The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourth Lecture

[ 1 ] Even when we reflect on current events, as we are doing now—reflections that we then wish to expand into certain perspectives— perspectives that can only be attained through spiritual science—even when engaging in such reflections, we must always bear in mind that we have reached the Age of the Conscious Soul in the stream of human evolution, and that it is precisely the task of people today to view things from the standpoint of our entry into the Age of the Conscious Soul. The fundamental impulse of our present time will be such that only those who seek to understand, from the recent past and the more distant past, the forces at work in the present—and who have the good will to understand—will be able to rise to the challenges that the difficult present and future will demand of humanity. For even though many circumstances are such that forces are thrown into disarray, that chaotic conditions arise—oh, far more chaotic conditions could yet arise than there are now—within the chaos, however, the continuations of those forces that were already there still live on. And only those who understand the forces that were already there and that continue—forces that may continue in a highly disguised form, but which nonetheless continue from earlier times—will understand the chaos. But the demands placed upon humanity, too, must be understood to a far greater extent than many people can yet imagine today.

[ 2 ] Yesterday I pointed out that we will have to develop an understanding of the truth that reigns in things. It is certainly true that very many people today have absolutely no conception of the truth that reigns in things. Many people still do not believe that truth or untruth reigns within things themselves, within events, and that one can surrender to one or the other, because they have only the abstract notion that truth is the subjective correspondence between what one imagines and something that is happening outside oneself. But in events—particularly insofar as they concern human life—truth or untruth reigns, and it makes no difference whether a person is aware of certain untruths or not, for the worst untruths very often pulsate within human life as subconscious forces, never reaching up into human consciousness at all. But it is precisely in the present that we must come to know these subconscious forces; we must bring them up into consciousness. This is extraordinarily difficult for many, and focusing first on what is immediately at hand can make the task easier; it is important to approach current events in such a way that they can, so to speak, teach us something. But it is not entirely easy, because it is not entirely comfortable from one perspective or another. One has, of course, heard various opinions in recent years—as I have already mentioned—opinions from this or that standpoint. From a certain superficial point of view, of course, one could not hold either perspective against anyone. It was regrettable, however, that so little attention was paid to the deeper forces at work in these immense, catastrophic events; and it is also regrettable that people have repeatedly fallen back into the old comfort zone of judging by outward appearances—I won’t say by catchphrases, but by catch-all terms and simplistic notions. Even though the events have called for entirely different judgments, people have continued to judge according to the old ways, and even today, in many cases, they still judge according to the old ways, instead of truly taking a moment to consider the great questions that every day actually raises.

[ 3 ] Precisely in light of what I suggested at the beginning of yesterday’s reflections—immersing oneself in the truth of the facts—it is important to consider something now. In many respects, we are only at the beginning, but in some respects, decisive events have also taken place. What has occurred is perhaps what even the victorious powers of the present had envisioned—albeit in a different way—regarding the fate of the Central Powers after victory. The way things have turned out is unlikely to have been exactly what they had imagined, at least after four and a half years. But there is something connected to these decisions that should become clear to the spiritual scientist upon a completely objective assessment of the situation. The war, after all, has long since ceased to be a war, and what people still imagine—that a peace might be concluded in the coming weeks, or, I don’t even know when—will naturally look just like the curious Peace of Brest-Litovsk and everything else that is currently called peace. It is merely an old habit to still believe that these catastrophic events can end with an ordinary peace treaty, just as it is an old habit to believe that the war has remained a war—which it has not been for a long time—for behind it lay that which can manifest itself, I might say, through trifles in more abbreviated forms.

[ 4 ] You can see today that the so-called German Revolution—the revolution in the former German Empire—has taken on a peculiar form. Most people, both in Germany and outside of Germany, probably never imagined that things would take such a turn. They have taken this turn because the historical symptoms—I have, after all, spoken to you at considerable length about historical symptoms—simply point to deeper underlying causes, and ultimately a symptom could play out in one way or another. Ultimately, what is happening now is merely the consequence of a certain party within Germany wanting to play its last trump card—a party that was determined to preserve this Germany at all costs—a final gamble: the aim was to prompt the fleet, which had not yet been deployed—or at least only in minor operations—to carry out a final attack, a final operation. The sailors did not go along with this, and so it was the sailors themselves who set the stage—in form only, of course—for the revolution that subsequently took place.

[ 5 ] It was not for nothing that I spoke to you about historical symptomatology, so that at least in your case—and this should be very much the case for people of the present and the future—the following might hold true: the assessment of current events based on symptoms—which should not be taken at face value as in ancient history, but rather as symptoms, as revelations of realities that lie behind these symptoms, so that one must evaluate and weigh these symptoms. But just as these decisions—these preliminary decisions—now stand, they are the starting point for matters that, after so much has long been misjudged—misjudged under various influences—should now at least be judged more correctly by some people.

[ 6 ] You see: All that has been committed—if I may use that expression—by the Central Powers, all the sins committed by the various rulers, and all the falsehoods surrounding these events will come to light. Events have unfolded in such a way that, in the relatively near future, the world will learn, down to the smallest detail, everything that the Central European rulers have done wrong. And I myself will share what I know about these events—and I can only say that karma has also given me the opportunity to know quite, quite a lot about the decisive aspects of this case in particular—and, if I live long enough, do everything in my power to ensure that truth replaces what has been presented to the world thus far. But on the other hand, the events are such that this does not seem likely to happen. Of course, you should know from the very things that have been discussed here over the years that not a single falsehood of lesser significance has prevailed on the other side. Do you believe that these will also be laid out before people in minute detail? There isn’t even the basis for such an assessment! Not even the intellectual basis for such an assessment exists; rather, all the evidence is there to ensure that the truth remains concealed.

[ 7 ] If I were to assess the mood with which events were judged in August, September, and October, November 1914—in light of what the Central Powers had done—in neutral countries and in enemy countries, and compare it with the goodwill with which the Central Powers’ outrageously cruel armistice terms are now regarded, with that general, strange silence with which people gloss over the fact that these armistice terms, as they were—and as they will indeed remain even after being moderated—are a veritable death sentence, then I notice a difference, a truly enormous difference in the will to judge. For this difference in the will to judge also stems from the fact that there was no will to judge in August, September, October, and November 1914, and so on. There are certain matters I can perhaps only speculate on—matters which, as I said, will eventually become known to the world—while right now it is not at all necessary to do anything other than read paragraph by paragraph in order to reach a judgment. I know that I am speaking to deaf ears—to deaf ears in many quarters—but why shouldn’t I, when one has the obligation to speak the truth without sympathy or antipathy, pure in its objectivity—even at this very moment, when it may be unwelcome in this particular context? Why shouldn’t the truth be spoken, since I cannot know how much longer it will be permitted to speak even such truths? I truly do not speak these things to express any sympathy or antipathy, but rather to fulfill my duty by articulating a hard-won insight. In the Age of the Conscious Soul, it is precisely necessary to approach things with knowledge, and to make that knowledge the impulse for one’s actions and, in particular, the impulse for insight. And insight is necessary—as I have emphasized again and again in recent days—insight will be necessary for the people of the Age of Consciousness.

[ 8 ] It will become clear to the world that all the talk that has raged for the past four and a half years regarding the so-called question of guilt was, in fact, nothing more than superficial chatter. What has taken place is far more a tragedy in a higher sense than one can speak of any kind of guilt, for one cannot speak of guilt when, for example, incompetence plays a major role in a sequence of events. Certainly, as I have explained to you, incompetence played an enormous role, for example, among those in positions of authority in the Central Powers—but specifically, it was absolute intellectual incompetence, as well as an inability to assess the situation, a lack of judgment, and the like. It will be necessary to take a hard look at certain realities. I want to point out just one thing.

[ 9 ] Isn’t it true that, when driven by passion, one can judge, condemn, misjudge, and so on, very, very many things? Yes, anyone who speaks on the basis of facts—who knows the facts—must answer certain questions, which are extraordinarily important historical questions, with sharp clarity. You see, of course, things always look different from different points of view. There are various reasons one can cite for why a war broke out in August 1914, with Germany attacking France. I have already drawn attention to some of them. One can say: Only those who truly have the will to speak precisely can express the facts correctly regarding these circumstances. It hung by a hair, one might say; had it not been for that, there would have been no war on two fronts in August 1914, but rather the admittedly inevitable war against Russia. I am speaking now from the perspective of the Central Powers; naturally, the matter looks different from the other side. It hung by a hair. What was it hanging by? What is this “hair”? Well, you see, the gentleman who is now said to be in Holland—and whom foreign countries in particular have taken so incredibly seriously, which was a great injustice done to the German people—was, as you can see from my account a few days ago, an extraordinarily indiscreet man. Isn’t it true that when—as I’ve told you—an alliance was proposed to him over the years by Russia and France, which would have resulted in a Russia-France-Germany alliance against England, he boasted in 1908, during the famous Daily Telegraph affair, that he had immediately informed his grandmother of this proposal from Russia and France and had thereby rendered a great service to the British Empire. One could ask authoritative sources what actually happened with the invasion of Belgium. After all, this gentleman I am referring to was the supreme commander and had the power to decide. Said gentleman—please do not object that many people in Europe already knew this—but said gentleman simply did not know that Belgium was being invaded until July 29, 1914. And why? Because they couldn’t tell him; for if they had told him today, the whole world would have known about it tomorrow, once all those people—like Sven Hedin and so on—who admired him so much had come to him. What kind of anomaly is this, when a war plan must be drawn up strategically for certain reasons—reasons that are precisely based on strategy—and yet the supreme commander is not allowed to know the most crucial point, the very starting point, at all! Can anything come of this that can then be judged in the usual way?

[ 10 ] Now, the situation was such that, due to the European political landscape—well, that is, due to the very, very innocent Entente powers—who, in their own view, are entirely innocent, aren’t they, of the outbreak of this war—due to these very innocent Entente powers, the opinion had arisen in Germany for the first time in a long time, since the 1890s, perhaps even earlier: We must one day wage a war on two fronts, a war on the left and on the right. — I don’t know what the situation is like in other countries, whether they draw up war plans in eight days! In Germany, that was not the case. Drawing up such a war plan takes a very long time. One makes changes to individual, very minor parts of it, but it takes a very long time. This war plan had been worked on for decades; certainly, details were modified, but in terms of its main thrust, it had been worked on for decades and was complete in every detail. You must not forget that you have to view the matter purely from a military standpoint; now, surely, it will be possible to assess it somewhat more objectively, since the military standpoint in the world, it seems, has been overcome! If you assess the matter purely from a military standpoint, you will judge it more objectively. Every single train and everything that needs to be loaded must be specified; the departure of every single train from here and there, the advance of every single soldier, is laid out in such a war plan.

[ 11 ] Well, events unfolded in rapid succession. I won’t go into everything in full here, but I’d just like to offer a brief glimpse; perhaps the opportunity will arise someday to present the full story in all its details before the world. The circumstances that led to this dreadful catastrophe unfolded so rapidly that, within Germany during the last days of July, the question actually arose from a wide variety of quarters: Should war be waged against France or not? If it becomes necessary to wage war against France, will it be necessary—not from a political standpoint, but from a military one—to wage war against France? — The supreme commander, who was perhaps capable of changing his mind every half hour, had repeatedly resolved not to march the army westward at all, but only eastward. And it all hung by a thread in the conduct of the British government; if that had been the case, strange things would indeed have happened, but it would have been a matter of basing a certain judgment—I might say—on a curious foundation. Among the contradictory orders, one had already been issued not to advance westward at all, but only eastward. There was a specific reason against this, and from that reason, if you consider it carefully, you can see how strange the course of world events is. There was the fact that the German General Staff had drawn up a war plan that envisaged a two-front war, but no war plan that envisaged only a one-front war, because such a scenario could not be strategically foreseen given the circumstances in Europe. And the commander-in-chief once received the following reply: “Yes, we simply cannot do that, because if we are to march only to the east, we will have an undisciplined, wild, and chaotic mob.” Our war plan is designed for two fronts; we have no choice but to march westward. — Well, order must be maintained, but one truly cannot—even if one were to give such a response to a matter—say that there was somehow a mischievous intention to instigate this or that, but rather something entirely different. And it is by no means certain that, had there been time to devise a war plan in which the march to the west was not a prerequisite for the entire war plan, all those events would have occurred without the march to the west. I am not addressing the question of whether that would have been a colossal blunder in world history, for I myself do not believe for a moment that, had the German army marched eastward, the French would have remained calmly passive. But I am simply recounting facts, not conjectures or hypotheses; facts that are capable of guiding judgment in an objective, realistic direction.

[ 12 ] I would like to convey just how infinitely reckless it is to discuss the question of guilt in one way or another, especially in light of the confusing Red, Blue, Yellow, and Flash-Blue Books that have been cobbled together—books that can be interpreted in any direction and used to make all sorts of claims. You may be inclined to suspect that behind the entire sequence of events—which you view more as symptoms—there lies something deeper than what can be superficially judged, as has often been the case in recent years. You must take this into account, as I have now only tentatively hinted at. The events underlying this catastrophic world crisis are, after all, simply unbelievable. One must simply acknowledge them as facts if one wishes to base a judgment on them. And the situation is no different in the so-called Entente countries.

[ 13 ] But what humanity has called war—and what it has believed would be replaced by peace—has now given rise to something that is only just beginning. I said here at a certain point in time: Look at the events unfolding within Russia, and when considering questions of the future, you will find something far more important than what people have been speaking of in recent times—still in a very illusory way—as a war and the peace that was supposed to follow it.

[ 14 ] Much has been unleashed. But at the very least, we should understand what it is that has been unleashed. You see: In reality, hardly any literary or authorial works have had such an immensely broad impact as those of Karl Marx. In 1848, he published the so-called “Communist Manifesto,” which briefly summarized the main tenets of the social-democratic worldview. This Communist Manifesto concluded with the words: “Workers of the world, unite!” — From the same Karl Marx, supported by his friend Engels, came the book on “Political Economy” and the book “Capital.” The principles underlying these books have indeed become, throughout the entire world, the knowledge and worldview of the leading proletariat. In the most compelling way, the leading proletariat has engaged with and embraced what Marxism truly is.

[ 15 ] Even when viewed from the outside—though this outward aspect is perhaps precisely the most important inner aspect—Karl Marx and his achievements are something that, I would say, was born out of the civilized world of Europe and, in turn, has had a profound impact deep within the territory of this civilized world, into the proletarian world, the proletarian part of the civilized world. Karl Marx’s personality and work are not entirely straightforward. First, they possess a very specific underlying structure. This is an innate acumen—an extraordinary acumen—that always has a certain effect. Isn’t it true that one can illustrate this effect using something that seems quite distant, yet which can help clarify the matter? Consider this: the most bourgeois, the most philistine, the quintessential narrow-minded philosopher, Kant, Immanuel Kant—especially for academic philistines, he is, after all, the foundational philosopher—why is he actually regarded as so particularly witty? Well, I have yet to meet a university professor who has understood Hegel or Schelling, but I have met some—even university professors—who have at least acquired a rough understanding of Kant. So they think: I am a clever man—that is, of course, how such a gentleman thinks—and since it took me such an effort to understand Kant and I finally did understand him, then Kant must also be a clever man; and since it took me, as such an exceptional man, such an effort to understand him, then Kant must be the most exceptional of all people. — That’s roughly the sentiment these people have. It is the philistine sentiment that then spreads to the academic philistines and their entourage—their journalistic and other followers. Something similar also influenced the proletariat in their understanding of Karl Marx, who was a very astute man. There are some difficulties in understanding him. The proletarian exerts himself more than many an average philistine—or rather, average bourgeois—is inclined to do, even when reading proletarian books. The proletarian does indeed make a greater effort to understand Karl Marx; in particular, he also appreciates the effort it requires. It truly takes more effort to grasp the impulses of the proletarian world in Karl Marx’s books than it perhaps took the bourgeoisie to understand their economists. But very few actually do that; instead, a number of particularly well-fed bourgeois have contented themselves with learning about proletarian life from Hauptmann’s *Webern*. There, one can very nicely combine pleasure with learning, and so on. That is the first thing about Karl Marx: a certain innate acumen.

[ 16 ] But then it cannot be denied that dialectics plays a major role in Karl Marx’s work. This dialectic—this ability to work with concepts, which most people today completely lack (our entire official science lacks this dialectic)—this art of working with concepts as realities—Karl Marx derived from Hegel, for in this respect he was a student of Hegel. So one can say: Karl Marx drew his dialectic—the art of working with concepts—from German culture. — He drew his socialist impetus from French culture, where Saint-Simon and Louis Blanc in particular exerted a great influence on him, so that he combined what the German Hegelian developed in finely crafted, vivid, sharply defined concepts with the revolutionary impulse, the revolutionary impetus of a Saint-Simon and Louis Blanc. And this, in turn—what was within him—could only find expression in the way it did: by Karl Marx going to London, to England, and there, through the study of economic conditions, thoroughly examining this entire way of thinking and this way of feeling — one derived from the German tradition, the other from the French — to English conditions, thereby applying the whole concept exclusively to material economic conditions. Thus, what was born in this way, as I have described it to you: the proletarian emerging from the age of industry and machinery, from mechanization—which, at its source, could only be observed in England, since it had initially found expression only there up until the year 1848—was grasped by Karl Marx through Hegelian dialectics. And what was grasped through Hegelian dialectics is imbued with—I would say—the sheer force of the entire revolutionary impetus of a Louis Blanc or a Saint-Simon. So you see: composed of German, French, and English elements, based on the astute Semitism that ran in Karl Marx’s blood—since he was Jewish—this is, of course, meant entirely objectively— it is from these four ingredients that the intellectual-chemical compound was formed—the very thing that Karl Marx provided to the proletariat as its most effective weapon—for it is an intellectual weapon. Hence, too, its penetrating effect, this boundless effect. Of course, this has been further disseminated in numerous popular writings. All circumstances have been judged from this point of view.

[ 17 ] Yes, certainly, what has developed over the course of decades—one can really only assess it properly by, for example, let’s say, having gained knowledge of it; well, I mean, by looking at how some professor in bourgeois circles spoke about Lessing, and then how Lessing was discussed in proletarian circles from a Marxist perspective. The two are really quite different from one another.

[ 18 ] You see, the impact of this Marxism is by no means over. For this Marxism contains something very significant. Through this Marxism—which arose, as it were, when a German well-versed in Hegel, having come to London via France due to the circumstances there, applied what lay in his thinking from Hegel’s school and what lay in his sensibilities from Louis Blanc and Saint-Simon to the external, purely material conditions of the modern world— it is indeed through this that what constitutes the most modern impulse of the British state—the state, not the British people, but the state, the state structure, the social order—has made its way into the world. This is only the beginning of this process. The first phase of this process is already Marxism. You must not forget: superimposed upon all this is everything that, in the very best sense, constitutes English tradition in many areas; for a clear distinction must indeed be made between what, for example, is English tradition and that monstrosity—the British Empire—which has formed not only on the basis of British folklore but also on the geographical conditions of the modern era and the entire historical context. The first influence is, so to speak, Marxism. These influences will continue. For all manner of future prospects will arise from what now lies as a foundation. Above all, the following must be taken into consideration today.

[ 19 ] You see, the role played by the German element in modern civilization is, in essence, quite different from that of other national elements. After all, you can see this in the details. The world has become accustomed to identifying the German element with the Central Powers. Well, what do these Germans, as Germans, actually have to do with one empire or the other? What do the Germans of Austria have to do with the Habsburg monarchy? The Germans of Austria would never be the most hated people in Italy if they hadn’t been treated by the House of Habsburg in exactly the same way as the small proportion of Italians who were under the House of Habsburg. The Germans have suffered at least as much at the hands of the House of Habsburg as any Italian has suffered, except that the Germans now face the tragedy of being hated by those with whom they shared the same suffering. And so it is across the board. There is a lack of understanding of the thoroughly non-national character of the Germans, who were the leaven of Europe but never possessed any national character or anything remotely nationalistic. This is not part of the fundamental German character; it has been grafted onto it from various quarters. This “German” had nothing special to do with either the House of Habsburg, under which it was subjugated, or with the other ruling house, and there is no reason to confuse the German essence with it. Yet this is what happens in the world, and it happens, one might say, with a certain delight. It also happens among peoples who truly faced no obstacle to feeling themselves as a unity—perhaps with the sole exception of a few splinter groups that have been torn from them. But one should not forget the main point: the German people were never actually predisposed to form any kind of unity. The very best qualities would be lost if the Germans were to live in such a way as to form an abstract unity, a national unity. Of course, under the influence of certain European impulses, certain aspirations toward unity—such as those seen in Italy—have existed within the German people in an inorganic way—never in Goethe’s case, for example, but in others. They were strong from 1848 into the 1850s and 1860s. But this always proceeded, above all, in parallel with a longing inherent in the German spirit to immerse itself in the world. And this has indeed been achieved on a very special scale. Just consider that you will hardly find literary works from one people to another that are as insightful in their appreciation of other peoples as those found within German literature. There is, for example, a beautiful book that truly does justice, in an intimate way, to the most beautiful, significant, and meaningful impulses that were at work in the French spirit from the Revolution to the Second Napoleon—a book titled *The French Form of Government and Bonapartism*, a book that lovingly explores precisely the most significant impulses in French development during the nineteenth century. The author of this book is Heinrich von Treitschke. The book was written between 1865 and 1871. It is a comprehensive appreciation of the French spirit and the Italian essence in this book by Heinrich von Treitschke: *The French Form of Government and Bonapartism*. I could cite all sorts of interesting details from it, from which you would gain insight into truths that the world is not inclined to heed. Certainly, there has never been such an insightful discussion of the English and American character by a foreigner as that which Herman Grimm presents regarding the Americans and the English.

[ 20 ] Of course, one must not forget that all sorts of other factors—ones that do not stem from German folklore—have also played a role. I won’t even go into the absurdity of confusing “German-ness” with something as un-German as possible: “Pan-Germanism,” as it has come to be called. Well, it is simply foolish to try to measure German identity against “Pan-Germanism.” There’s no other way to put it. But if, at any time, efforts did arise to bring about something like German unity—which, in any case, would not have lasted very long—well, just study the history from 1866 to 1870 and see what was said in France at the time about the sought-after German unity! They could not tolerate it; they did not want it under any circumstances.

[ 21 ] These are the very things that raise the question: Why, in fact, is there so much railing against the German spirit? — And there is a source of untruth in the world that is truly dreadful, and which will be the starting point for effective untruth. But that which constitutes the German essence—and which, in a certain sense, has been disorganized since 1871—will surely have its role to play in the world, even if speaking of the German essence’s role is an abomination to many people today. It will, after all, have its mission in the world. If you have asked any sensible person up to now—I would like to cite Heinrich Heine, for example, among those sensible people who have expressed themselves particularly clearly on the matter—two poles have been identified, from which two entirely different fundamental directions of human thought have long since emerged. We will have to go into this in more detail later. I once told a lady who asked me during my last visit here in 1917 what the mission of Judaism in the world is: “The time will surely come when I will have to speak about that.”

[ 22 ] Heinrich Heine identified these two poles, from which, in a sense, the impulses that exist within humanity—from a certain point of view—draw their sustenance: Heinrich Heine identified Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism on the other. Now, Judaism has always had to prove itself the guardian of the great seal for the human capacity for abstraction, for the human capacity to unify ways of thinking and worldviews. Greek culture has always had the task of bringing to the world that which lives in imagery and the imaginative element. The worldview and outlook on life of the modern proletariat has, for the time being, absorbed everything from Judaism, but nothing yet from Greek culture, because it completely lacks the imaginative element. It will still have to acquire this. In the course of time to come, the third will then emerge, for all things consist of a trinity, and German culture will join Judaism and Greek culture in the course of time—that will be the trinity—when that materialism has taken a heavy toll on the modern world in the age of the consciousness soul, which began with that phase that was radiated into the world from the British Empire through Marxism.

[ 23 ] This materialism, which will outshine the world from the British Empire and America, has indeed laid its foundations; let us not forget that these foundations are solidly laid. And such factors must be taken into account: for example, immediately before the war, England—and at that time Russia as well, though that is no longer a factor—France, Belgium, and Portugal together held 23% million square miles of colonial territory, with 470 million people living in those colonies. Germany and the United States together had only 1 million square miles of colonial territory with 23 million people; things will be different now, won’t they? The English-speaking population is now united. So: England, France, Portugal, Belgium, and then, to a lesser extent, Russia: 23¾ million square miles with 470 million people; in contrast, Germany and the United States—who have now, after all, “redeemed” the world—had 1 million English square miles of colonial territory and 23 million people. The foundation is well laid. For this reason, a materialistic and increasingly materialistic culture—one concerned solely with economic conditions—will develop; a culture whose primary emphasis, whose primary nuance, has arisen precisely from this, for it is already inherent in the starting point. One need only compare Lassalle with Karl Marx—Lassalle, who, after all, shares only certain similarities with Karl Marx: natural acumen and Hegelianism—but he did not undergo that process, nor did he embody the French or English essence, as Karl Marx did. Hence, he possesses a certain dialectical, and also a certain astute, understanding of the modern labor movement, but lacks the effective power inherent in the Marxist system. This Marxist system arose precisely because the dialectic of the German spirit drew its content from material culture—from the pure material culture of British society, of the British social context, not of the national character, but of the imperial context, of the emerging empire.

[ 24 ] Well, events have lasting effects. What has happened will almost completely eliminate French national character from future trends; it will have only little significance from now on. French national character is certainly among the defeated. It must most certainly be taken into account when considering the future—and I will speak to you in greater detail about this tomorrow—that, due to the constellation of events, French national character has been sidelined and will have no future influence in the world. World domination is simply passing to the English-speaking empires.

[ 25 ] But if the first pole was created by Karl Marx immersing himself in the material conditions of the British Empire using a certain dialectic he drew from the Hegelian school, the future will bring about something else entirely. Today, of course, this can be twisted in all sorts of directions, and one might say that what I am saying is merely a continuation—well, I don’t know what other kinds of nonsense still exist in the world—of German plans for world conquest or something of the sort. And yet it must be said—and this is a truth as firmly established in perspective as other truths: just as the German Hegelian Marx went to England—to material England—in order to absorb the first phase of material culture from there, so too, when this material culture—which will, of course, follow an ascending and a descending curve and will destroy a certain kind of spirituality— — when this material culture has given rise to a counter-movement from within the English people themselves, when those of whom I have already spoken—who rebel, for example, against the most dreadful principle of utilitarianism: “The greatest good of mankind consists in the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” a principle against which protests are already being raised today, particularly from occultist quarters— will be heard; once things have reached the point where that which spreads from the British Empire as a material culture—scorching the earth and eradicating the spiritual—as world domination in the age of the soul of consciousness, once this has spread, then opposition will arise from within the British people themselves. People will feel the need to turn to what remains of Goetheanism, which is rooted in German folklore, in order to seek from it the impulse for how the world can be restored to health. People will turn to the third element. Just as people studied Jewish impulses long after Judaism had fallen as a political power, and just as all of modern education, after the Romans destroyed Greek civilization, is based on Greek civilization, so too will the world’s healing one day be based on what is drawn from German Goetheanism. A monument should one day be erected to this end. Whatever fate this monument may itself meet, what matters is the decision: that the decision has once been made.