The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourteenth Lecture

[ 1 ] In my recent reflections, I have repeatedly pointed out that, particularly in connection with the endeavors of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, one must recognize that a contemporary view of the world—indeed, any contemporary worldview—requires broader horizons than those accessible to humanity in the materialistic age we have characterized from various perspectives. Broader horizons—that is to say, if one wishes to understand the world today, and human events in particular, one must turn to concepts derived from spiritual science. And it is connected to the overall karma of our time that, until now, the majority of humanity has rejected such broader conceptual horizons for all areas of life and knowledge.

[ 2 ] If, with these considerations in mind, one wishes to characterize a particular aspect of our lives, one might say that objective development—as far as it has progressed to date—has grown beyond the comprehension of the people of the 19th and 20th centuries. And contemporary phenomena demonstrate this outpacing in the most intense way possible. Among the most striking events of the materialistic age is, of course, materialistic progress—progress with regard to what is, so to speak, “staged” in the world through material means. The science of the materialistic age also serves this materialistic progress. And what is particularly characteristic of this science is that it shows less and less interest in the spiritual world, that it increasingly seeks only to be a collection of concepts and ideas applicable to external material events.

[ 3 ] This course of development is expressed, in particular, in the most extreme form of material activity: in mechanical activity. What we might call factory systems, industrial systems, and mechanical systems has, after all, attained its greatest perfection to date in this materialistic age. And quite naturally, progress in this field is transnational—one might even say international, or global. For whether a railroad or a similar facility is built in England, Russia, China, or Japan, the laws governing its construction and the knowledge required for it are the same everywhere, because all of this is accomplished solely according to mechanical principles detached from human agency; thus, in fact, an international principle has taken hold in this field in the most comprehensive way. And it has often been said, in connection with this or that aspect in the course of our spiritual scientific reflections: Since this has come to pass, we have, so to speak, a body before us on Earth—a body stretching across the entire Earth. This body needs a soul, and this soul should be just as international. And spiritual science was specifically chosen as this soul because it is, in fact—just as it must be—a form of knowledge that is not connected to any individual or group on Earth, and which offers the possibility of being just as the physical aspect of outer material culture—in the construction of a railroad, a locomotive, or the like—can be understood by them. And it has often been emphasized that a blessing, a salvation for human development, can only come about when the development of the soul-spiritual is added to the development of the physical in the sense indicated. But for this to happen, it would be necessary for people to make just as much effort to understand spiritual connections as they do—compelled by external circumstances, by which they much prefer to be constrained rather than by what is left to their freedom—to adapt to the demands of material progress. This has not happened yet, but it must, of course, come about in the course of human development; even if it is delayed for a very long time, it must still come about. Even if a great deal of karmic misfortune is brought about by people’s unwillingness to adapt to such things, it must nevertheless come about. For what is meant to happen will happen.

[ 4 ] Because material progress has, in a sense, outpaced the will to spiritual knowledge, this material progress—and especially all the passions and impulses it gives rise to in people’s souls—has become too much for humanity to handle. This is most strikingly evident externally in the fact that it is not those ideas aimed at the harmonious coexistence of people on earth—in other words, not Christian ideas—that have gained the upper hand, but rather, to the point of excess, those that divide humanity and drag it back to cultural eras one might have believed had long since been overcome. The fact that nationalism was able to flourish to such an extent in the 19th century among nationalities living side by side is a profound and significant anomaly, and it shows that human beings have not kept pace with material development in the development of their souls.

[ 5 ] When people come to accept spiritual science on a broader scale—not merely as a theory, but as the fulfillment of the entire soul—they will necessarily have to adopt different concepts. And through these different concepts, they will be able to grasp connections that are completely impossible for contemporary materialistic thinking to comprehend. Certain connections can only be grasped if one has the right ideas for them. But ideas must grow just as vividly as anything else; that is, they must have a foundation on which they can flourish. The foundation on which ideas flourish, however, can only be that disposition of the soul which is prepared by spiritual science. If materialistic development were to continue as it has unfolded over the course of the 19th century, people would become increasingly impoverished in ideas. To put it simply: people would be unable to conceive of anything suitable for understanding the world. They would be forced to derive everything they think about the world solely from experimentation—from being inspired by what unfolds before their eyes. The recent insistence on experimentation is merely a result of this poverty of ideas. Thus, if this trend were to continue, humanity would become increasingly devoid of ideas. But since a certain intensity of spiritual life is necessary, and since human beings must develop certain impulses to a certain degree of strength, they must draw these impulses from elsewhere if they do not flow to them from the realm of ideas.

[ 6 ] If you wish to explore an era in which ideas were bubbling up, in which genuine ideas flourished, then one such particularly distinctive and fruitful era is the period spanning roughly from Lessing to German Romanticism, up to Novalis, or even further to the idealist philosophy to which, alongside Hegel, Schelling, and Schopenhauer, as well as those whom I have cited in my book The Enigma of Man as the philosophers of a worldview that has now faded away in this materialistic age. There is a true wealth of ideas to be found there. Hence the great contempt with which this very era is treated today! But look at this era, so rich and fruitful in ideas aimed at understanding nature and the historical development of humanity! I would simply like to remind you how closely that fruitful idea—which emerged in the works of Schelling, Hegel, Novalis, Franz von Baader, but which actually had its origins in Jakob Böhme: that in the period of human evolution that cannot be grasped without the tools of spiritual science, humanity underwent an initial epoch in which, so to speak, the principle of God the Father prevailed—the epoch characterized in the Bible by the Old Testament and the pagan religions. Those I have just mentioned called it the Age of the Father. It was succeeded by the Age of the Son, in which the idea of the Mystery of Golgotha was to take root in humanity. And they viewed the Age of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit—which they also called the Johannine Age—as an ideal for the future. They believed that only then could the great impulses of the Gospel of John be realized.

[ 7 ] How infinitely significant is such an idea compared to the dreary, fruitless talk of a general evolution of humanity—which is, after all, merely an abstract idea that simply links what comes after to what came before, like the next link in a chain. How infinitely profound is what Schelling—in turn drawing on Jakob Böhme—has developed as his “theosophy”! Schelling’s “theosophy” struggles upward to a height in contrast to which what theology later conceived represents a profound descent. Schelling struggles to arrive at the insight that in Christianity what matters is not so much the doctrine—which is precisely what the latest, progressive theology claims, as if Christ Jesus had been merely a teacher—but rather that the Mystery of Golgotha must above all be understood as a fact; that one must look up to what has happened, to look upon the fact that, with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, a reality has been accomplished.

[ 8 ] And so one could cite a whole host of outstanding, far-reaching ideas from that era. But what is the source of these far-reaching ideas? In those in whom such ideas arise, you will find one thing missing: national narrow-mindedness. Everywhere you will find what was called in those circles at the time—whether the term can still be understood today, now that so many words have become mere clichés, is another question—the “cosmopolitan” viewpoint. How far removed from all national narrow-mindedness is, for example, a mind like Goethe’s! How far removed from any national narrow-mindedness is a work of poetry like Faust. Origin is irrelevant here. Of course, Faust can only be conceived within the culture of Central Europe, but given what Faust has become in Goethe’s poetry, to ask about Faust’s birth certificate would, of course, be an absurdity. But this absurdity has, in fact, become a reality in our time; it has become a fact. Fundamentally, everything that is happening in the present is simply a denial of what humanity has risen to, for example, through the “Faust” epic. From this, however, we can already see that humanity possesses all the potential to be more advanced than it is today—and certainly more so than it will be in the near future.

[ 9 ] But I said that the human soul needs a certain intensity in its impulses. If it cannot rise to ideas, it draws this intensity from elsewhere; it draws it from the dark, subconscious forces of the soul, from what pulses up from the spirit of the blood. And, fundamentally speaking, nationalism is nothing other than a result of a lack of ideas. The first thing humanity needed was precisely the will to rise to the level of ideas. But one can certainly say: Part of the success of what has just been suggested is an understanding of what, in relation to the spiritual world, can be called grace. For the spiritual world cannot be attained by starting from a certain narrowly defined set of preconceived opinions; rather, it can only be attained by keeping the soul open to whatever may enter it—by seeking not merely to judge, but to enrich one’s capacity for judgment every day.

[ 10 ] And so it is necessary that, first and foremost, insight take hold of people. We are, after all, in the age that is meant to be gripped by the conscious soul. This age must strive for insight. But insight comes only through universal ideas, through the permeation of reality with ideas. Precisely with regard to the events immediately before us, our time is now completely unwilling to grasp ideas. An abstract concept, no matter how logical or plausible it may be, is not an idea. An idea must be born out of living reality. We hardly see ideas emerging in our time, but all the more we find an insistence on abstract concepts. Ideas can, of course, also become catchphrases, but in this case they will do no particular harm, because the human soul cannot function particularly well with catchphrases—when they serve as the correlate for ideas—and the absurdity will become clearly apparent. This is not the case with abstract concepts. Abstract concepts can become catchphrases with great intensity, and they are so compelling because they essentially address what is most immediate and are eagerly embraced by people in their reluctance to grasp anything beyond that. But abstract concepts are not grounded in reality. Although we see abstract concepts everywhere in great numbers today, they stand out with all the greater powerlessness to those who see through them.

[ 11 ] Let’s take any one of the many abstract ideas that prevail today. One such abstract idea, for example, is the idea of eternal peace. As it is treated today, it is a completely abstract concept that does not spring from a living grasp of reality, yet seems self-evident to those who do not seek broader horizons. It is said: The various states—without pausing to consider whether the phrase “the various states” even corresponds to reality—are to form an intergovernmental organization, something that spans the entire world and is structured along the lines of the individual state, and what is referred to as “international law” is to be established. — The idea is beautiful, which is why it strikes everyone as obvious. The various states are to commit themselves to maintaining peace and to base their mutual interests on certain legal norms. All very nice! But no doubt it would also be nice if, in order to have a warm room, we did not need to heat it, but only needed to develop the abstract concept of warmth. An idea is not about whether it is beautiful, nor about whether it is self-evident; for what could be more self-evident than the thought that needing a stove or something similar actually amounts to a terrible despotism of nature!

[ 12 ] What matters is not whether an idea corresponds to the feeling that people describe with words such as: “It is a beautiful, humane idea”—or whatever else they might say—but whether an idea grows out of reality. If one were to proceed from ideas that grow out of reality, then one would, of course, first have to study reality. Any narrow-minded person—pardon the expression—can draw up beautiful plans for how states should act in the future so that peace may reign; but such a person cannot arrive at ideas that correspond to living reality, that are born out of reality. When it comes to the spiritual world, one does not even have the sense that there is a reality with its own laws, as one naturally does with the material world; rather, one believes one can regulate the entire world with a few sentences, without any sense that the world is a reality in which all manner of real impulses contrast with one another. But by becoming intoxicated with programs consisting of abstract ideas, one prevents the world from engaging with these realities.

[ 13 ] Sometimes the fruitful, the true idea is, in terms of words, exactly the same as the living idea; it is simply a matter of being seized by that liveliness. But today, liveliness often appears to people as the most paradoxical thing of all. Thus, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the so-called idea of disarmament—the idea of curbing militarism—emerged in various parts of the world. This is a fine idea, but it must not remain abstract if it is to bear fruit! It must take reality into account. To do so, however, one must study reality. Sitting down somewhere and deciding that nations should disarm—that is possible; it is also a plausible idea. But either none of them will do so, or some of them will not; and even if they all did, they would soon begin rearming unless the initiative stems from a truly fruitful impulse. But if one points out only the fruitful impulses today, one already runs the risk of saying something that most people would consider terribly foolish, for what is reasonable is today regarded as the very height of folly. — By “reasonable” I mean, in this context, that which is in keeping with reality.

[ 14 ] I said: Certainly, the idea of disarmament—the idea of gradually dismantling militarism—is a noble one. But it could never be realized simply by a decision to disarm made by some committee of nations. It can only become a reality if it is taken up by some corresponding reality. But what does that mean? How can we achieve disarmament? Yes, we really have to speak in very concrete terms here. In fact, there were opportunities at various times throughout the 19th century to move closer to the idea of disarmament, to turn it into a real idea. How, for example?

[ 15 ] Well, let’s say someone had come up with the idea before 1870. How could it have been put into practice? In fact, a step could have been taken before 1870 in the direction of disarmament that would have been very fruitful for humanity. But here comes the very thing that, of course, must be considered the most foolish in today’s world: An agreement among states could never have brought us any closer to the idea of disarmament! That is completely fruitless, no matter how appealing it may be. But it would have been fruitful if one state—specifically the one that was capable of doing so—had initiated disarmament by implementing it on its own. To do so, however, one would have had to be prepared to reckon with reality.

[ 16 ] Let’s now consider a few countries in Europe, just to illustrate the reality. Russia—can it disarm? Certainly not without further ado, for Asia lies behind it, and if it were to disarm, it would never have a bulwark against the advancing peoples of Asia, who would most certainly not disarm along with it; so that is out of the question. — Could what existed in Central Europe at that time—since there was no German Empire before 1870—have disarmed? Well, it would at least have been bordered on the east by a state that could not disarm; consequently, it could not disarm—it was out of the question. — But there is one state that could have disarmed, that could have set a fine example, and thereby, in modern times, essentially brought to fruition what it has always been trumpeting to the world in words: France. France could very well have disarmed before 1870, and the result would have been that the war of 1870 would never have taken place. And since then, with regard to European affairs—not colonial affairs—France has always been in a position to take the lead in disarmament. Then a start would have been made, and the process could have spread eastward.

[ 17 ] Of course, anyone who thinks abstractly will object: Yes, should France have exposed itself to the danger of being invaded by Germany? It would never have exposed itself to that danger; for the sole reason a country goes to war is that it is capable of waging war—that is, that it has militarism. It must have it; but no country that lacked militarism would be invaded if conditions were such that its neighbors had not the slightest interest in invading it. Of course, Switzerland, for example, has never been in a position to do without militarism. One must not, therefore, draw a parallel between the two. Nor should one object in the abstract that Germany would have wanted Alsace-Lorraine under any circumstances. That is nonsense. Why on earth would it have wanted Alsace-Lorraine under any circumstances? To acquire Alsace-Lorraine simply because Germans live there—Bismarck called that a “crazy academic delusion”! — It was always simply a matter of ensuring military security; for as long as France is a military power and holds Alsace, it is always faster to reach Stuttgart from France than from Berlin. There was no other reason to annex Alsace to the German Empire than this one: to have military protection to the west. At first glance, this seems like a completely paradoxical idea, but the realities of today are indeed paradoxical to our abstract thinking, which is the twin brother of materialism.

[ 18 ] If you imagine that France had already taken the lead in disarmament before 1870, you will come to realize what could have been prevented if people had thought realistically at the time; and with regard to such ideas, realistic thinking could be expanded very, very far. Certainly, ideas grounded in reality do not always come to fruition, for the simple reason that other forces stand in their way. But that does not speak against reality. If a little flower grows entirely according to the laws of its reality, those are the true laws by which it grows; but if a wagon wheel rolls over it, it does not develop. What is true to reality must be present in our thinking, and the fact that an idea has not been realized in any given age is no proof against the reality of that idea.

[ 19 ] This refers to the idea being imbued with reality. Just as it makes no sense to have a beautiful idea about some kind of machine if one lacks mechanical knowledge and the ability to construct the machine, so it makes no sense to propose all sorts of political and other ideas if one is unable to grasp the real impulses, which in this case can only be obtained through mastery of the spiritual, of the spiritual world. And so we have, for the time being, one thing to which we can draw attention: the saturation of the idea with reality.

[ 20 ] The other is the breadth of the horizon, the will to survey broader horizons. Last time, I read to you some judgments—made by a person who is, admittedly, significant—regarding the German national character, taken from a lengthy contemporary novel that caused quite a stir. But all these judgments stem from narrow horizons, from a mindset that refuses to see further than a few decimeters beyond one’s own nose. Living with such narrow horizons, however, creates disharmony in the world. And one can then spread the most beautiful ideas of peaceful cooperation among peoples—but if one thinks this way, the only result is that these beautiful ideas amount to nothing, or at best have a destructive effect; for what one truly thinks brings about the opposite of what one expresses with one’s beautiful ideas. Confronting reality—that is what matters. One reality we face at present is what, out of a certain casual use of terminology, is called the current war. For in reality it is no longer a war, but in a certain sense it can still be compared to events that were designated as wars in the past. There are, of course, a wide variety of factors from which this war has developed, but here too, if one wishes to gain insight, one must arrive at concepts that correspond to reality.

[ 21 ] Today, the world spends the time it should be using to arrive at realistic ideas on demonstrating that it has forgotten everything that occurred in human history—even in the very recent past—before these sad current events took place. For it is, of course, all too easy, when such an event occurs, to speak of all manner of atrocities, cruelties, and the like. That should go without saying, given the experiences one can draw from human history. One really ought not to use this to numb oneself to the deeper issues at hand, the understanding of which alone could bring people today to a level that is, to some extent, fruitful.

[ 22 ] Let us highlight today something that can already be recognized by anyone who perceives the interrelationships on the physical plane from the outside, but which comes into even clearer focus when considered in conjunction with the ideas we have presented in the series on national souls. Among the various causes that have led to these painful events are factors that could now become increasingly clear to the outer world as well, if only there were a genuine desire to broaden one’s horizons. The British Empire possesses one-quarter of the total dry, habitable land on Earth; together with France and Russia, the British Empire accounts for half. If a coalition were to be formed between Russia, France, the British Empire, and America, that would amount to approximately three-quarters of the inhabited earth; one-quarter would still remain. This figure in itself must surely be telling to anyone who looks at reality. But let us now consider the one-quarter of the earth that is united within the British Empire.

[ 23 ] First, we have—relatively small—the three regions: England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, when one speaks of England, Scotland, and Ireland as such, one is not referring at all to what the British Empire is today. Rather, when one speaks of England, Scotland, and Ireland, one is referring to that part of the world that produced the great Shakespeare, that produced incomparable thinkers and, in earlier times, great statesmen. One encounters only good things. One encounters that which is truly destined, to an outstanding degree, to play a major role in the fifth post-Atlantic epoch. But one does not encounter what the British Empire is today, for this British Empire today consists of these three island territories, which are affiliated with Europe, and what, in the broadest sense, can be called its colonies. And particularly in recent times, the entire development of this British Empire has been driven by the relationship between the mother country and the colonies. One can observe how, in recent times, attempts have been made to establish an appropriate relationship between the mother country and the colonies.

[ 24 ] What the British Empire strives for is to hold the mother country and the colonies together in a closer union. And when I spoke to you about the use of occult forces, that is precisely what it entails: using such forces to achieve this goal. If these occult forces were allowed to operate within their own sphere, they could never be harmful. But if something selfish is pursued—whether for an individual or for groups—these forces can only have a harmful effect. This relationship between the mother country and the colonies is simply not easy to establish. Anyone who believes today that world peace can be achieved through programs implemented by an intergovernmental organization naturally has no idea whatsoever of how reality must be handled if something like this is to come about: fusing the British mother country with the colonies into a unified whole that is desirable for the British Empire itself. This endeavor underlies what is called imperialism there. This is what has been consistently strived for in recent times, albeit driven by thoroughly materialistic motives; but it has been strived for. And all the means that could be put at the service of this idea were considered appropriate from a certain point of view. The British Empire had to come to establish a closer relationship with its colonies. This required an impulse that, so to speak, would work its way into people’s hearts, so that they would respond to what they would otherwise not admit. And connected to this is the fact that war must be waged in Europe, so that the mood of this war might produce the impulses necessary for the British Empire to unify its colonies with the mother country. It is not merely interesting for the study of events on the physical plane, but of the utmost significance, to examine how all the abstract thinkers have erred precisely with regard to what I am now saying.

[ 25 ] Please read the literature written by the “smart” people—smart in the sense that I often use the word—especially as this war was approaching. They all predicted: This will decline, that will decline, the other will decline if a war breaks out. — None of that happened; rather, the exact opposite occurred. If one had thought realistically, one would have had to say: If the British Empire wants to bring its colonies closer to itself, if it wants to generate impulses there that are conducive to uniting with the mother country, then it needs war; then this war is the means to the higher, so-called national end. And wherever people think this way, the ends justify the means.

[ 26 ] Now is a time when people are being made particularly aware of this fact. When we consider the evolution of the British Empire, we must always take into account two significant currents—I am speaking of the present—that are of great importance: One is the more or less Puritan current—this term refers only to a certain aspect of it, but perhaps correctly so—which is evident in all that constitutes the excellence of the British national character. This Puritan current also largely dominated British politics until the 1890s. In the 1890s, things changed; the imperialist current became larger and more significant than the Puritan current.

[ 27 ] People had a keen instinct for the rise of imperialism. It is remarkable just how keen that instinct was. I would like to draw your attention to a curious phenomenon, because it so clearly illustrates how things are connected. When we were in London, shortly before the founding of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, Mrs. Besant was still far from being the person she later became. She has, after all, always been the person she had to be, depending on the influences acting upon her. She was extremely popular in the circles that were known as the Theosophists in London at that time. Well, she has many sides to her. Back then—it was at the beginning of the century—she gave a lecture on theosophy and imperialism. Imperialist instincts had, after all, developed very rapidly there. Mrs. Besant actually spoke out against imperialism, and it was clear that from that point on, she was finished in London, even among those who were theosophists at the time. A few personal friends stood by her, but she was ostracized because she dared to speak out against imperialism. It is in such matters that the forces reveal themselves which, when one penetrates them, truly lead one to recognize the greater connections.

[ 28 ] Until very recently, there was still something Puritanical at work in England. Although puppets and marionettes were running the show, there was still something Puritanical about these marionettes—in Asquith, in Grey. That had to go in order to do justice to the impulses I have spoken of, and what has now taken its place is the most willing puppet of all for everything I have described to you. But everything Puritan is gone. Now we see, on the one hand, the negative aspect: the cynical rejection of the idea of peace, with the hypocritical justification that one rejects it precisely because one wants peace. But today, after all, one can say the most absurd things with impunity, without anyone taking offense. That is the negative aspect. The positive aspect is an event of the greatest conceivable importance: the convening of the colonial ministers, which is one of the first acts of this man who, through a negative miracle, was able to rise to a leading position in the world. Now the public is beginning to take notice. But the public first had to be confronted with the underlying reality, whereas it has long been clear to those who live by genuine ideas. Yet one cannot find one’s bearings in reality unless one has a disposition to grasp genuine ideas. For only then will one view the external world in this way: One sees something and considers it insignificant; one sees it again and again and still does not consider it important; by the fourth or fifth time, one considers it important because it is a significant symptom that heralds things to come. Not everything is of equal importance, but for that which is important, one must have an understanding, and this is acquired only by allowing those impulses to enter the soul that arise solely on a spiritual-scientific foundation.

[ 29 ] Incidentally, I was recently given a very interesting essay by a much-loved British writer—who is now a journalist and is also in the military—and, judging by everything he writes, it shows how he is connected to the threads that are being woven. What he recently wrote in the London Magazine is significant enough. It was handed to me, as they say, by chance. Yet there is no chance involved. It is, after all, interesting what this military writer—who, as I said, is connected to the threads that steer events—writes about the current situation:

[ 30 ] “The English people have always had the will to conquer, and they still have it today. It is with this lofty conviction that we will fight this war to the end. The thought of our unshakable determination to win is the noblest thing we can leave to our descendants, the sons and daughters of England and its glorious overseas territories... When peace is concluded, we will hold one million square miles of German colonial territory. We will then have at our disposal millions of men seasoned in war. Our naval supremacy will be greater than ever. We are providing the world with irrefutable proof that our empire is united and indivisible, that our spirit is indomitable, and that the martial qualities of our country are worthy of those of our glorious past. England is currently bearing the moral and material stamp of power to an extent never before imagined. How will we stand at the conclusion of the peace? Taking the army, the fleet, and our resources together, we will be the world’s leading military power.”

[ 31 ] It seems a bit peculiar to believe that one must fight “militarism” so urgently, and yet now hold up the goal of being the world’s leading military power as a lofty ideal!

“We will be recognized as the backbone of the Allies.”

[ 32 ] This is something that people in France should probably read.

“We have been assigned the leading role among the Allies, and leadership of Europe rightfully belongs to us.”

[ 33 ] Now he makes Kipling's words his own, which are: “We have the men, the ships, and the money.”

“Parliament would now have to approve the military’s funding needs for a number of years in advance, and then the matter would be deferred indefinitely.”

[ 34 ] In such matters, however, the impulses and instincts associated with the strings being pulled come to the fore. One can view these things with complete objectivity, without taking sides in the sense that certain well-meaning but short-sighted patriots do. Why shouldn’t one see such things? They are, after all, objective facts! For what lives in the impulses of humanity are precisely objective facts that give rise to historical events.

[ 35 ] As far as we must stay from taking sides with one or the other, it is all the more important—especially when we are speaking in lectures—that we try to discuss matters with complete objectivity. And you will see that as soon as one speaks with complete objectivity, the facts themselves provide the evidence.

[ 36 ] After all, one cannot gain an understanding of the world if one is not willing to engage with the facts. For this so-called reply from the Entente, this New Year’s Eve gift to the world—yes, my dear friends, a document drafted in this manner is unlikely to exist anywhere, no matter how far back one looks in the course of history, both in terms of its foundation and its entire structure and composition. And one must say that what is written there—and what will have the most grave consequences—is best understood by going over every single sentence and being clear about this: What is written there is completely irrelevant! — What matters is that what I have described lies behind it, that this is what is intended. One would, of course, be careful not to state this explicitly. But if one asks: Can this be achieved through negotiations? — then one must, of course, answer no. This cannot, of course, be achieved through peace negotiations. It can only be achieved by truly securing guarantees, and guarantees lie in power; the guarantees consist in the fact that the one who wants the guarantees has sole authority to decide, while all others have none, and that this is brought about by the balance of power. Of course, this is still far from being achieved. But to harbor illusions that this is being strived for would be quite irresponsible in light of the sense of truth that a person must possess.

[ 37 ] No one will assume that what I am saying is directed against the British people, for I wanted to distinguish between the British people and those whom I refer to, using a trivial expression, as “puppet masters”—those who are behind what is happening, as has been sufficiently characterized. Nor is it necessary to identify with such impulses, although it certainly cannot be my task to prevent anyone from identifying with them. Nor will I prevent anyone—not even in thought or feeling—from identifying with these impulses within our movement. But they must speak the truth and not claim that they identify with the ideal of the rights of small nations and the like; rather, they must be clear that their will is to rule the world. Then we understand one another in truth, and that is what matters. Then we will make progress if people are truthful. If they say what is truly the case, then we will make progress. Then, no matter how bad this truth may be—we will make more progress than with falsehood. And that is what we should take particularly to heart: We make more progress with it than with falsehood.

[ 38 ] Certainly, it would be foolish to believe that one can prevent any world empire from pursuing its goals through all sorts of persuasive arguments or proposals. Certainly, it would be foolish to become moralistic and apply all sorts of moral standards. That is precisely why I recounted the history of the Opium War to you—to distract you from these moral standards. But this is what matters: to speak the truth, to tell the truth. And it would be much better for the world—though not for those who are considered the masterminds behind it all—if it were stated bluntly and cynically: This is what is intended.

[ 39 ] Well, in this particular area, what must serve as our guiding principle and goal is this: “Wisdom lies only in truth.”