The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] Last time, in the reflections on current events taking place here among us, I pointed out the need for a social structure shaped by the impulses of our time. I want to emphasize explicitly that this is by no means a program I intended to develop; for, as you know, I have absolutely no regard for programs—programs are abstractions. What I have spoken to you about is not meant to be an abstraction, but rather a reality. I have presented the matter in the following way to the various people to whom I have spoken over the past few years about these social impulses as a necessity. I have said: What is meant here—and which is by no means an abstract program—is destined to be realized in the world over the next twenty to thirty years through these historical impulses. You have a choice—that is how one could speak at the time to people who still had a choice; today they no longer do—either to accept reason and engage with such things, or to experience how these things will come to pass through cataclysms and revolutions in the most chaotic manner. There is simply no other alternative for these matters in the course of world history. And today, more than ever, there is a need to understand these things, which are drawn from the impulses truly at work in the world. Today, as I have repeatedly emphasized, is not a time when anyone can simply say, “I believe that this or that is happening or should happen”—but rather, today is a time when only those who are able to observe what is striving to come to fruition over the course of time can effectively speak about the necessities of the age.

[ 2 ] Well, first and foremost, the point is that I could, of course, only give you a rough outline of what I must regard as a necessity that is striving to become a reality. And today I want—I would say, just to provide a point of reference—to briefly repeat that the issue at hand is that this confusion in the social structure, which has gradually led to the catastrophic events of recent years throughout the world, must be replaced—simply must be replaced—by that threefold social structure I spoke to you about last time. You have seen that this threefold division amounts to the fact that what until now has, in a confused manner, formed the basis of the unified—or seemingly unified—state organization must dissolve into separate spheres. It will dissolve into the three spheres, the first of which I have designated as that of the political or security order; the second as the sphere of social organization, of economic organization; and the third as the sphere of free spiritual production. These three spheres—and indeed, over the course of the next few decades, this will become apparent even to those who are unwilling to understand it today—these three spheres will organize themselves independently in every direction. And one can only escape the great dangers that the world would otherwise continue to face by engaging with these matters and seeking to understand them. But one will understand them only if one truly engages with these matters. To ensure that what follows is not misunderstood, I would like to emphasize once more: We are not here to solve the social question, nor to discuss it in any theoretical way. From the preceding remarks, you will have seen that it exists, that it must be accepted as a fact, and that it must be grasped and understood in the same way as a natural phenomenon.

[ 3 ] Now you will have seen that everything I outlined here last Sunday as the necessary impulses for the future is suited to overcoming—in a legitimate and lawful manner—the remnants of the past that have remained in our social structure and that have thoroughly entangled us. Above all, if you reflect more deeply on the practical implications of what I presented last Sunday, you will see that these practical implications of the social structure I spoke of are suited to overcoming—and indeed, overcoming appropriately—that which is being inappropriately overcome by those who call themselves socialists but who live more on illusions than on reality. What must be overcome—as I said, upon deeper reflection this will become clear to you from what was said last Sunday—is the division of the social structure into estates. What must be achieved in keeping with the age of consciousness in which we live, the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, is that the individual should take the place of the old estate divisions. It would therefore be utterly disastrous to confuse what I elaborated here last Sunday with what still frequently carries over from bygone eras into our present social structure. From Greek civilization, that which the laws governing world events seek to overcome carries over into our social structure: the division of humanity into the productive class, the military class, and the scholarly class. This is precisely what is to be overcome by what I explained to you last Sunday; for it is the division into estates that brings chaos into our present social structure. This division is overcome precisely by the fact that people are not classified into estates in any way according to the division I spoke of here last Sunday. These estates will disappear quite naturally. This is the direction of the historical necessity: that relationships be structured, and that human beings—precisely as human beings, as living beings, not as abstractions but as living beings—bring about the connection between the three elements. When I speak of the need to move toward political justice, economic organization, and free intellectual production, I am not referring to a division into the productive, military, and intellectual classes, but rather to the fact that social relations will be structured in this way, and that human beings as such can no longer belong to any particular class once social relations are truly structured in this manner. Human beings, as human beings, stand within the social structure and constitute precisely the connecting link between what is structured within these relationships. There will not be a particular economic class or a particular class based on livelihood, but rather a structure of economic relationships will exist. Likewise, there will not be a specific professional class for the educated, but rather the conditions will be such that intellectual production is free in and of itself. And likewise, there will not be a specific military class, but rather, what is now being strived for in a confused manner for all three branches will increasingly have to be strived for in a liberal-democratic manner for the first branch.

[ 4 ] This is precisely the point: the transition from the old era to the new era makes it necessary to view human beings as human beings in the world. We can only gain the ability to understand what our time demands by putting ourselves in a position to truly understand human beings as human beings. Of course, this can only happen through the insights derived from spiritual science.

[ 5 ] Now, as I mentioned the other day, what I have outlined for you must be viewed within the broader context of world history. I have already outlined some of the content of this broader context for you. So that I may now proceed with my description of the circumstances I began to describe last Sunday, I would like today, I would like to say, from a more occult perspective, lay a foundation once again to show you that these things cannot be approached in such a way that everyone simply makes up their own ideas that do not take the actual circumstances into account at all, but rather that they must be approached in such a way that they are truly viewed from the movement of the facts themselves. In doing so, I must start from the premise that, above all, the social structure must be built upon social understanding. That is precisely what has been lacking for decades. It is in this very area that the most mistakes have been made. Social understanding was completely absent among the vast majority of people in the ruling classes. Therefore, it is no wonder that upheavals such as those now taking place in Central Europe seem to people like something springing up out of the ground, for which they were completely unprepared. For those who possessed social understanding, this does not come as a surprise. But I fear that people will continue to be permeated by the same mindset that permeated them before 1914. Just as the World War—which, of course, loomed over everyone’s heads—took them by surprise back then, so too will people behave in exactly the same way in an even more important matter. They will once again allow what is spreading across the world as a social movement to take them by surprise. Given humanity’s current intellectual inertia, this may be just as impossible to prevent as it was to prevent people from allowing the current catastrophe to befall them unprepared.

[ 6 ] The point is, first and foremost, to recognize that people across the globe do not, in fact, act in one direction or another based on abstract ideas, but that the moment their actions have a social effect, they act in accordance with the impulses inherent in the world events in which they are caught up. A fundamental fact is still—I speak from experience, for I have been compelled to discuss these matters in recent years with people from the most diverse professions and walks of life, and I know how one was received when speaking about these things—completely disregarded by people today. This fact is that people in the East and the West—and all people will participate in shaping the future—are quite different in terms of their impulses, quite different in terms of what they want. Indeed, if one considers only one’s immediate social circle, one cannot arrive at a clear judgment about what is necessarily taking place in the world. One can reach a clear judgment only if one truly—I must use this word again—judges things according to the impulses of world events. The people of the West—that is, the Western European states along with their American allies—and the people of Eastern Europe along with the Asian hinterland will have a say in the next two to three decades; but they will speak in very different ways, because people across the globe necessarily have different conceptions of what human beings perceive—and must perceive—as the needs of their human dignity and their human nature here on Earth. One cannot speak of this unless one is willing to acknowledge that certain things must occur in the future that people would prefer to avoid.

[ 7 ] I already spoke last Sunday about how it is simply impossible for effective, fruitful social ideas to be found in the future by any means other than the one that leads to seeking truths beyond the threshold of ordinary physical consciousness. No effective social ideas can be found within ordinary physical consciousness. And so these social ideas—truly effective ones—must reach out to people, as I described last Sunday. But this also means that, in the future, we must not shy away from familiarizing ourselves, as best we can, with what actually constitutes the threshold to the spiritual world. In the realm of everyday life, and also in the realm of science, people can carry on for a long time without becoming acquainted with what the threshold to the spiritual world actually is. There, one can manage without it if necessary. With regard to social life, however, one cannot do without becoming attentive to what has always been referred to here as the threshold to the spiritual world. For there lies within the people of the present—though still unconsciously, yet striving more and more to rise into consciousness—the impulse to bring about a social structure that allows every human being to be truly human on Earth in an appropriate way.

[ 8 ] Although not entirely clear, people in the most diverse regions of our world nevertheless intuitively sense what human dignity, a dignified existence, and so on mean. Today’s abstract social democrat believes that one can readily define, in international terms, what human dignity, human rights, and so on are. This is not possible, for if one wishes to express these concepts, one must necessarily bear in mind that the true conception of the human being lies beyond the threshold to the spiritual world, since human beings belong, after all, to the spiritual-soul world. Thus, the completely accurate, comprehensive conception of what a human being is can only come from beyond the threshold of the spiritual world. In reality, that is indeed where it comes from. For even when an American, a Briton, a Frenchman, a German, a Chinese person, a Japanese person, or a Russian speaks to you about the human being and offers you concepts and ideas that are, however inadequate they may be—in their subconscious there lies something far more comprehensive, though it is something that must be grasped. And what lies there—this more comprehensive concept—strives to enter consciousness. We can therefore say: World history has progressed to the point where an image of humanity lives in people’s hearts. And without paying attention to this image of humanity, no social understanding can develop. This image lives; but it lives in the subconscious. At the moment when it strives upward into consciousness, and when it truly enters consciousness, it can only be grasped with the faculties—at least with the faculties that are comprehended and understood—with the faculties of that consciousness, which is of a supersensory nature, as taken up by sound common sense. In people who are socially engaged today, there lives an image of humanity that can remain unconscious—can remain instinctive—as long as the impulse to bring clarity to the matter does not awaken within them. But if they wish to bring it to light, they can do so only by viewing the matter in the light that comes from beyond the threshold. And here it becomes clear to the objective spiritual observer that the image of humanity that haunts souls instinctively is quite different in Westerners than in Easterners. And this will be an immensely important question in the future. It plays a role in all actual circumstances. It plays a role in the Russian turmoil, it plays a role in the Central European revolution, it plays a role in the confusion brewing in the West, all the way to America. In other words: What is brewing must be viewed—if it is to be understood—in the light of supersensible consciousness. It must be grasped with the faculties that arise from supersensible consciousness. For there is no way, starting from sensory consciousness, to understand what exists instinctively as an image of humanity in both Western and Eastern people.

[ 9 ] However, to gain this understanding, it is necessary for you to familiarize yourself with two things—the two different forms in which a certain quality, which is instinctive in human beings and of which they are thus actually possessed, finds expression in the Keeper of the Threshold. For people in both the West and the East are possessed by it. As long as it is instinctive, one is possessed by it, and only when one attains clear consciousness is one no longer possessed by it. It is necessary for you to become acquainted with the peculiar way in which such a thing now rises into real consciousness, into supersensible consciousness—that which actually possesses the human being subconsciously. In two ways, a person experiences before the Keeper of the Threshold how something like this—which stirs within their instincts, and which is therefore not themselves (for only what one consciously grasps is oneself)—manifests before them. The things that instinctively possess a person take on two forms; they appear in two forms before the Keeper of the Threshold. That is to say, when one reaches the threshold, it becomes clear that what one is instinctively possessed by takes on either one form or the other. One form can be described as the phantom form. In this case, what a person is instinctively obsessed with appears before the Keeper of the Threshold in such a way that it is like an external perception; it is then hallucinatory, but it is an external perception—it actually appears before the person and presents itself to the person as an external perception. This is the phantom character. So something that lives instinctively within a person—something that stirs within them—when they consciously encounter it before the Guardian of the Threshold, where all instincts cease, where things begin to be fully conscious and to integrate into the free life of the spirit—such an instinctively living force can appear as a ghost before the Guardian of the Threshold. Then one is rid of it as an instinct. One must not be afraid of such a thing appearing as a ghost, for it is only by seeing it objectively from the outside—by truly having before oneself as a ghost what is churning within—that one can rid oneself of it. That is one form. The other form in which such an instinctive force can appear is as a nightmare. This is not a perception from the outside, but rather an oppressive sensation or an aftereffect in a vision of what is weighing on one—an imaginative experience that one simultaneously perceives as a nightmare.

[ 10 ] Whatever lives instinctively within a person must emerge—either as a nightmare or as a ghost—if the person wishes to bring it into consciousness. Just as every instinct that lives within a person must gradually rise to the surface so that the person may become fully human, and must become either a ghost or a nightmare, for only in this way does one become free from the instinctive—just as surely must that which lives unconsciously and instinctively as human dignity, as the image of humanity in both the West and the East, step before people in one form or another and be understood, above all by sound common sense. Thus it may be that the spiritual scientist—the practicing spiritual scientist—can make it plausible that this or that appears as a nightmare, that this or that appears as a specter; but he will express what he experiences from his own perspective in such terms that he will draw upon historical or other concepts, so that what he experiences can be grasped with common sense by those who do not yet possess the occult abilities through which these things can be perceived.

[ 11 ] No excuse can ever be valid for not observing these things. For everything that is observed is clothed in such concepts that common sense can grasp them. Trust in the one who observes these things should extend only so far as to believe that he can provide inspiration; but one need not believe him. For what is said can always be seen through with common sense, provided one strives for impartiality.

[ 12 ] The situation is now such that those instincts which, in the West, exist as an image of humanity and strive toward social structure, appear as ghosts before the Keeper of the Threshold. That image of humanity which lives among the peoples of Eastern Europe and their Asian hinterland proves to be a nightmare. The occult fact is simply this: If you—where it is most pronounced—ask an American to describe what he perceives as the image of true human dignity, if you take this image, processed occultly, to the Keeper of the Threshold, and have your experiences with this image before the Keeper of the Threshold, then it appears before you as a specter. If you ask an Asian or a knowledgeable Russian to describe what they envision as the image of the human being, then this will appear as a nightmare to the one who can carry it to the Keeper of the Threshold.

[ 13 ] But what I am telling you here is merely a description of an occult experience. This occult experience is rooted in historical impulses, in historical events. For what instinctively takes shape in the hearts and souls of human beings also arises from historical foundations. The Western peoples—the British, the French, the Italians, the Spanish, and the Americans—have, simply through certain historical impulses—though not with full, clear consciousness, but rather instinctively—allowed such an image of humanity to take root in their hearts during their development from ancient times to their present state; an image that can truly be characterized correctly when one delves into these historical impulses.

[ 14 ] This image of humanity—both the Eastern and the Western image—must be replaced by what can truly be discovered through spiritual scientific research, and which alone can serve as the foundation for a genuine social order—not one ruled by ghosts, nor one ruled by nightmares. If one properly investigates the question: Why is the Western image of humanity a specter? — then, after considering all the historical underpinnings, it becomes clear that the instincts which have led to this image of humanity in the West—instincts that have, for example, now led to the so-called Wilson Program for the world, which is so widely idolized—are fundamentally rooted in the specter of the ancient Roman Empire. Everything that has developed gradually over the course of history, that actually has a thoroughly outdated—that is, Luciferic-Ahrimanic—character, that is not directly suited to the present, but is rather a specter of earlier times, is the specter of Romanism. Certainly, there is much in Western cultures that has nothing to do with Romanism. In English-speaking regions, of course, you will find much that has nothing to do with it. Even in the actual Romance-speaking countries, you will find much that has no connection to Romanism. But that is not the point; what matters is the image of the human being, insofar as he is to take his place within the social structure. Today, in these regions, this is still instinctively determined and influenced by what has taken shape within Romance culture. This is still entirely a product of the Latin way of thinking of the fourth post-Atlantean culture. It is not something that lives; it is something that haunts like the ghost of a deceased person. And it is this ghost that appears to the objective occult observer when he seeks to form a picture of what is intended to be made world-dominating from the West.

[ 15 ] It is useless to speak of these things without knowledge, for the current state of humanity no longer permits it. The point is that it is necessary to look these things squarely in the face. The specter of Romanism is haunting the West. And when I recently drew attention to what the fate of various Western peoples—namely, one particular people, the French—will be, this is connected to the fact that the French, in particular, cling most intensely to the Roman specter; that, by virtue of their entire instinctive temperament and character, they cannot break free from the Roman specter. You see, that is one aspect, the one facing the West.

[ 16 ] The other side of the matter is that a certain view of human beings is also gaining ground in the East, insofar as they are expected to fit into the social structure. This view is, however, such that the necessity of the facts will inevitably bring about what I have always spoken of: that the sixth cultural period is particularly taking shape in Eastern Europe. But if one observes the matter from the present-day standpoint, what still lives today in Eastern Europe, together with the Asian hinterland, is not the image of humanity that will develop naturally in the future—an image that humanity would be obligated to develop already today based on knowledge—but rather an image that, if one takes it and goes with it to the Guardian of the Threshold to observe it there, appears as a nightmare.

[ 17 ] And this image, too, appears as a nightmare fundamentally because the instincts that assert themselves in the East in shaping this image are nourished by a force that is still imperfect. It will, after all, only develop to its full potential in the future, during the sixth post-Atlantean cultural epoch. This force, however, needs an impulse to sustain it. Before consciousness awakens—and consciousness must awaken precisely from the East—it needs an instinctive foundation. And this instinctive foundation, which still lives today in the people of the East when they form their image of humanity, acts as an “Alp.” And just as all the impulses left over from Romanism play a role as old, derived impulses in shaping the image in the West, so too is the Alp meant to support the East, to lead it in a most mysterious way to free itself from it—just as the Alp works in such a way that one overcomes and repels it upon waking from it, so that one becomes clear about what has actually happened. This force, which is meant to work toward the East, is not something outdated, but rather something that is all the more active in the present. These are the forces emanating from the British Empire. Just as in the West the image of the human being is turned into a specter by the impulses of Romanism, so in the East the image of the human being is pressed so deeply into the human soul that what will continue to work far into the future as the aspirations of the British Empire is a nightmare.

[ 18 ] These two things cause what was conscious in the Roman Empire to live on, on the one hand, unconsciously and in a ghostly manner in the West, and that what is in the making—what is currently at work, namely the British-American impulses toward a world empire—exists as a nightmare, as a counterforce to that nightmare, in order to lead the people of the East to the conscious birth of a corresponding image of humanity.

[ 19 ] Speaking these things today is uncomfortable, and hearing them is also uncomfortable for people. But we have now entered an epoch in the development of world history in which progress can only be achieved if people, based on their knowledge and full consciousness, view the things of the world objectively and truly familiarize themselves with them objectively. There is no other way forward. And what is ultimately happening in the present is bound to compel people to reverse these events in a certain way. It really cannot go on in such a way that, just as people have long allowed themselves to be compelled to think a certain way, they now allow themselves to be compelled again—simply because in a certain part of the world things have been turned upside down—to adopt different ways of thinking. Today one can meet people who, in the space of a few weeks, have transformed themselves from “stout” — in quotation marks, of course — royalists into extreme republicans and God knows what else. They are the very same people! Well, just as nothing beneficial to humanity could ever have come from those who were compulsively royalist in the past, neither can anything beneficial come from those who today have compulsively become socialists—or, for that matter, even Bolsheviks out of genuine royalists, for such people exist as well. What is needed is neither one nor the other. What is needed is for us to realize that only that which arises from the free decision of the free human soul can be beneficial; that which a person decides for themselves, that which a person arrives at through the deliberations of their mind, through the deliberations of their heart, and above all through insight. That is what matters. Otherwise, we will experience time and again that things are viewed one way or another, guided by the constraints of circumstances. For example, someone who today calls Ludendorff a criminal, after having regarded him six weeks ago as a great military commander—if that person has no reasons for one view or the other, if he cannot do so out of the free decision of a free heart—is, in one case, just as valuable to the development of humanity as in the other. For what matters is not merely that something is abstractly correct—as a rule, one view is just as wrong as the other—but that we acquire the ability to form truly independent judgments. In this regard, spiritual science can indeed serve as a good guide for you. I experience time and again that what I say here or elsewhere in the field of spiritual science is found to be difficult to understand. This stems solely from the fact that people do not truly have the will to apply their fully sound common sense to these matters. It is found to be difficult to understand because people feel it is not convenient enough to grapple with these issues.

[ 20 ] In these reflections, I have also spoken on several occasions about this so-called military catastrophe of recent years and its unfolding up to the present day. I hope it is understood that the events of the past few weeks fully confirm what I have been saying to you and to others in this regard for years. Nothing has unfolded differently from what has been discussed here. And even the map I drew on the board here years ago—you can see it coming to fruition these days.

[ 21 ] However, the things said here must not be taken in the sense of Sunday afternoon sermons; rather, they must be taken as they are meant—as spoken from the actual impulses that have either been realized or are striving to be realized. That is why I do not wish to hold back—even if it means repeating myself at times—from drawing attention again and again to certain methodological matters. These methodological matters are of the utmost importance in the field of spiritual scientific knowledge, which our time so desperately needs. What this spiritual science does to our soul is far more necessary than the abstract familiarization with one truth or another. We see time and again how, especially in our understanding of immediate external events, the very kind of soul structure that arises from spiritual science is of service. How often have I emphasized over the years that it is actually appalling that people have repeatedly raised the convenient question: Who is to blame for this war-torn global catastrophe? Is it the Central Powers or the Entente, or is it God knows who? — whereas, fundamentally, this question of who is to blame cannot be answered at all. One must pose the question in a very specific way. What matters is asking the questions correctly. Only then can one arrive at a sufficient, thorough, and genuine understanding. But with many people today, it is hopeless to appeal to this understanding. Much of what is now being reported from Paris, for example, reminds me of other events—which are not unrelated to this calamity—that took place earlier in Berlin or elsewhere. What matters is not that one bases one’s judgment—especially one’s judgment of the facts—on whether something is currently permitted or not, but rather that this judgment is formed of one’s own free will, from the free soul itself. That is what matters.

[ 22 ] If you recall some of what I have said here in recent weeks, you will see that the events that have since taken place have confirmed many things. For example, I explained to you that one cannot say—in the sense that is so convenient for many people—that the Central Powers are to blame for the World War. But I told you that the fact that the governments of the Central Powers were idiotic contributed significantly to the World War. What I also explained in my most recent lectures here has since been fully confirmed this week by the revelations issued by the Bavarian government—which are in complete agreement with my remarks—and which reproduce the correspondence between the Bavarian government and the Bavarian envoy in Berlin, Count Lerchenfeld-Köfering. Through such revelations, the picture I have had to paint for you for years—in which I always traced matters back to their proper questions—will become increasingly clear. It is a certain merit—and these things, too, may now be emphasized—of Kurt Eisner, who in such a remarkable way rose from prison to the office of Minister-President, that he was the one who initiated the publication of these matters. In this era, when so much is being said about those who have rendered themselves unworthy of their offices, it is surely permissible to speak about a man such as the current Bavarian Minister-President—even if one does not wish to approach him with sycophantic praise. Everyone, of course, will—or should—be able to pass one judgment or another in one place or another, depending on their karma and the way in which that karma has placed them in the world. If one wishes to acquire social understanding—as I have said in various contexts—it is above all a matter of acquiring an understanding of people, an interest in people, and a nuanced interest in people. Wanting to get to know people—that is what must be the task for the future, the most important task for the future. But one must acquire a certain—I would say—instinct for judging based on symptoms. That is why I gave you those lectures on history as symptomatology. — A person like this Bavarian Minister-President, Kurt Eisner, stands fully before you when, for example, you consider the following fact. I am not telling you this now to bring up any current issue, but to illustrate a bit of psychology, a bit of the study of the soul.

[ 23 ] When no declaration of war had yet been issued—neither to the left nor to the right—but it was still only the last days of July 1914, Kurt Eisner said in Munich: “If a world war really breaks out now, then not only will the nations tear each other apart, but all the thrones in Central Europe will come crashing down.” That is the inevitable consequence.” — He has remained true to himself. Throughout all those years, he had gathered a small group in Munich—who were constantly persecuted by the police—and spoken to them; when a strike broke out at a particularly critical juncture in the developments of recent years in Germany, he was sentenced to prison, and has now risen from prison to the office of Bavarian Minister-President. He is a man of integrity. I do not wish to praise him, for circumstances are now such that even a man like him can make mistake after mistake. But I would like to characterize what really matters. It is always a matter of correctly assessing the things one encounters in the world as symptoms, and of inferring what lies behind them from the symptoms—if one does not have the ability to perceive the underlying spiritual forces at work through the symptoms at all. One must at least strive to perceive the underlying spiritual forces through the symptoms. And in particular, it will be necessary for the future that understanding arise from person to person. The social question will not be solved with slogans, programs, or Leninist doctrines, but rather with understanding from person to person—which, however, one can only acquire if one is able to recognize the human being as the outward manifestation of an Eternal within oneself.

[ 24 ] You see, if you take what I have said—that in the West, the human being appears as a ghost before the Guardian of the Threshold, and in the East as a nightmare—then you will, in a sense, receive the impulse to see the conditions of the present in the right way. In the West, a fading image of the human being, which therefore appears as a ghost; in the East, a rising image, which we must not, however, take in its present form, because it is still merely an imagination of the nightmare and can emerge in its true form only after the nightmare has been overcome. Consequently, the situation is such that one must look more deeply if one wishes to participate at all in the discussion of the social question today. And the things that must be perceived in a deeper sense are, above all, those relating to the nature of thought—how this thought springs forth from the whole human being, differentiated among individuals across the entire earth.

[ 25 ] The fact that this Romanesque specter has been able to exert such a profound influence stems precisely from the fact that, in essence, the Old Testament worldview has not yet been overcome in human thought. Christianity is truly still in its infancy. Christianity has not yet reached the point where it has truly permeated human minds. The Roman Church, which is itself entirely under the influence of the Romanesque specter in matters of theology, has already done its part in this regard. This Roman Church, as I have often mentioned, has contributed more to holding back than to bringing the image of Christ into people’s hearts and souls. For the concepts that have been used within the Roman Church to grasp Christ are entirely the concepts of the social and political structure of the ancient Roman Empire. Even if people are not aware of this, it works on their instincts.

[ 26 ] Those ideas that prevailed in the Old Testament—which we must primarily refer to as the ideas of Old Testament Judaism—have found their secular expression in Romanism, even though it is contrary to Judaism; it is merely the secular counterpart of what Judaism is in the spiritual realm—have found their way into our present day via the detour of Romanism; they haunt us like ghosts. This Old Testament way of thinking, not yet permeated by Christianity, must be sought in human beings according to its true origin. One must answer the question: On what forces does this very way of thinking—as Old Testament thinking is—depend?

[ 27 ] This way of thinking depends on what can be passed down through the blood from generation to generation. The ability to think in the manner of the Old Testament—that is, the Old Testament way of thinking—is passed down through the blood in the lineage of humanity. What we inherit from our fathers in terms of abilities—simply by virtue of being born human, by virtue of having been embryonic human beings before our birth—that which we thus inherit as a power of thought, which lives in the blood—that is the Old Testament way of thinking. For our thinking is indeed divided into two parts. One part of our thinking is that which we acquire through our development up to birth—that which we inherit from our fathers and mothers. We are able to think as people did in Old Testament times because we were embryos. This is also the essence of the ancient Jewish people: that in the world one lives through here between birth and death, they did not wish to learn anything beyond what one is endowed with as a capacity by virtue of having been an embryo up to the moment of birth. You can understand Old Testament thinking only by conceiving of it in this way: by telling yourself, “This is the way of thinking we possess by virtue of having been embryos.”

[ 28 ] The thinking that is added to this is the kind we acquire after the embryonic stage in human development. For certain practical purposes, human beings do indeed acquire all kinds of experience, but they do not take this to the point of a genuine transformation of thought, so that even today, much more than one might think, Old Testament thinking continues to exert its influence. Human beings are compelled to live here on the physical earth between birth and death. But they do not penetrate the experiences they have here with the thinking that arises from these experiences themselves. They do this only in the most minimal sense, at most instinctively. At the very least, they do not carry these experiences to the point of giving rise to a particular way of thinking. Only the true occultist, developed in the modern sense, does this. The occultist uses the life he lives here in such a way that he awakens anew, just as a child awakens after being born. The one who acts in the spirit of “How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?” goes through this process once more; he behaves as the ordinary human being behaves toward the embryo. But in ordinary life, people proceed in such a way that, although they are indeed compelled to have these experiences, they apply only the thinking they acquired by virtue of having been an embryo. Thus people go about their lives, have their experiences, do not wish to go further, but apply to these experiences—as the content of their thinking, specifically as a direction of thought and a form of thought—what life as an embryo has given them, that is, what is inherited from generation to generation through the blood.

[ 29 ] Now, there is a fact of fundamental importance. This fact is that the Mystery of Golgotha, in its unique nature, can never be grasped by the kind of thinking that arises solely from embryonic development. I have therefore explained to you in these lectures—including during my current visit here—that the Mystery of Golgotha is something that cannot be grasped by ordinary physical thinking, something that one will always deny, if one is honest, as long as one wishes to remain at the level of physical thinking. The Mystery of Golgotha—indeed, everything that has been permeated by Christ—must be understood not from the lunar but from the solar perspective, from the standpoint one attains after birth here in this life. That is the great difference between what has been permeated by Christ and what has not. That which is not permeated by Christ is governed by a mode of thinking that is inherited through the bloodline. The Christ-permeated understanding of the world is governed by a mode of thinking that one must acquire individually, as a personality in the world, through life’s experiences, by spiritualizing these experiences as described in “How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?”

[ 30 ] The essential point is that the thinking one possesses by virtue of embryonic development leads only to recognizing the Deity as Father. The thinking one acquires in the world through one’s personal life in the post-embryonic period leads to recognizing the Deity as Son as well.

[ 31 ] The impulse to rely solely on what is known as “Yahweh thinking” continued to exert its influence well into the nineteenth century. However, this way of thinking is only capable of helping human beings comprehend that aspect of themselves which belongs within the natural order. And this came about—as you know, Yahweh is one of the seven Elohim—because this Yahweh deity, that is, one of the seven Elohim, prematurely seized dominion over human consciousness and pushed the other Elohim into the background. As a result, the other Elohim were initially pushed into the sphere of so-called illusion; that is, they are regarded as fantastical beings. This, however, stems from the fact that the Yahweh deity has temporarily suppressed these spirits and has imbued human consciousness only with what can be drawn from the embryonic stage.

[ 32 ] This continued well into the nineteenth century; for, because the Yahweh deity had, so to speak, dethroned the other Elohim—and the other Elohim only reasserted themselves through the personality of Christ and will continue to assert themselves one after another in a wide variety of ways—human nature came under the influence of lower elemental spiritual beings who counteracted the aspirations of the Elohim. Thus, the development of human consciousness was such that the Yahweh deity established itself as the sole ruler and dethroned the others. Because the others were dethroned, human nature came under the influence of beings lower than the Elohim. And so it is not only Yahweh who continues to exert his influence into the nineteenth century, but the lower gods in place of the Elohim. And even though Christianity has spread—I have always told you, it is really only in its infancy—humanity has not yet understood this, precisely because people did not immediately embrace the activity of the Elohim, but remained stuck in Yahweh-thinking—that thinking awakened by embryonic power—and continued to remain under the influence of the opponents of the Elohim.

[ 33 ] Now, in the nineteenth century—specifically in the 1840s, which I have often described to you as a particular turning point—it became apparent that Yahweh himself, in his influence on human consciousness, had gradually been overwhelmed by the power of those spirits whom he had summoned. It followed from this—since the power of Yahweh can be used to comprehend only that which is bound to the natural order within human beings, that is, to the blood—that the earlier search for the one God in nature, under the influence of opposing forces, gave way to mere atheistic natural science, to mere atheistic, scientific thinking, and, in the practical realm, to mere utilitarian thinking. This must be clearly noted for the 1840s, for the period I have indicated to you. Thus, because Yahweh was unable to free the spirits he had summoned, Old Testament thinking has transitioned into the atheistic natural science of modern times, which in the realm of social thought has become Marxism or something similar, so that in the social sphere, a way of thinking influenced by natural science prevails.

[ 34 ] This is connected to much of what is happening right now. Old Testament thinking, transformed into naturalism, is simply inherent in people today. Neither the Western conception of humanity nor the Eastern conception of humanity offers sufficient protection against this way of thinking. For it prevents people from gaining true and correct insight.

[ 35 ] It’s plain as day today how people resist coming to their senses. At times, this takes on pathological proportions. The so-called history of the war over the past two years—as I told you recently—will be a psychiatric one, a socio-psychiatric one. The events as they have unfolded are such that, for those who are familiar with them, if they are properly compiled, they will provide the best symptomatology for the social psychiatry of recent years and of the years to come. Of course, one must approach psychiatry somewhat differently, with a more delicate touch, than materialistic medicine does; otherwise, one will never properly highlight the psychiatry that needs to be studied—for example, in the person of Ludendorff. But people will simply have to learn to view a significant portion of recent contemporary history in this light. My friends will recall that from the very beginning of this catastrophe, whenever this or that was said so lightly, I have emphasized time and again: This war-induced catastrophe will make it impossible to write history based solely on documents and archival records. Only those who realize that the most decisive events of late July and early August 1914 occurred as a result of clouded consciousness will understand how this catastrophe became possible. People all over the world had clouded consciousness, and it was through the influence of Ahrimanic forces upon this clouded consciousness that these events occurred. Thus, through an understanding of the facts of genuine spiritual science, these events will have to be brought to light. What must now be recognized is that the time has passed when one can establish the facts of history based solely on documents—in the vein of Ranke’s historiography, or, for that matter, historiography in other fields, such as that of Buckle or the like. This is important!

[ 36 ] Mere sympathies and antipathies do not determine anything when one seeks to form a judgment. Yet in recent years, judgments have been based primarily on sympathies and antipathies, and this remains the case to this day. Certainly, just judgments are also rendered under the sway of sympathy and antipathy, but they do not signify anything special for the way human judgment intervenes in reality. The paths by which judgments oriented in one direction or another become widespread can be studied in particular by tracing the development of judgment among people in recent years. What have millions of people in Central Europe believed, and what will they believe? And what do people believe outside Central Europe? In Central Europe, this has lasted as long as it could; outside Central Europe, it will certainly last longer. But what really matters is that we finally get into the habit of learning from events, that we view things precisely with a view to judging them based on those events.

[ 37 ] You see, one would like the weight of events to have a somewhat decisive, determining influence on people, and especially the way in which events in the present unfold in a completely original manner—in a way they did not unfold in the past. Polar opposites are coming together!

[ 38 ] Last time, I pointed out to you that the spread of Bolshevism to Russia was essentially driven by Ludendorff. These things—which, of course, did not need to be said outside the territory of the Central Powers—have been said often enough. People simply did not want to listen. I repeatedly had the experience I have already mentioned here once before, but which is nonetheless a significant one: that treatise I drafted—I have already recounted this, but I want it to be remembered, for I will gradually recount all these things so that the world may learn what was at stake—consisted of two parts. The second part, however, contained—adapted to the circumstances of that time—what I have outlined to you as social conditions. The first part, however, contained what I considered necessary to be discussed and disseminated in the manner I have described.

[ 39 ] I found people who read what I had written there and who replied to me: “Yes, but if one wants to implement your very first point, that will necessarily lead to the abdication of the German Emperor!” — To that I could only ever say: If it leads to that, then it must surely be necessary for it to lead to that. — World history has proven me right. This abdication had to happen. But it was not to happen in the way it has now; rather, it had to come from an inner, free decision. Of course, this would have resulted from the very first point. The first point, of course, did not state: “The German Emperor must abdicate,” but rather set forth a specific demand. Had it been fulfilled, this abdication would have taken place long ago under circumstances entirely different from those under which it has now occurred.

[ 40 ] I was never able to get people to understand that what I had written down there was, in fact, based on reality. On this one point, we didn’t make any progress either. When I presented the matter to a foreign minister, I also told him: You have a choice—either to be reasonable and resolve the matter through reason now, or to experience revolutions that are bound to occur over the next few decades and will begin very soon.

[ 41 ] But just as true as this—which points to a slightly broader perspective—is the fact that it was necessary to persuade the German Emperor to abdicate, and that a proposal to that effect was made. But once that had been said—which was based on a narrower perspective than the other—it had also been regarded as something—well, something one was not even allowed to talk about, something one could not even discuss seriously.

[ 42 ] Likewise, of course, it wasn’t just the very latest events—which, I would say, blatantly reveal Ludendorff’s unhealthy mindset—that were necessary; this had been known for a long time. I was able to draw attention to this a long time ago. But, isn’t it true that in the realm of spiritual science, we must point out that people today shy away from spiritual science itself because they are afraid of it? And psychological fear is something that plays a very large role in people’s minds today—a tremendous role. It appears in the most diverse guises. But psychological fear—the unwillingness to approach anything—that is what plays a very special role. One must view events in this light; then one recognizes them as symptoms of deeper underlying issues. Take, for example, an event from the last few days.

[ 43 ] Any observant analyst of German conditions and the German army could have known long ago that things would turn out the way they have. It was only on August 8, 1918, that Ludendorff finally realized he could not win. He was the “practical man.” Remember everything I have said over time about the “practical men” and their impracticality! He was the “practical man” who was wrong in every situation, who only realized at the very last moment—on August 8—that he could not win with the army at his disposal. People of sound judgment have known since September 16, 1914, that victory was impossible with this army. Well, what did Ludendorff do? He summoned Ballin so that he might finally go to the Emperor and tell him how things stood, since Ballin was a close friend of the Emperor. You will ask: Was there no Reich Chancellor at the time? — Yes, there was a Reich Chancellor, but his name was Hertling. Was there no Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time? There was one, but that was Mr. von Hintze, who had risen from the very lowest echelons of the court. There was also a Reichstag—well, and so on; such appendages of public life are hardly worth mentioning in our time. So Ludendorff summoned Ballin and instructed him to inform the Supreme Commander of the situation. Ballin set off for the place where the Emperor resided—naturally, always removed from the actual events, unless Ludendorff happened to deem it opportune to have it reported that, in the presence of His Majesty, the Supreme Commander, this or that action had been undertaken. Anyone familiar with the circumstances, of course, knew exactly what to make of this “presence.” So Ballin, who had known the Emperor for a long time and was a shrewd man, set out for Wilhelmshöhe to brief the Emperor. Of course, this would only have been possible if he could have spoken to the Emperor in private—which he always could have done, had the Emperor not, on a previous occasion when Ballin had tried to brief him at the start of the war, swiped something like a lady’s fan across his cheeks. But despite the slap delivered with a lady’s fan, and in light of the important events, he nevertheless agreed to come and brief his old friend. The Emperor, however, summoned Mr. von Berg, who knew how to divert the conversation—which was, of course, exactly what the Emperor wanted; for he did not want to hear the truth. Thus, the conversation never turned to what it was supposed to address.

[ 44 ] I’m only telling this from a psychological perspective. Here you have a person who is at the center of the most important events, who fears the truth that someone else brings to him, and who won’t let it get anywhere near him. You can see it clearly. And the same phenomenon is very widespread today. So Ballin was unable to convince the “Supreme Commander,” because he couldn’t even present the matter to him. Ludendorff summoned Mr. von Hintze and agreed with him that an armistice should be requested from the Entente. This was immediately after August 8, 1918. Mr. von Hintze promised to approach Wilson. But nothing happened until around October of 1918, even though it was clear that what eventually happened—weeks later, under the ill-fated ministry of Prince Max von Baden—was inevitable. Prince Max von Baden wanted to go to Berlin and do something entirely different. But Ludendorff declared that the request for an armistice must be presented within twenty-four hours, otherwise the greatest

[ 45 ] Misfortune. Prince Max of Baden went against his earlier decision. After five days, Ludendorff declared: he must have been mistaken; it hadn't been necessary at all!

[ 46 ] This is an example of how practitioners—esteemed practitioners, though there was not the slightest reason to hold them in such high regard—intervene in world events, and of the mindset and intellectual faculties with which they do so. But it is also a way to study how judgments become epidemic. For the judgment that von Zindenburg and Ludendorff were “great men”—that really did spread with epidemic force—while in truth they were by no means great men, not even from the standpoint of their immediate profession. It is precisely these catastrophic events that are particularly characteristic of the way in which misjudgments are formed. At most, wit has sometimes hit the mark. If you were to visit Berlin now—most of you probably haven’t been to Berlin in recent years—you would find, near the Victory Column, near that huge “spittoon,” the Reichstag building—yes, it looks as if it were modeled after a giant spittoon—you would find a strange structure there. There stands a hideous wooden likeness of a man, “Hindenburg”—tall, gigantic—and every patriot was required to hammer a nail into it, so that little by little this wood became studded with nails. The plan was to later store this hideously nailed-up thing in the Ministry of War’s museum. But Berlin wit had a fitting response: “Once it’s completely nailed shut, it’ll go to the War Ministry!”

[ 47 ] All these matters should be viewed more from the perspective I have been discussing more frequently—from the standpoint of the symptomatology of history as well as the symptomatology of events in general that pertain to human beings. The external world provides only symptoms, and one arrives at the truth only by coming to know these symptoms in their nature as symptoms.