швец.

Киев, 1984.

25. Одинцов В.В. Стилистический анализ публичного выступления. М., 1973.

26. Одинцов В.В. Структура публичной речи. М., 1976.

27. Поршнев Б.Ф. О начале человеческой истории. М., 1974.

28. Пешковский A.M. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении. 7-е изд. М., 1956.

29. Пустовалов П.С., Сенкевич М.П. Пособие по развитию речи. М., 1978.

30.Резникова С.С. Средства и механизмы манипулирования в политическом дискурсе СМИ// Перспективные направления современной лингвистики. Пб, 2003.

31. Розенталь Д.Э. Культура речи. Изд. 3-е. М., 1964.

32. Толмачев А. Об ораторском искусстве. М., 1973.

2.     Новый англо - русский словарь под ред. В.К.Мюллера. М., 1.

3.     Новый большой словарь под ред. Ю.Д.Апресяна. М., 1993.

4.     Политология: Энциклопедический словарь. М., 1993.

5.     Современный политологический словарь / Сост. И.В. Даниленко. М., 2.

6.     Hornby A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. L., 1974.

7.     Cambridge international dictionary of English / Cambridge university press, 1995.

Приложения.

1. President Bush's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year - in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do - in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war - the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts - ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place - in one regime - we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped - by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge - by his deceptions, and by his cruelties - Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities - which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents - and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for - more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program - weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a - nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis - a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions - and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable - the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

2. THE FOUR FREEDOMS

Delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on January 6, 1941

Mr. Speaker, members of the 77th Congress:

I address you, the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the union. I use the word "unprecedented" because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.

Since the permanent formation of our government under the Constitution in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And, fortunately, only one of these - the four-year war between the States н- ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, 130,, Americans in forty-eight States have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.

It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often has been disturbed by events in other continents. We have even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific, for the maintenance of American rights and for the Principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case has a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence. What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition - clear, definite opposition - to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.

That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution. While the Napoleonic struggle did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain nor any other nation was aiming at domination of the whole world.

And in like fashion, from 1815 to 1914 - ninety-nine years - no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation. Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this hemisphere. And the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength; it is still a friendly strength. Even when the World War broke out in 1941 it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.

We need not overemphasize imperfections in the peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of pacification which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny. I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world - assailed either by arms or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.

During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small. Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the union," I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe and Asia, Africa and Australia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere -yes, many times over.

In times like these it is immature - and, incidentally, untrue - for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world. No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion - or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

As a nation we may take pride in the fact that we are soft-hearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the ism of appeasement. We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests. I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nation win this war.

There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate. But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe - particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years.

The first phase of the invasion of this hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes - and great numbers of them are already here and in Latin America. As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive they, not we, will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack. That is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. That is why this annual message to the Congress is unique in our history. That is why every member of the executive branch of the government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility - great accountability.

The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily - almost exclusively - to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency. Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:а First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense. Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principle of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom. In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on the line before the American electorate. And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production. Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time. In some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays. And in some cases - and, I am sorry to say, very important cases - we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans. The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results. To give you two illustrations:а We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes. We are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.

We are ahead of schedule in building warships, but we are working to get even further ahead of that schedule. To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. Theа

The Congress of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence. New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.

I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations. Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need manpower, but they do need billions of dollars' worth of the weapons of defense. The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons - a loan to be repaid in dollars. I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. And nearly all of their material would, if the time ever came, be useful in our own defense. Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities,

For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or at our option in other goods of many kinds which they can produce and which we need. Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be. And when the dictators - if the dictators - are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war. Their only interest is in a new one-way international law which lacks mutuality in its observance and therefore becomes an instrument of oppression. The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend on how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The nation's hands must not be tied when the nationТs life is in danger.

Yes, and we must prepare, all of us prepare, to make the sacrifices that the emergency - almost as serious as war itself - demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense, in defense preparations at any time, must give way to the national need. A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own groups.

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble-makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government. As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses and those behind them who build our defenses must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakeable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all the things worth fighting for.

The nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fiber of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect. Certainly, this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world. For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.

The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:а Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all. The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living. These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding straight of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:а We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care. We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it. I have called for personal sacrifice, and I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call. A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my budget message I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today. No person should try, or be allowed to get rich out of the program, and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.

If the congress maintains these principles the voters, putting patriotism ahead pocketbooks, will give you their applause. In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception - the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear. Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands, heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.