The History and Actuality of Imperialism
GA 196
20 February 1920, Dornach
Lecture I
Today's lecture will be episodic, a kind of interspersion into our considerations, because I would like our English friends, who will soon be going home, to be able to take as much as possible with them. Therefore I will structure this lecture in a way to be as effective as possible. Today I would like, at first historically, not so much referring to the present—that can be done tomorrow perhaps—I would like to say something about imperialism, historically, but in a spiritual-scientific sense.
Imperialism is a much discussed phenomenon recently, and discussed by those who are more or less conscious of its relationship to the total phenomena of the present time. But when such things are discussed, what is not taken into account, or at least not enough, is that we live within the historical course of events, that we stand in a very definitive historical evolutionary epoch and that we can only understand this evolutionary epoch if we know where the phenomena which surround us, in which we live, come from.
Basically, what is most effective today and what will show itself to be an even more effective imperialism in the future will be its bearer—the Anglo-American people. As far as its name is concerned, it has shown itself to be something new: economic imperialism. But most important is the fact that everything said about this economic imperialism is untrue, everything, I would say, seems to be hanging in the air, which more or less consciously leads to untruthfulness. So in order to recognize how in these times realities are completely different from what is said about them, a more profound observation of the historical course of events is necessary.
I only need to mention one item of present-day phenomena in order to characterize the public's ability to judge. We have experienced how at first in various parts of Europe and finally even in Germany, Woodrow Wilson has been glorified. Our Swiss friends know very well that while Woodrow Wilson was being glorified I always spoke out against him in the sharpest terms here in Switzerland, for what Woodrow Wilson is today, he was of course also then when he was being glorified by the whole word. (It is already being reported—although I can't say if it's the complete truth—that in America they are thinking of declaring him unfit to govern, that there are doubts about his judgment.) The public's capacity for judgment, as it zips around the world today, is sufficiently characterized by such things.
And one must only remember a second thing. During the last four of five years, an enormous amount of pretty things have been talked about: the self-determination of peoples and so forth. All these things were not true, for what was behind them was something completely different, it was of course a question of power. And in order to understand what it's about, what is said, thought and judged, it is necessary to return to the realities. And when things such as imperialism are considered—“Imperial Federation League” is the official designation in England since the beginning of the twentieth century—we must realize that they are the recent products of an evolution and they go back to a remote past, and can only be explained by a true consideration of history.
We do not want to delve so deeply into the past as we could when studying the spiritual evolution of humanity, but we do want to go at least as far back as several centuries before the Christian era. We find imperialistic empires in Asia, and a subspecies of such empires in Egypt. Most characteristic of the Asiatic impulse are, for example, the historically known Persian empire and, especially, the Assyrian empire. But it is not sufficient to study this first phase of imperialism only in the last, historically known stage of the Assyrian empire, simply because the motivators dominating the Assyrian empire cannot be understood without reaching back to even earlier oriental conditions. Even in China, whose whole organization reaches so far back, the organization of recent times has changed so much that the true character of an oriental imperialism as it once existed is not recognized. However, the conditions which are known historically make it possible to see what the fundamentals are.
We cannot understand the old oriental imperialism without knowing the conscious relationship between people of a region, let's say an empire, and what we today would call the ruler or the rulers of that empire. Because of course our words for ruler or king and so forth no longer express the feelings about the ruler or the rulers. It is very difficult to understand the feelings of people in general of the third to fourth century before the Christian era because it is difficult nowadays to take account of how people felt in those ancient times about the relation of the physical world to the spiritual world. Today most people think, if they even think about a spiritual world, that it is somewhere in the distant beyond. And when the spiritual world is spoken about—and in the future it will again have to be spoken about as being present among us just as the sense world is—then what results is what has led for example to the Protestant mentality. But the essential nature of ancient times is that no distinction was made between the physical and spiritual worlds.
This is so much the case that when ancient times are referred to by people of today they can hardly imagine much consistency, for the way of thinking was so different then from what it is today. Rulers, a ruling caste, slaves, ruled people, that was reality—not something called a physical reality, but it was the reality, simultaneously the physical and the spiritual reality. And the ruler of an oriental empire—what was he? The ruler of the oriental empire was God. And for the people of those times there was no God beyond the clouds, no choir of spirits who surrounded the highest God—that view came later—but rather what we today call ministers or court jesters, somewhat disrespectfully, were beings of a divine nature. For it was obvious that because of the mystery schooling they had gone through, they had become something greater than ordinary people. They were looked up to, just as the Protestant mentality looks up to its God or certain more liberal circles look up to their invisible angels and such. Extra invisible angels or an extra super-sensible invisible God did not exist for the people of the ancient orient. Everything spiritual lived in man. In the common man lived a human soul. In those whom we would today call rulers, lived a divine soul, a God.
The concept of a really existing godly empire, which at the same time was a physical empire, is no longer taken into consideration. That a king has real divine power and dignity is considered absurd today, but was a reality in oriental imperialism.
As I mentioned, a subspecies was found in Egypt, for there we find a true transition to a later form. If we go back to the oldest form of imperialism, we find it based on the king being God who really physically appeared on earth, the son of heaven who physically appeared on earth, who was even the father of heaven. This is so paradoxical for the contemporary mind, that it seems unbelievable, but it is so. We can learn from Assyrian documents how conquests were justified. They were simply carried out. The justification was that they had to expand more and more the God's empire. When a territory was conquered and the inhabitants became subjects, then they had to worship the conqueror as their god. During those times no one thought of spreading a certain worldview. Why would it have been necessary? When the conquered people openly recognized the conqueror, followed him, then all was in order, they could believe whatever they wanted. Belief—personal opinion—wasn't touched in ancient times, nobody cared about it.
That was the first form in which imperialism appeared. The second form was when the ruler, the one who was to play a leading role, wasn't the god himself, but the god's envoy, or inspired by the god, interpenetrated with divinity.
The first imperialism is characterized by realities. When an oriental ruler of ancient times appeared before his people, it was in all his splendor, because as a god he was entitled to wear such clothes. It was the clothing of a god. That's what a god looked like. It meant nothing more than what the ruler wore was the fashion of the gods. And his paladins were not mere bureaucrats, but higher beings who accompanied him and did what they did with the power of higher beings.
Then came the time, as already mentioned, when the ruler and his paladins appeared as God's envoys, as interpenetrated with divinity, as representatives. That is very clear in Dionysus the Areopagite. Read his writings, where he describes the complete hierarchy, from the deacons, archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, up to the church's whole hierarchy. How does he do this? Dionysus the Areopagite presents it as though in this earthly churchly hierarchy is mirrored what God is with his archangels and angles, super- sensibly of course. So above we have the heavenly hierarchy and below it's mirror image, the worldly hierarchy. The people of the worldly hierarchy, the deacons, archdeacons, wear certain clothes, and they perform their rituals; they are symbols. The first phase was characterized by realities, the second phase was characterized by signs, by symbols. But this has been more or less forgotten. Even Catholics understand little of the fact that the deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops are the representatives of the heavenly hierarchies. This has been mostly forgotten.
With the advancement of imperialism a division occurred, a real division. On one hand there were the leaders tending more towards being divine representatives, priestly, where the priests were kings; on the other hand the tendency towards the secular, although still by the grace of God. Basically these were the two forms: the churches and the empires.
During the first imperialism, when all was physical reality, something like this would have been unthinkable. But in the second phase of imperialism the division occurred. On one side more secular, but nevertheless representative of God, on the other side more church oriented, also representative of God. That system held until the middle ages and, I would even say, until the year 1806, but more as a shadow, retained in kings and paladins as God's representatives. The Roman Catholic Church's propagation tended more towards the priestly. But where this phenomenon of God's representative or envoy, which held through the entire middle ages, was most strongly maintained was in the so-called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, which finally disappeared in 1806. In “Holy” you have a whiff of what was divine during the ancient times on earth; “Roman” indicates the provenance, where it came from; “German Nation” was what it covered, the more secular element.
Therefore in the second phase of imperialism we no longer merely have the Church's anointed imperialism, but we have the tangled web of the divine and the secular anointed in the empires. That already began in the old Roman Empire during pre-Christian times and extended into the late Middle Ages. But this imperial Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation always had a double character. Remember that it goes back to Karl the Great. But Karl the Great was crowned by the Pope in Rome. Therewith royal dignity became a symbol, so that what existed here on the physical earth was no longer reality. The people of the Middle Ages did not worship Karl the Great and Otto I as gods, which was the case in more ancient times, but they saw in them godly representatives. And that had to be continually confirmed, for of course it became ever weaker in consciousness. But it still retained a symbolic reality, a reality of signs. These emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation went to Rome in order for the Pope to crown them. Istwan I was also crowned king of Hungary by the Pope in the year 1000. The anointment, and therefore the power, was bestowed on the world's rulers by the clergy.
It was also thought that there was justification for other peoples being incorporated into the empire. Even Dante thought that the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was justified in ruling the whole world. So the formula for imperialism is even to be found in Dante.
In fables and other lore where the events of history are crystallized in human consciousness, things are expressed from various viewpoints, not just one. We could say that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in Europe the consciousness existed—not a clear one, more like a feeling—that once in ancient times in the Orient men lived on the physical earth who were themselves gods. They didn't think it was a superstition, oh no, rather they thought that such gods could no longer live on the earth because the earth had become so bad. That's been lost, what made men gods, the “Holy Grail” has been lost and now, in Central Europe, it can only be found in the way Percival found it: one seeks the way to find god within, whereas earlier god was a reality in the empire. Now the empire is merely a sum of symbols, of signs, and one must find the spirit in the symbols.
Of all the things which once existed, only remnants remain. Reality is deadened. Remnants remain, remnants of the most diverse kind. Generally, as long as things are real, definite, they later become ambiguous. And thus in Europe diversity grew from clear reality. As long as the Holy Roman Empire had meaning in human consciousness, the representative of the empire was powerful and competent enough to subdue the individual angel-symbols, the local princes, for that consciousness included the emperor's right to do so. But his right rested more or less on something ideal, which more and more lost its meaning, and the local princes remained. So we have in the Holy Roman Empire something which gradually had its inner substance squeezed out until only the exterior remained. The consciousness that earthly men were representatives of God was lost. And the expression for the fact that people no longer believed that certain individuals were representatives of God is Protestantism—protest against the idea of men as representatives of God.
If the principle of Protestantism had rigorously penetrated, no prince could have been crowned “by the Grace of God” again. But such things remained as remnants. These remnants remained until 1918, then they disappeared. These remnants, which had already lost all inner meaning, remained as outer appearances until then. The local German princes were the outer appearances; they only had meaning in those ancient times when they were symbols for an inspirational kingdom of heaven.
Other remnants remained. Not so long ago a pastoral letter was written by a Central-European bishop—perhaps he was an Archbishop. In that pastoral letter he more or less claimed that the catholic priest is more powerful than Jesus Christ for the simple reason that when the Catholic priest performs the transubstantiation at the altar, Jesus Christ must be present in the Sanctissimum, in the Host. The transubstantiation must really take place through the priest's power. It means that the action performed by the priest forces the Christ Jesus to be present on the altar. Therefore the more powerful is not the Christ Jesus, but he who performs the transubstantiation at the altar!
If we wish to understand such a thing which, as I said, appeared in a pastoral letter a few years ago, we must go back, not to the times of the second imperialism, but to the times of the first imperialism, many elements of which are retained in the Catholic Church and its institutions. Therein lies the remnant of the consciousness that those who rule on the earth are the gods, whereas the Christ Jesus is only the son of God. What was written in that pastoral letter is of course an impossibility for the Protestant mentality, just as for today it is almost impossible to believe that thousands of years ago people actually saw the ruler as God. But these are all real historical factors, real facts which played a role historically and are still present today.
These earlier realities play strongly into later events. Just look at how Mohammedanism [Islam] has spread. Certainly Mohammed never said: Mohammed is your God—as it would have been said thousands of years earlier by an oriental ruler. He limited himself to what corresponded more to the times: There is a God , and Mohammed is his prophet. In people's consciousness he was God's representative—the second phase of imperialism. The manner in which Islam spread, however, corresponded to the first phase. For Muslims have never been intolerant towards other beliefs the way some others were. The Muslims were content to defeat the others and make them their subjects, just as it was in older times when a profession of faith was not required, for it was a matter of indifference what they believed if they just recognized God.
And something also remained of the first phase of imperialism—strongly influenced by the second—in Russian despotism, in tsarism. The way in which he was recognized by his subjects goes back, at least partially, to the first phase of imperialism. It was not so much a question of what was in the consciousness of the Russian people, for the rulership of the tsars rested on the Germanic and the Mongolian elements rather than that of the Russian peasantry itself.
Now we come to the third phase of imperialism. It has been formulated since the beginning of the twentieth century, since Chamberlain and his people coined the expression “Imperial Federation League,” but the causes go back to the second half of the seventeenth century, when that great upheaval occurred in England as a result of which everywhere in the west that the Anglo-American people lived, the king, who earlier had been God, then an anointed one, became a kind of mere shadow—one cannot say a decoration exactly, but rather something more tolerated than taken seriously.
The English speaking peoples bring other preconditions to what we may call the people's will, the voting system, than, say, the French—the Latin peoples in general. The Latin peoples, especially the French, certainly carried out the revolution of the eighteenth century, but the French people today are more royal than any other. To be royal doesn't only mean to have a king at the top. Naturally a person whose head has been cut off cannot run around; but the French as a people are royal, imperialistic, without having a king. It has to do with the mood of soul. This “all are one” feeling, the national consciousness, is a real remnant of the Louis IV mentality.
But the English-speaking peoples brought other preconditions to what we may call the people's will. And little by little this became what the elected parliaments decided, and thus the third form of imperialism developed, which was formulated by Chamberlain and others. But today we want to consider this third imperialism psychologically.
The first imperialism had realities: One person was the God for the mentality of the other people. His paladins were the gods who surrounded him, sub-gods. The second form of imperialism: What was on the earth was the sign, the symbol. God acted within men. Third form of imperialism: Just as the previous evolution was from realities to signs and symbols, now the development is from symbols to platitudes.
This is an objective description of the facts, without being emotionally tinged. Since the seventeenth century what has been called the will of the people in the public life of the Anglo-American peoples in the law books—of course categorized according to classes—is no more than empty platitudes. Between what is said and reality there is not even the relation which existed between the symbol and reality. So the psychological path is this: from reality to symbol and then to platitudes—to words which have been squeezed out, dried out, empty words. This is the reality of the third imperialism: squeezed out, empty words. And nobody imagines that they are divine, at least not where they originated.
Just think about the basis of that imperialism, the ruling elements of which are empty platitudes: during the first imperialism the kings, in the second imperialism the anointed, now the empty platitudes. From majority decisions of course nothing real results, only a dominant empty platitude. The reality remains hidden. And now we come to an important factor upon which reality is based: the colonization system. Colonization played an important role in the development of this third imperialism. The “Imperial Federation League” summarizes the means of spreading imperialism to the colonies. But how do the colonies become part of the empire? Think back on real cases. Adventurers who no longer rightly fit into the empire, who are somewhat down at heel, go to the colonies, become rich, then spend their riches at home, but that doesn't make them respectable, they are still adventurers, bohemians. That's how the colonial empire is created. That is the reality behind the empty platitudes. But remnants remain. Just as symbols and empty platitudes remain as remnants of the original realities, or symbolic crowns on princes and tsars, also from the enterprises of the somewhat foul smelling colonists, realities remain. The adventurer's son is not so foul smelling, right? He already smells better. The grandson smells even better and a time comes when everything smells very good. The empty platitudes are now possessed by what smells good. The empty platitudes are now identified with the true reality. Now the state can spread its wings, it becomes the protector and everything has been made honest.
It is necessary to call things by their real names—although the names seldom describe the reality. It's necessary because only thus can we understand what tasks and what responsibilities confront humanity in these times. Only in this way is it possible to realize what a fable convenue so called history really is, meaning that history which is taught in the schools and universities. That history does not call things by their real names. On the contrary, its effect is that the names describe what is false.
What I have just described is something terrible, isn't it. But you see, it's a question of guiding the feelings towards responsibilities. Let's now consider the other side. Let's consider such an ancient empire. In people's minds it was an earthly reality; the priest-king came from the mysteries. The second was no longer earthly reality, it was symbolic. It is a long way from the godly jewelry the rulers and their paladins in the ancient oriental empires wore and the “Roter Adler” [Red Eagle] medals hung around people's necks long afterward. But that's how things evolved. It went from reality to nothing, not even a sign or symbol, but basically the expression of the empty platitude. Finally this empty platitude system, which has spread from the west to the rest of the world, has penetrated public affairs. I have even met court councilors—who anyway have little counseling to do—but what about the titular court councilors? Just an empty platitude hung on certain people and everything remains as before.
Whereas in the first phase the physical reality was thought to be spiritual, in the future this physical reality may no longer be thought of as spiritual. Nevertheless, the spiritual must be present here in the physical world. That means that spiritual reality must exist alongside physical reality. The human being must move around here within the physical reality, and recognize a spiritual reality, must speak of it as something real, super-sensible, invisible, but which exists, which must be established among us.
I have spoken about something quite terrible: about the platitude. But if the world had not become so platitude oriented, there would be no room for the introduction of a spiritual empire. Precisely because everything old has now become platitudes, a space has come into being in which the spiritual empire can enter. Especially in the west, in the Anglo-American world people will continue to speak in the usual terminology, things that come from the past. It will continue to roll on like a bowling ball. It will roll on in the words. You can find innumerable expressions especially in the west which have lost all meaning, but are still used. But not only in these expressions, but in everything described by the old words the empty platitude lives, in which there is no reality, for it has been squeezed out. That is where the spiritual, which has nothing of the old in it, can find room. The old must first become empty platitude, everything that continues to roll on in speech thrown overboard, and something completely new must enter, which can only propagate as a world of the spirit.
Only then can there be a kingdom of Christ on earth. For in that empire a reality must exist: “My kingdom is not of this world.” In the kingdom of this world, in which the kingdom of Christ will propagate, there will exist much that has not become empty platitude. But in the western world, everything originating in ancient times is destined to become platitude. Yes, in the west, in the Anglo-American world, all human tradition will become platitude. Therefore the responsibility exists to fill the empty vessel with spirit, about which can be said: “This kingdom is not of this world!” That is the great responsibility. It's not important how something came about, but what we do with what has come about. That is the situation.
Tomorrow we will speak about what can be done, for under the surface, especially in the western countries, the secret societies are most active, trying to insert the second phase of imperialism into the third. For in the Anglo-American people you have two imperialisms pushed together, the economic one of a Chamberlain and the symbolic imperialism of the secret societies, which play a very effective role, but which are kept secret from the people.
Sechzehnter Vortrag
Mein Vortrag wird heute episodisch sein, eine Einschiebung in unsere Betrachtungen, denn ich möchte, daß unsere englischen Freunde, die ja nun bald wiederum in ihr Land zurückgehen, von hier aus möglichst viel hinübernehmen können. Deshalb richte ich diese Vorträge so ein, daß das eine oder das andere zur Stütze der Wirksamkeit, die notwendig ist, dienen kann. Und da möchte ich heute, und zwar zunächst geschichtlich, nicht so sehr auf die Gegenwart bezüglich — das kann vielleicht dann morgen geschehen -, ich möchte geschichtlich, geisteswissenschaftlich-geschichtlich einiges Ihnen entwickeln über Imperialismus. Der Imperialismus ist ja eine in der letzten Zeit mehrfach besprochene Erscheinung, und er wird so besprochen, daß bei denjenigen, die über ihn sprechen, ein mehr oder weniger deutliches Bewußtsein vorhanden ist von seinem Zusammenhange mit den gesamten sozialen Erscheinungen der Gegenwart. Aber wenn man solche Dinge heute bespricht, so berücksichtigt man nicht, wenigstens nicht genügend, daß wir ja im geschichtlichen Hergang der Menschheit leben, daß wir in einer ganz bestimmten geschichtlichen Entwickelungsepoche stehen und daß man diese Entwickelungsepoche der Menschheit nur verstehen kann, wenn man weiß, woher die Erscheinungen kommen, die uns heute umgeben, in denen wir heute drinnen leben. Im Grunde genommen zeigt sich zunächst dasjenige, was heute wirksamer, in die Zukunft hinein wirksamer Imperialismus ist, dessen Träger die anglo-amerikanische Bevölkerung sein wird und der im Grunde genommen der Benennung nach sehr neueren Datums ist; dieser Imperialismus zeigt sich als Wirtschaftsimperialismus. Aber das Wesentliche ist, daß in all dem, was über die Dinge gesprochen wird, die mit diesem wirtschaftlichen Imperialismus zusammenhängen, im Grunde genommen gar nichts wahr ist, sondern alles unwahr ist, alles, ich möchte sagen, in der Luft schwebt und, schwebend in der Luft, mehr oder weniger bewußt zur Unwahrhaftigkeit führt. Aber um das einzusehen, wie in unserer Zeit die Wirklichkeiten ganz andere sind als dasjenige, was von diesen Wirklichkeiten gesagt wird, dazu ist notwendig, einen tieferen Blick in den geschichtlichen Hergang dieser Dinge zu tun.
Ich brauche ja gegenüber den heutigen Tatsachen nur das eine zu erwähnen, um einigermaßen die Urteilsfähigkeit der öffentlichen Gegenwart zu charakterisieren. Wir haben ja erlebt, daß zunächst in den verschiedensten Gegenden Europas und zuletzt sogar in Deutschland selber Woodrow Wilson glorifiziert worden ist. Unsere Schweizer Freunde wissen ganz gut, daß während der Glorifizierung von Woodrow Wilson ich auch hier in der Schweiz in schärfster Weise mich immer gegen Woodrow Wilson ausgesprochen habe, denn dasjenige, was Woodrow Wilson heute ist, war er selbstverständlich auch schon in derjenigen Zeit, in der er von der ganzen Welt glorifiziert worden ist. Heute meldet man bereits - womit ich nicht sagen will, daß das die allertiefste Wahrheit wiederum ist —, daß man in Amerika daran denke, Woodrow Wilson für unfähig für die Regierung zu erklären, daß man an seiner Urteilsfähigkeit zweifle. Das öffentliche Urteil, wie es heute durch die Welt schwirrt, ist ja gerade durch solche Dinge genügend charakterisiert, namentlich in seinen Werten charakterisiert.
Und man braucht sich nur an eine zweite Tatsache zu erinnern. In den letzten vier bis fünf Jahren ist außerordentlich viel über allerlei schöne Dinge gesprochen worden: Selbstbestimmung der Völker und so weiter. — Alle diese Dinge waren nicht wahr; denn dasjenige, was dahinter war, das war etwas ganz anderes, das waren selbstverständlich Machtfragen. Und wer verstehen will, bei dem handelt es sich darum, daß er von dem, was gesagt, gedacht und geurteilt wird, auf die Wirklichkeiten zurückgeht. Und so muß insbesondere, wenn ein solches Wort wie Imperialismus — «Imperial Federation» ist das offizielle Wort seit dem Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts in England -, wenn über solche Dinge gesprochen wird, so muß berücksichtigt werden, daß wir in diesen Dingen die äußersten Ableitungen haben, Spätprodukte der Entwickelung, und daß diese zurückführen in weit vergangene Zeiten und ihre Erklärung erst finden durch dasjenige, was eine wirkliche Geschichtsbetrachtung bieten kann.
Wir wollen nicht so weit zurückgehen, als man geistesgeschichtlich in der Entwickelung der Menschheit zurückgehen könnte; aber wir wollen wenigstens zurückgehen bis einige Jahrtausende vor der christlichen Zeitrechnung. Da finden wir zunächst imperialistische Reiche in Asien, eine Abart solcher imperialistischer Reiche in Ägypten. Ganz charakteristisch für den orientalischen Impuls ist etwa das geschichtlich bekannte persische Reich, aber insbesondere das assyrische Reich. Nun kommt man nicht zurecht, wenn man diese erste Phase des Imperialismus nur in den letzten, geschichtlich geschilderten Stadien des assyrischen Reiches verfolgt, weil man einfach dasjenige, was als Antriebe im assyrischen Reich herrscht, nicht versteht, ohne daß man zurückgehen kann auf frühere orientalische Zustände. Selbst in China, dessen ganze Organisation in sehr vergangene, weit vergangene Zeiten zurückreicht, hat sich manches so geändert, daß man in dieser bis vor kurzer Zeit bestehenden Organisation nicht mehr den eigentlichen Charakter eines orientalischen Imperialismus, wie er entsprechend dem orientalischen Reiche durchaus bestanden hat, erkennen kann. Man kann aber von den Verhältnissen, die geschichtlich bekannt sind, noch durchschauen auf dasjenige, was eigentlich zugrunde liegt.
Nun versteht man den ganzen orientalischen, den alten Imperialismus nicht, wenn man nicht weiß, welche Beziehung angenommen war im öffentlichen Bewußtsein von der Bevölkerung irgendeines Gebietes, sagen wir eines Reiches, zu dem, was wir heute den Herrscher dieses Reiches oder die Herrschenden dieses Reiches nennen würden. Denn selbstverständlich drücken unsere Worte wie Herrscher oder König oder dergleichen nicht mehr dasjenige aus, was dazumal von dem Herrscher oder den Herrschenden empfunden worden ist. Man kann sich von der ganzen Empfindungswelt, welche drei bis vier Jahrtausende vor der christlichen Zeitrechnung in den orientalischen Imperialismen geherrscht hat, heute nur mehr schwer eine Vorstellung machen, weil man heute schwer berücksichtigt, wie sich der Mensch dieser alten Zeit gedacht hat das Wesen der geistigen Welt im Verhältnis zur physischen Welt. Heute denken die meisten Menschen, wenn sie überhaupt über eine geistige Welt denken, diese geistige Welt irgendwo fern in einem Jenseits oder dergleichen. Und wenn von der geistigen Welt gesprochen wird, wie allerdings in der Zukunft wieder wird gesprochen werden müssen als einer ebenso unter uns daseienden wie die Sinneswelt, dann stemmt sich alles dasjenige in der neueren Zeit auf, was zum Beispiel zum protestantischen Bewußtsein geführt hat. Es war nämlich das Wesentliche in älteren Zeiten, daß man überhaupt einen Unterschied zwischen der physischen Welt und der geistigen Welt nicht gemacht hat.
Das ist so stark wahr, daß, wenn man die Dinge sagt, die sich auf jene älteren Zeiten beziehen, sich der heutige Mensch kaum mehr etwas Ordentliches dabei vorstellen kann, so verschieden war die Vorstellungswelt der alten Menschen von der Vorstellungswelt der neueren Menschen. Dasjenige, was physisch da war, herrschende Menschen, eine herrschende Kaste, versklavte Menschen, beherrschte Menschen, das war die Wirklichkeit, das war nicht etwas, was man eine physische Wirklichkeit nannte, sondern das war die Wirklichkeit, das war zu gleicher Zeit die physische und die geistige Wirklichkeit. Und der Herrscher der orientalischen Reiche, was war denn der? Der Herrscher der orientalischen Reiche war der Gott. Und in dem weiten Umkreis der Bevölkerung gab es nicht einen Gott jenseits der Wolken in älteren Zeiten — ich spreche immer von älteren Zeiten -, es gab nicht für die Leute einen Chor von Geistern, die nun wiederum den höchsten Gott umgaben, das waren schon im irdischen Verlauf spätere Anschauungen, sondern dasjenige, was wir heute Minister oder Hofschranzen nennen würden, etwas despektierlich oder bald sogar respektierlich, das waren Wesenheiten göttlicher Natur. Denn man war sich klar darüber, daß durch die Mysterienschulung, durch die diese Menschen durchgegangen waren, sie etwas Höheres als gewöhnliche Menschen geworden waren. Man sah zu ihnen auf, so wie das protestantische Bewußtsein zu seinem Gotte oder wie gewisse schon mehr liberale Kreise zu ihren unsichtbaren Engeln und dergleichen aufsehen. Denn extra unsichtbare Engel oder einen extra im Übersinnlichen unsichtbaren Gott hat es für diese Bevölkerungen des alten Orients nicht gegeben. Alles, was geistig war, lebte im Menschen. Im gewöhnlichen Menschen lebte eine menschliche Seele. In demjenigen, was wir heute einen Herrscher nennen würden, lebte eine göttliche Seele, ein Gott.
Von diesen Vorstellungen eines daseienden wirklichen Gottesreiches, das zu gleicher Zeit physisches Reich ist, macht man sich heute keine Vorstellung mehr. Daß, sagen wir, der König wirkliche göttliche Gewalt und göttliche Würde hatte, das gilt selbstverständlich heute als absurd, war aber einmal in orientalischen Imperalismen Wirklichkeit. Von etwas, was bloß im Geiste als solchem zu fassen ist, davon sprach man da zunächst nicht.
Eine Abart, sagte ich, war im Ägyptertum vorhanden, denn da findet sich wirklich ein Übergang zu einer späteren Zeit. Wenn wir also zurückgehen zu den ältesten Formen des Imperialismus, so schreibt sich dieser Imperialismus von der Ursache her, daß der König, der Herrscher, der Gott ist, der wirklich physisch auf der Erde erschienene Gott, der wirklich physisch auf der Erde erschienene Sohn des Himmels, sogar Vater des Himmels ist. Es ist so paradox für den Menschen der Gegenwart, daß es kaum glaublich erscheint, aber es ist so. Davon aber leitete sich her, was man noch in assyrischen Urkunden beobachten kann in der Art und Weise, wie imperialistische Eroberungen gerechtfertigt werden: Sie werden einfach gemacht. Das Recht zu solchen Eroberungen leitete sich daraus her, daß man das Gottesreich immer weiter und weiter auszudehnen hatte. Hatte man irgendein Gebiet erobert und waren also die Eroberten Untertanen geworden, dann mußten sie denjenigen, der der Eroberer war, als ihren Gott verehren. An eine Ausbreitung von religiösen Weltanschauungen dachte man in jener alten Zeit durchaus nicht. Wozu hätte man denn das nötig gehabt? Es war ja alles in der physischen Welt verwirklicht gedacht. Wenn der Betreffende, der zu dem eroberten Gebiete gehörte, den andern, der der Eroberer war, äußerlich anerkannte, wenn er ihm folgte, dann war ja alles in Ordnung, denn glauben konnte er, was er wollte. Den Glauben — das war die persönliche Meinung -, den tastete man gerade in alten Zeiten ganz und gar nicht an. Darum kümmerte man sich gar nicht.
Das war die erste Form, in der der Imperialismus aufgetaucht ist. Die zweite Form war diejenige, wo der Herrschende, derjenige, der eine herrschende, eine führende Rolle einnehmen sollte, nun nicht der Gott selber war, wohl aber der von Gott Gesandte oder der von Gott Inspirierte, der von dem Göttlichen Durchdrungene. In den ersten Imperialismen hatte man es mit Wirklichkeiten zu tun. Das ist das Wesentliche. Erste Phase der Imperialismen: Man hatte es mit den Wirklichkeiten zu tun.
Wenn nun solch ein orientalischer Herrscher der Urzeiten unter seinem Volke erschien, erschien er in seinem Ornate, weil er als Gott berechtigt war, solche Kleider anzuziehen. Das waren die Kleider eines Gottes. So sah ein Gott aus. Das bedeutete weiter nichts, als daß unter Göttern dieses Mode war, wie der Herrscher erschien. Und diejenigen, die seine Paladine waren, die waren nicht etwa irgendwie Beamtete oder so etwas, sondern sie waren höhere Wesen, die ihn umgaben und die kraft ihrer Eigenschaft als höhere Wesen dasjenige taten, was sie taten.
Dann kam die Zeit, wo man eben, wie gesagt, den Herrscher und auch diejenigen, die seine Paladine waren, als Gottgesandte vorstellte, als von dem Göttlichen Durchdrungene, als Beauftragte. Das leuchtet sehr stark noch durch bei Dionysios, dem Areopagiten. Lesen Sie seine Schriften, wie er beschreibt die ganze Hierarchie von den Diakonen, Archidiakonen, Bischöfen, Erzbischöfen, also hinauf die ganze Hierarchie der Kirche. Wie stellt er diese dar ? Dionysios der Areopagite stellt das Ganze so dar, daß in dieser irdischen kirchlichen Hierarchie man ein Abbild hat desjenigen, was übersinnlich der Gott mit seinen Urkräften, Erzengeln, Engeln ist. So daß man also da schon hat oben die himmlische Hierarchie und unten ihr Abbild, die weltliche Hierarchie. Da ziehen also die Leute der weltlichen Hierarchie, die Diakone, Archidiakone, ihre Gewänder an, oder sie verrichten ihre Handlungen, weil das Zeichen, weil das Symbole sind. In der ersten Phase hat man es mit Wirklichkeiten zu tun, in der zweiten Phase hat man es mit Zeichen, mit Symbolen zu tun. Auch das ist natürlich mehr oder weniger vergessen worden. Denn im allgemeinen Menschheitsbewußtsein wird das heute nur noch wenig festgehalten, auch in der katholischen Bevölkerung, daß die Diakone, die Pfarrer, die Dechanten, die Bischöfe, die Erzbischöfe die Repräsentanten, die Stellvertreter für die himmlischen Hierarchien sind. Aber es ist eben nur in Vergessenheit geraten.
Nun trat mit diesem Fortschreiten des Imperialismus ein eine Spaltung, möchte ich sagen, eine richtige Spaltung. Auf der einen Seite schimmerte dasjenige, was die Führerschaft, die Herrschaft innehatte, mehr nach dem Gottgesandten hin, nach der Priesterschaft, wo die Priester Könige sind; auf der andern Seite schimmerte es mehr nach dem Weltlichen hin, aber immer noch von Gottes Gnaden, immer als von Gott dazu Beamtete, dazu Bestimmte. Im Grunde genommen sind das nur zwei Abarten. Und wir haben dann die beiden Abarten in der geschichtlichen Entwickelung: die Kirchengemeinschaften und die Reichsgemeinschaften.
So etwas wäre in der ersten Zeit der Imperialismen, wo alles Physische Wirklichkeit war, nicht denkbar gewesen. Aber in der zweiten Phase der Imperialismen trennte sich das. Da war der eine mehr weltlich, aber immerhin ein Gottgesandter, der andere war mehr kirchlich, auch ein Gottgesandter. Das geht bis ins Mittelalter; und, ich möchte sagen, in einer charakteristischen historischen Erscheinung ist eigentlich bis zum Jahre 1806, nur damals schon mit einem Schattendasein, festgehalten worden dieses Im-äußeren-Reiche-, In-der-äußeren-Wirklichkeit-Leben der gottgesandten Könige, gottgesandten Paladine und so weiter. Äußerlich war ja da die römische Kirche mit ihrer Ausbreitung; das war mehr nach dem Priesterlichen gefärbt. Aber was das ganze Mittelalter hindurch festgehalten worden ist, was das ganze Mittelalter hindurch streng den Charakter des Gottgesandten hier auf der physischen Erde festgehalten hat, das ist das, wie gesagt, erst im Jahre 1806 verschwundene sogenannte «Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation». So hat ja das geheißen, was da in Mitteleuropa als eine Art Reich existiert hat: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation. In dem «Heiligen» haben Sie noch einen Anflug von dem, was da Göttliches in alten Zeiten auf der Erde war; «Römisch» bedeutet den Ursprung, wo es hergekommen war; «Deutscher Nation» ist das, worauf es gestülpt war, das mehr schon Weltliche, worauf es gestülpt war.
Und so haben wir in der zweiten Phase der Imperialismen nicht mehr bloß den gesalbten Imperialismus der Kirche, sondern wir haben das Durcheinanderziehen des göttlichen und weltlichen Gesalbten in dem Reiche. Das beginnt schon mit dem alten Römischen Reiche in der vorchristlichen Zeit, geht bis in die Spätzeiten des Mittelalters hinein. Das hat immer einen Doppelcharakter, was da als Imperialismen entstanden ist, das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation. Denken Sie nur einmal, daß es ja doch zum Schlusse zurückführt auf Karl den Großen. Aber Karl dem Großen wird in Rom die Krone aufgesetzt von dem Papste. Also auch äußerlich wird die Königswürde zum Symbolum gemacht, so daß dasjenige, was hier auf der physischen Erde da ist, nicht mehr Wirklichkeit ist. Die Menschen des Mittelalters haben Karl den Großen, Otto ]., nicht als Götter verehrt, wie das in uralten Zeiten der Fall war, aber sie haben in ihnen gesehen gottgesandte Menschen. Und das mußte noch immer bekräftigt werden. Natürlich immer weniger und weniger stark lebte das im Bewußtsein. Aber wenn es auch veräußerlicht ist, es hatte eben im Zeichen, im Symbolum noch wenigstens eine symbolische, eine Zeichenwirklichkeit. Diese Kaiser des Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation gingen nach Rom, um sich dort vom Papste die Krone aufsetzen zu lassen. So wird auch der ungarische Istwan I. im Jahre 1000 von dem Papste zum König von Ungarn gemacht. Es wird dem, was in der Welt herrscht, von dem, was geistlich oder geistig ist, die Salbung und damit die Gewalt verliehen.
Das aber, was dadurch ins Bewußtsein der Menschen hineinkommt, das bewirkt wiederum, daß die Menschen geglaubt haben, es liege eine Berechtigung vor, die andern Menschen in dieses Reich, das ja von den Göttern selbst durch Menschen gesalbt ist, einzubeziehen, daher selbst Dante der Ansicht ist, daß derjenige, der Kaiser des Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation ist, im Grunde genommen berechtigt ist, die ganze Welt zu beherrschen. Darinnen ist gerade bei Dante die Formel des Imperialismus.
In den Sagen und Überlieferungen, in denen sich in dem Bewußtsein der Menschen historische Hergänge kristallisieren, drücken sich in der Regel Dinge aus, die von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten, nicht bloß von einem Gesichtspunkt aus betrachtet werden dürfen. Man kann sagen: Im 11., 12. Jahrhundert war durchaus in Europa noch ein starkes Bewußtsein, aber nicht mehr klar, nur ein Empfindungsbewußstsein, aber das stark vorhanden, daß einmal in recht alten Zeiten da im Oriente drüben Menschen auf der Erde, auf der physischen Erde gelebt haben, die selber Götter waren. Man dachte nicht etwa, daß das ein Aberglaube war, o nein, sondern man dachte sich: Jetzt können nur solche Götter nicht mehr auf der Erde leben, weil die Erde so schlecht geworden ist. Das ist verlorengegangen, was Menschen zu Göttern gemacht hat, der «Heilige Gral» ist verlorengegangen, und jetzt, im Mittelalter, kann er nur erlangt werden auf die Weise, wie ihn Parzival erlangt: Man sucht den Weg, im Innern den Gott zu finden, während früher der Gott eine Wirklichkeit im Reiche war. Jetzt ist das Reich nur eine Summe von Symbolen, von Zeichen, und man muß aus den Symbolen, aus den Zeichen heraus den Gott finden.
Von all den Dingen, die einmal existiert haben, bleiben dann Überreste vorhanden. Die Wirklichkeit stumpft sich ab. Überreste bleiben vorhanden, Überreste der mannigfaltigsten Art. Während in der Regel, solange die Dinge Wirklichkeiten sind, sie in der Welt eindeutig sind, werden sie nachher vieldeutig. Und so ist Mannigfaltiges in Europa entstanden aus der alten Eindeutigkeit heraus. Solange im Bewußtsein der Menschen das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation eine Bedeutung hatte, so lange war gewissermaßen der Repräsentant dieses Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation auch mächtig, fähig, die einzelnen Engelsymbole, die die Territorialfürsten waren, zu bändigen; denn man hatte noch ein Bewußtsein, daß er eben ein Recht dazu hatte. Aber sein Recht beruhte mehr oder weniger auf etwas Ideellem. Das verlor nach und nach seine Bedeutung. Dadurch blieben dann die Territorialfürsten übrig. Und wir haben gewissermaßen in dem Heiligen Römischen Reiche Deutscher Nation etwas, was nach und nach seine eigentliche innere Substanz auspreßt, und es bleibt nur das Äußere übrig. Es geht das Bewußtsein verloren, daß irdische Menschen gottgesandt sind. Und der Ausdruck dafür, daß man nicht mehr denken kann, irdische Menschen seien gottgesandt, ist eben der Protestantismus. Der Protestantismus ist der Protest gegen die reale Bedeutung der gottgesandten irdischen Menschen.
Wäre das Prinzip des Protestantismus konsequent ganz durchgedrungen, so hätte kein gekröntes oder gefürstetes Haupt sich jemals wiederum «von Gottes Gnaden» nennen können. Aber die Dinge blieben immer als Reste. Bis 1918 sind ja die Reste geblieben, dann sind diese Reste verschwunden. Diese Reste, die schon innerlich alle Bedeutung verloren hatten, sie waren als äußerliche Erscheinungen noch da. Diese deutschen Territorialfürsten waren als äußere Erscheinung noch da; eine Bedeutung hatten sie nur in jenen alten Zeiten, wo sie Symbole waren für ein inspirierendes Himmelsreich.
So erhalten sich noch andere Reste, bei denen man sich gar nicht bewußt wird, wie sie sich als Reste erhalten. Es ist gar nicht so weit zurück, da erschien von einem mitteleuropäischen Bischof - vielleicht war es auch ein Erzbischof — ein Hirtenbrief. In diesem Hirtenbrief wurde ungefähr ausgeführt, daß der katholische Priester mächtiger ist als Jesus Christus, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil ja, wenn der katholische Priester am Altar die Transsubstantiation vollzieht, der Christus Jesus in dem Sanktissimum, in der Hostie anwesend werden muß. Es muß die Transsubstantiation durch die Gewalt des Priesters wirklich sich vollziehen. Das heißt, die Handlung, die der Priester vollzieht, zwingt den Christus Jesus, auf dem Altar gegenwärtig zu sein. Also ist der Mächtigere nicht der Christus Jesus, sondern der Mächtigere ist derjenige, der auf dem Altare die Transsubstantiation vollzieht!
Wenn wir eine solche Sache verstehen wollen, die, wie gesagt, noch vor wenigen Jahren in einem Hirtenbrief erschienen ist, so müssen wir nicht in die Zeiten der zweiten Imperialismen, sondern in die Zeiten der ersten Imperialismen zurückgehen, wie überhaupt in der katholischen Kirche und ihren Einrichtungen sich Mannigfaltiges von den ersten Imperialismen erhalten hat. Darinnen liegt noch ein Rest jenes Bewußtseins, daß diejenigen, die regieren auf der Erde, die Götter sind, während der Christus Jesus der Gottessohn nur ist. Es ist dasjenige, was in einem solchen Hirtenbrief steht, selbstverständlich für ein protestantisches Bewußtsein eine solche Unmöglichkeit, wie es für einen heutigen Menschen schließlich ja auch eine Unmöglichkeit ist, zu glauben, daß vor Jahrtausenden die Menschen in dem Herrscher den Gott gesehen haben. Aber das alles sind eben wirkliche historische Faktoren, sind wirkliche Tatsachen, Tatsachen, die im geschichtlichen Werden, in der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit eine Rolle gespielt haben und deren Reste bis heute eben vorhanden sind.
Und so spielen in spätere Erscheinungen frühere Wirklichkeiten in starkem Maße hinein. Nicht daß immer die Anschauung dieselbe bleibt; aber die Usancen, die aus diesen Anschauungen hervorgehen, die blieben dieselben. Schauen Sie sich an, wie der Mohammedanismus sich ausgebreitet hat. Gewiß, Mohammed hat nicht selber gesagt: Mohammed ist euer Gott —, wie es gesagt werden mußte vor Jahrtausenden von einem orientalischen Priesterherrscher. Er hat sich beschränkt darauf, was schon damals mehr zeitgemäß war, zu sagen: Da ist ein Gott, und Mohammed ist sein Prophet. — Also für das Bewußtsein der Menschen hat er schon angenommen die Gottgesandtschaft, die zweite Phase des Imperialismus. Für die Art und Weise, wie der Mohammedanismus ausgebreitet worden ist, gilt aber noch die erste Phase. Denn niemals sind Mohammedaner in derselben Weise unduldsam gegen Andersgläubige gewesen wie diejenigen, die auf das Bekenntnis etwas geben. Die Mohammedaner sind zufrieden gewesen, die andern zu erobern und zu Untertanen zu machen, geradeso wie in alten Zeiten, wo es auch nicht auf das Bekenntnis ankam, weil es ja schließlich gleichgültig war, was man glaubte, wenn man nur den Gott anerkannte. Die Art und Weise der Verbreitung des Mohammedanismus, die ist die Usance der ersten Phase des Imperialismus.
Und etwas hat sich noch erhalten von der ersten Phase des Imperualismus — stark gefärbt durch die zweite - in der russischen Despotie, in dem Zarismus. Da ist durchaus in der ganzen Art und Weise, wie über den Zaren gedacht worden ist von denjenigen, die ihn anerkannten, da ist wenigstens in der Stimmung des Gemütes etwas, was bis in die erste Phase des Imperialismus zurückgeht. Daher kam es in Rußland so wenig darauf an, daß zusammenwuchs dasjenige, was im Bewußtsein der russischen Bevölkerung selber war, mit demjenigen, was vom Zarismus ausging; denn eigentlich beruhte die Herrschaft des Zarismus auf dem germanischen und auf dem mongolischen Elemente, nicht auf dem Elemente des eigentlich russischen Bauerntums. So blieben die Reste aus früheren Zeiten. Auch in kürzeren Zeiträumen kann man sehen, wie die Reste aus früheren Zeiten blieben.
Nun die dritte Form des Imperialismus. Formuliert wird sie Ja erst seit dem 20. Jahrhundert, seit etwa Chamberlain und seine Leute den Begriff «Imperial Federation» geprägt haben; aber es führen die Ursachen weiter zurück, bis in die zweite Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, wo in England jene große Umwälzung vor sich gegangen ist, durch die eigentlich für alle westlichen Gebiete, in denen anglo-amerikanische Bevölkerung ist, das Königtum, dasjenige, was früher Gott, dann Gesalbter war, zum bloßen Schattendasein, zur bloßen, man kann nicht sagen, Dekoration, sondern zu etwas bloß Geduldetem wurde, während tatsächlich seit dem 17. Jahrhunderte auf die ganze Bevölkerung, gewiß zunächst klassenweise geschichtet, aber auf die ganze Bevölkerung übergeht dasjenige, was öffentlich gewollt wird.
Nun bringt die anglo-amerikanische Bevölkerung andere Vorbedingungen diesem, sagen wir, Volkswillen, dem Wahlsystem aus dem Volke entgegen, als zum Beispiel die französische, die romanische Bevölkerung, überhaupt die lateinische Bevölkerung. Die lateinische Bevölkerung, insbesondere die französische, hat gewiß die Revolution durchgemacht im 18. Jahrhundert; aber unter dem Einfluß desjenigen, was ich Ihnen vor einigen Stunden hier charakterisiert habe, ist eigentlich das französische Volk heute als Volk königlicher als irgendein anderes. Königlich ist man ja nicht nur dadurch, daß ein König an der Spitze ist. Gewiß, ein Mensch kann nicht gut herumlaufen, wenn man ihm den Kopf abgeschlagen hat; aber das französische Volk ist königlich, imperialistisch, ohne daß es einen König hat. Es kommt auf die Seelenverfassung an. Dieses kompakte Sich-als-Eins-Fühlen, dieses ganze Volksbewußtsein, das ist eigentlich durchaus ein sehr realer Rest des Ludwig XIV.Bewußtseins.
Aber andere Vorbedingungen brachte die englisch sprechende Bevölkerung dem entgegen, was man Volkswillen nennen könnte. Und da wurde nach und nach wirklich dasjenige, was öffentlich als Urteil geltend gemacht wurde, wurde wirklich der Ausfluß desjenigen, was aus den gewählten Menschen der Parlamente hervorging, da entwickelte sich die dritte Form des Imperialismus, die dann erst formuliert wurde zum Beispiel durch Chamberlain und andere. Aber wir wollen ihn heute seelisch betrachten, diesen dritten Imperialismus.
Der erste Imperialismus hatte Wirklichkeiten: Ein Mensch war der Gott für das Bewußtsein der andern Menschen. Seine Paladine waren Götter, die um ihn herum waren, Untergötter. Zweite Form des Imperialismus: Das, was auf der Erde war, war Zeichen, Symbol. Der Gott wirkte nur herein in die Menschen. Dritte Form des Imperialismus: Dasjenige, was hier auf der Erde zunächst von den Seelen ausgeht, entkleidet sich auch des Charakters des Symboles, des Zeichens. Wie es von der Wirklichkeit zum Zeichen, zum Symbol gekommen ist, so kommt es vom Zeichen, vom Symbol zur Phrase.
Das ist ohne irgendwelche Gemütserregung, also sine ira, sondern rein objektiv die Tatsache dargestellt, aus der Notwendigkeit des irdischen Werdens heraus. Seit dem 17. Jahrhundert ist wirklich dasjenige, was im öffentlichen Leben der anglo-amerikanischen Bevölkerung vorgeht, wovon gesprochen wird, was man in den Gesetzbüchern fabriziert, Volkswille, gewiß, klassenweise geschichtet — zur Charakteristik dessen kommen wir vielleicht morgen oder übermorgen - aber es ist Phrase, es ist nicht einmal zwischen dem, was gesprochen wird, und der Wirklichkeit eine solche Beziehung wie zwischen dem Symbolum und der Wirklichkeit. So daß dies der Gang ist; seelisch geht das so vor sich: von Wirklichkeiten zu Symbolen und dann zur Phrase, zu dem, was ausgequetschtes, ausgeleertes Wort ist. Und dasjenige, was unter dem ausgequetschten, ausgeleerten Wort vor sich geht, das sind erst die Wirklichkeiten. Von denen stellt sich kein Mensch vor, daß sie göttlich sind, wenigstens nicht da, wo sie ihren Ursprung haben.
Denn denken wir uns einmal die Grundlage jenes Imperialismus, der zu seinem herrschenden Elemente die Phrase hat: in den ersten Imperialismen die Könige, in den zweiten Imperialismen die Gesalbten, jetzt die Phrase. Aus den Majoritätsbeschlüssen wird selbstverständlich nichts Wirkliches, sondern eine herrschende Phrase. Und die Wirklichkeiten schweben darunter und werden durchaus nicht als etwas Göttliches angesehen. Denn nehmen wir eine wichtige Grundlage für dasjenige, was da als Wirklichkeiten sich abspielte: die Kolonisation. Die Kolonisation spielt eine große Rolle bei der Bildung dieses dritten Imperialismus. Für das Kolonisationssystem, das Ausbreiten des Imperiums über die Kolonien, ist ja zuletzt die «Imperial Federation» die Form, die besondere Art der Zusammenfassung. Aber wie gliedern sich ursprünglich diese Kolonien an an das Imperium ? Denken Sie an die realen Fälle zurück: Abenteurer, die man im Imperium nicht recht brauchen kann, die ein bißchen zerlumpt sind, die ziehen dann in die Kolonien, werden reich, verwenden dann ihren Reichtum in der Heimat, sind aber dadurch zunächst durchaus nicht etwa angesehene Leute, sind Abenteurer weiterhin, Bohemiens. So wird das Kolonialreich zusammengebracht. Das ist die unter der Phrase bestehende Wirklichkeit. Aber es bleiben Reste. Wie von den ursprünglichen Wirklichkeiten Symbole und Phrasen als Reste bleiben, oder symbolische Fürstenkronen oder Zarismen, so bleiben von den Abenteurerunternehmungen der etwas übel berüchtigten Kolonisten die Wirklichkeiten übrig, die Wirklichkeiten, die man nun hat. Nicht wahr, der eine hat sich das, sagen wir, «angeeignet»; der Sohn, ja der ist schon nicht mehr so übel berüchtigt, der riecht schon besser. Der Enkel gar riecht noch besser, und dann, nicht wahr, dann kommt eine Zeit, wo alles schon gut riecht. Da kann sich die Phrase bemächtigen dessen, was jetzt schon anfängt, ganz gut zu riechen. Da identifiziert sich dann die Phrase mit der wahren Wirklichkeit. Da breitet der Staat seine Fittiche aus, da wird der Staat der Protektor, und da wird alles ehrlich gemacht.
Es ist nötig, die Dinge - beim wirklichen Namen kann man vielleicht nicht sagen, weil die Namen sehr selten die Wirklichkeiten bezeichnen -, aber beim wirklichen Zipfel anzupacken. Das ist schon nötig, denn nur dadurch kommt man dahin, zu begreifen, welche Aufgaben die heutige Zeit den Menschen stellt und welche Verantwortlichkeit die heutige Zeit den Menschen auferlegt. Nur dadurch kommt man auch dahin, einzusehen, welche Fable convenue die sogenannte Geschichte eigentlich ist, das heißt die Geschichte, die in den Schulen und Universitäten tradiert wird. Diese Geschichte nennt die Dinge wirklich nicht bei dem rechten Namen, im Gegenteil, sie bewirkt, daß nach und nach die Namen für das Unrechte gelten.
Es ist etwas sehr Schlimmes, nicht wahr, was ich jetzt geschildert habe. Aber sehen Sie, nun handelt es sich darum, eben gerade ein wenig seine Empfindungen, seine Gefühle auf die Verantwortlichkeiten zu lenken. Betrachten wir jetzt die andere Seite. Sehen wir uns einmal an so ein altes Imperium. Das war wirklich, irdisch-wirklich in der Vorstellung; der Priesterkönig ging aus den Mysterien hervor. Das zweite war nicht mehr irdisch-wirklich, sondern das zweite war Symbolum. Es ist ein weiter Weg von dem, was sich in dem alten orientalischen Reiche die Herrschenden und ihre Paladine als ein Göttergeschmeide umhängten, und demjenigen, was als «roter oder schwarzer Adler» dritter, zweiter, erster Güte den Leuten dann angehängt wird. Aber dennoch ist das die geschichtliche Entwickelung. Es ist von der Wirklichkeit zu dem Nichts geworden dasjenige, was zuletzt nicht einmal ein Zeichen war, sondern im Grunde genommen nur der Ausdruck für eine Phrase. Nicht wahr, schließlich ist sogar in Äußerlichkeiten das allgemeine Phrasensystem, das ja vom Westen sich über die übrige Welt ausgebreitet hat, eingedrungen in die öffentlichen Angelegenheiten. Ich habe sogar Titularhofräte kennengelernt! Nun haben schon die Hofräte außerordentlich wenig zu raten gehabt - jedenfalls wenig zu raten gewußt —, aber die Titularhofräte! Das war eben nur Phrase, die einem Menschen angehängt worden ist. Und dennoch, alles geht zurück auf jene alten Usancen, von denen ich gesprochen habe.
In der ersten Phase, von der ich sprach, haben wir dasjenige, was äußerlich physisches Reich war, das Irdisch-Wirkliche, ganz als geistig gedacht, in der zweiten Phase nur durchdrungen von geistiger Substanz. Und die dritte Phase muß herauswachsen aus dem, was ich Ihnen jetzt geschildert habe, aus dem Reich der Phrase und derjenigen Wirklichkeit, von der wir eben gesprochen haben. Das dritte, das muß hier auf der Erde verwirklichen das Geistesreich.
Während in der ersten Phase die physische Wirklichkeit als geistig gedacht war, darf in der Zukunft die physische Wirklichkeit nicht als geistig gedacht sein, dafür aber muß das Geistige hier in der physischen Welt anwesend sein. Das heißt, es muß neben der physischen Wirklichkeit leben die geistige Wirklichkeit. Der Mensch muß hier herumgehen, innerhalb der physischen Wirklichkeit, und eine geistige Wirklichkeit anerkennen, muß sprechen als von etwas Wirklichem, Übersinnlichem, Unsichtbarem, was aber da ist, was begründet werden muß unter uns.
Ich habe von etwas sehr Schlimmem gesprochen, von der Phrase. Aber wenn die äußere Welt nicht so phrasig geworden wäre, wäre ja kein Platz für das Eindringen eines Geistesreiches. Gerade dadurch, daß schließlich alles Alte nurmehr Phrase ist, dadurch entsteht der leere Raum, in den das Geistesreich eindringen soll. Gerade im Westen, in der anglo-amerikanischen Welt, da steuert die Menschheit dahin, daß man viel noch fortsprechen wird, sagen wir, in den gebräuchlichen Idiomen, von allerlei Dingen, die von altersher gekommen sind. Wie gesagt, das wird so fortrollen wie eine Kugel fortrollt. In den Worten wird das fortrollen. Unzählige Formeln finden Sie insbesondere im Westen, die jede Bedeutung verloren haben, die aber gebraucht werden. Aber nicht nur in diesen Formeln, sondern in all dem, was man mit alten Worten bezeichnet, lebt dasjenige, was eigentlich Phrase ist, worinnen keine Wirklichkeit ist, woraus die Wirklichkeit herausgepreßt ist. Da ist dann Platz, daß das Geistige, etwas, was mit nichts Altem übereinstimmt, Platz greife. Das Alte mußte zuerst zur Phrase werden; abgeworfen werden muß alles dasjenige, was so fortkollert mit der Sprache, und hinein muß etwas vollständig Neues, das nur als geistige Welt sich ausbreiten kann.
Dann erst kann es ein Christus-Reich geben auf der Erde. Denn in diesem Reiche muß eine Wirklichkeit sein: «Mein Reich ist nicht von dieser Welt.» In dem Reiche von dieser Welt, in dem zunächst sich ausbreitete das Christus-Reich, da war noch sehr viel von dieser Welt vorhanden, was nicht zur Phrase geworden war. Aber in der westlichen Welt wird alles dasjenige, was von alten Zeiten stammt, dazu vorherbestimmt sein, zur Phrase zu werden. Ja im Westen, in der anglo-amerikanischen Welt, wird alles, was menschliche Überlieferung ist, Phrase werden. Dafür ist die Verantwortlichkeit da, in das leergewordene Gefäß einen Geist hineinzusetzen, von dem gesagt werden kann: Dies Reich ist nicht von dieser Welt! - Das ist die große Verantwortlichkeit. Es kommt nicht darauf an, wie etwas entstanden ist, sondern was man weiter mit dem so Entstandenen tut. Und so sind die Zusammenhänge.
Nun werden wir morgen davon zu sprechen haben, wie diese Zusammenhänge sich des weiteren realisieren können, da ja unter der Oberfläche gerade in westlichen Ländern sehr wirksam die Geheimgesellschaften sind, die nun traditionell die zweite Phase des Imperialismus in die dritte hineinschieben. Denn in der anglo-amerikanischen Bevölkerung haben Sie zwei Imperialismen durcheinandergeschoben, den wirtschaftlichen eines Chamberlain und den symbolischen Imperialismus der Geheimgesellschaften, der sehr wirksam hineingeschoben ist, der aber durchaus geheimgehalten wird vor der großen Bevölkerung.
Sixteenth Lecture
My lecture today will be episodic, an interlude in our reflections, because I would like our English friends, who will soon be returning to their country, to be able to take as much as possible with them from here. That is why I am structuring these lectures in such a way that one or the other can serve to support the effectiveness that is necessary. And today, I would like to do so, first of all from a historical perspective, not so much in relation to the present—that can perhaps be done tomorrow—but rather from a historical and spiritual-scientific perspective, I would like to develop some ideas about imperialism for you. Imperialism is a phenomenon that has been discussed frequently in recent times, and it is discussed in such a way that those who speak about it have a more or less clear awareness of its connection with the overall social phenomena of the present. But when such things are discussed today, it is not taken into account, at least not sufficiently, that we are living in the historical process of humanity, that we are in a very specific historical epoch of development, and that this epoch of human development can only be understood if we know where the phenomena that surround us today, in which we live today, come from. Basically, what is most effective today, and will be most effective in the future, is a form of imperialism whose bearers will be the Anglo-American population and which, strictly speaking, is a very recent phenomenon; this imperialism manifests itself as economic imperialism. But the essential point is that in everything that is said about the things connected with this economic imperialism, basically nothing is true, but everything is untrue, everything, I would say, floats in the air and, floating in the air, leads more or less consciously to untruthfulness. But in order to understand how, in our time, realities are completely different from what is said about them, it is necessary to take a deeper look at the historical course of these things.
I need only mention one thing about today's facts to characterize to some extent the judgment of the present public. We have seen that Woodrow Wilson was glorified first in various parts of Europe and most recently even in Germany itself. Our Swiss friends know very well that during the glorification of Woodrow Wilson, I always spoke out sharply against him here in Switzerland, because what Woodrow Wilson is today was, of course, already true at the time when he was being glorified by the whole world. Today, it is already being reported—and I do not mean to say that this is the absolute truth—that there are thoughts in America to declare Woodrow Wilson unfit for government, that there are doubts about his judgment. The public opinion that is circulating around the world today is characterized by such things, namely in its values.
And one need only recall a second fact. In the last four to five years, there has been an extraordinary amount of talk about all kinds of beautiful things: self-determination of peoples and so on. — None of these things were true; for what lay behind them was something quite different, namely, questions of power. And anyone who wants to understand must go back to the realities behind what is said, thought, and judged. And so, especially when a word like imperialism — “imperial federation” has been the official term in England since the beginning of the 20th century — when such things are discussed, it must be taken into account that these are the ultimate consequences, the late products of development, and that they lead back to times long past and can only be explained by what a true view of history can offer.
We do not want to go back as far as one could go back in the intellectual history of mankind; but we want to go back at least a few millennia before the Christian era. There we find imperialist empires in Asia, a variant of such imperialist empires in Egypt. The historically well-known Persian Empire, but especially the Assyrian Empire, are quite characteristic of the Oriental impulse. Now, it is impossible to understand this first phase of imperialism by tracing it only in the last stages of the Assyrian Empire as described in history, because one simply cannot understand what drove the Assyrian Empire without going back to earlier Oriental conditions. Even in China, whose entire organization dates back to very distant times, many things have changed to such an extent that it is no longer possible to recognize in this organization, which existed until recently, the actual character of Oriental imperialism as it existed in the Oriental Empire. However, from the conditions that are known from history, it is still possible to see what actually lies beneath.
Now, one cannot understand the whole of Oriental, ancient imperialism unless one knows what relationship existed in the public consciousness of the population of a given territory, say an empire, to what we would today call the ruler of that empire or the rulers of that empire. For it goes without saying that our words such as ruler or king or the like no longer express what was felt at that time by the ruler or rulers. It is difficult today to imagine the whole world of feelings that prevailed in the Oriental empires three or four millennia before the Christian era, because it is difficult today to take into account how people of that ancient time conceived the nature of the spiritual world in relation to the physical world. Today, most people, if they think about a spiritual world at all, think of it as somewhere far away in an afterlife or something similar. And when we speak of the spiritual world, as we will have to do again in the future as something that exists among us just as much as the sensory world, then everything that has led to Protestant consciousness, for example, rises up in modern times. For in earlier times, it was essential not to make any distinction between the physical world and the spiritual world.
This is so true that when one says things that refer to those earlier times, people today can hardly imagine anything proper, so different was the world of ideas of the ancient people from that of modern people. What was physically there, ruling people, a ruling caste, enslaved people, dominated people, that was reality. It was not something that was called physical reality, but it was reality, it was at the same time physical and spiritual reality. And what was the ruler of the Oriental empires? The ruler of the Oriental empires was God. And in the wide circle of the population there was not a God beyond the clouds in earlier times — I am always speaking of earlier times — there was not a choir of spirits surrounding the highest God; these were later conceptions that arose in the course of earthly evolution. Rather, what we would today call ministers or courtiers, somewhat disrespectfully or soon even respectfully, were beings of a divine nature. For it was clear that through the mystery training these people had undergone, they had become something higher than ordinary human beings. They were looked up to, just as the Protestant consciousness looks up to its God or as certain more liberal circles look up to their invisible angels and the like. For these populations of the ancient Orient did not believe in invisible angels or a God invisible in the supernatural realm. Everything spiritual lived within human beings. An ordinary human being had a human soul. What we would today call a ruler had a divine soul, a God.
Today, we no longer have any conception of a real kingdom of God that also exists as a physical realm. The idea that the king had real divine power and divine dignity is, of course, considered absurd today, but it was once reality in Oriental empires. At first, no one spoke of something that could only be grasped in the mind as such.
A variation, I said, existed in Egyptian culture, because there we find a real transition to a later period. If we go back to the oldest forms of imperialism, this imperialism can be traced back to the fact that the king, the ruler, is God, the God who really appeared physically on earth, the Son of Heaven who really appeared physically on earth, even the Father of Heaven. This is so paradoxical for people today that it seems hardly believable, but it is true. From this, however, derived what can still be observed in Assyrian documents in the way imperialist conquests are justified: they are simply carried out. The right to such conquests was derived from the fact that the kingdom of God had to be expanded further and further. Once a territory had been conquered and the conquered had become subjects, they had to worship the conqueror as their god. In those ancient times, no one thought about spreading religious worldviews. Why would they have needed to? Everything was thought to be realized in the physical world. If the person belonging to the conquered territory outwardly recognized the other, who was the conqueror, if he followed him, then everything was fine, because he could believe what he wanted. Faith—that was personal opinion—was not touched upon at all in ancient times. No one cared about that.
That was the first form in which imperialism appeared. The second form was one in which the ruler, the one who was to assume a ruling, leading role, was not God himself, but rather God's envoy or God's inspired one, the one imbued with the divine. In the first forms of imperialism, one was dealing with realities. That is the essence of it. The first phase of imperialism: one was dealing with realities.
When such an ancient Oriental ruler appeared before his people, he appeared in his regalia because, as a god, he was entitled to wear such clothes. These were the clothes of a god. This is what a god looked like. This meant nothing more than that this was the fashion among gods, how the ruler appeared. And those who were his paladins were not civil servants or anything like that, but higher beings who surrounded him and who, by virtue of their status as higher beings, did what they did.
Then came the time when, as I said, the ruler and also those who were his paladins were presented as messengers of God, as imbued with the divine, as representatives. This is still very evident in Dionysius the Areopagite. Read his writings, how he describes the entire hierarchy of deacons, archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, that is, the entire hierarchy of the church. How does he portray this? Dionysius the Areopagite depicts the whole thing in such a way that in this earthly ecclesiastical hierarchy one has an image of what God is in the supernatural realm with his primal forces, archangels, and angels. So that one already has the heavenly hierarchy above and its image, the worldly hierarchy, below. So the people of the worldly hierarchy, the deacons, archdeacons, put on their robes or perform their actions because these are signs, because they are symbols. In the first phase, one is dealing with realities; in the second phase, one is dealing with signs, with symbols. Of course, this too has been more or less forgotten. For in the general consciousness of humanity today, even among the Catholic population, there is little awareness that deacons, priests, deans, bishops, and archbishops are representatives, vicars of the heavenly hierarchies. But it has simply fallen into oblivion.
Now, with the advance of imperialism, a division arose, I would say a real division. On the one hand, those who held leadership and power were more inclined toward the God-sent, toward the priesthood, where priests are kings; on the other hand, there was a greater inclination toward the worldly, but still by the grace of God, always as officials appointed by God, destined for this purpose. Basically, these are just two variants. And we then have these two variants in historical development: the church communities and the imperial communities.
Something like this would have been unthinkable in the early days of imperialism, when everything physical was reality. But in the second phase of imperialism, the two separated. One was more worldly, but still a representative of God, the other was more ecclesiastical, also a representative of God. This continued into the Middle Ages; and, I would say, in a characteristic historical phenomenon, this living in the outer empire, in the outer reality, of the kings sent by God, the paladins sent by God, and so on, was actually preserved until 1806, only then already in a shadow existence. Outwardly, there was the Roman Church with its expansion; that was more priestly in character. But what was maintained throughout the Middle Ages, what strictly maintained the character of the God-sent here on the physical earth throughout the Middle Ages, is what disappeared in 1806, the so-called “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” That was the name given to what existed in Central Europe as a kind of empire: the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. In “Holy” you still have a hint of what was divine on earth in ancient times; “Roman” means the origin, where it came from; “German Nation” is what it was superimposed on, the more worldly aspect on which it was superimposed.
And so, in the second phase of imperialism, we no longer have merely the anointed imperialism of the Church, but we have the confusion of the divine and worldly anointed in the empire. This begins with the ancient Roman Empire in pre-Christian times and continues into the late Middle Ages. What emerged as imperialism, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, always had a dual character. Just think that it ultimately leads back to Charlemagne. But Charlemagne is crowned in Rome by the pope. So even outwardly, the royal dignity was made a symbol, so that what was here on the physical earth was no longer reality. The people of the Middle Ages did not worship Charlemagne and Otto as gods, as was the case in ancient times, but they saw them as men sent by God. And this still had to be reaffirmed. Of course, this lived less and less strongly in people's consciousness. But even if it was externalized, it still had at least a symbolic, a sign reality in the sign, in the symbol. These emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation went to Rome to have the pope crown them. Thus, in the year 1000, the Hungarian Istvan I was made king of Hungary by the pope. What reigns in the world is given anointing and thus power by what is spiritual or intellectual.
But what enters the consciousness of human beings through this, in turn, causes people to believe that there is a justification for including other people in this empire, which is anointed by the gods themselves through human beings. Therefore, even Dante is of the opinion that the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation is basically entitled to rule the whole world. This is precisely where Dante finds the formula for imperialism.
In the legends and traditions in which historical events crystallize in people's consciousness, things are usually expressed that must be viewed from a variety of perspectives, not just from one point of view. One could say that in the 11th and 12th centuries, there was still a strong awareness in Europe, but it was no longer clear, only a feeling, but a strong one, that in ancient times, people who were themselves gods had lived on Earth, on the physical Earth, over in the Orient. People did not think that this was superstition, oh no, but they thought: Now such gods can no longer live on earth because the earth has become so bad. What made humans into gods has been lost, the “Holy Grail” has been lost, and now, in the Middle Ages, it can only be attained in the way that Parzival attained it: One seeks the way to find God within oneself, whereas in earlier times God was a reality in the kingdom. Now the kingdom is only a sum of symbols, of signs, and one must find God out of the symbols, out of the signs.
Of all the things that once existed, remnants remain. Reality becomes dulled. Remnants remain, remnants of the most diverse kinds. While things are usually unambiguous in the world as long as they are real, they subsequently become ambiguous. And so diversity arose in Europe out of the old unambiguity. As long as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had meaning in people's consciousness, the representative of this Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was also powerful, capable of subduing the individual angel symbols that were the territorial princes; for people were still aware that he had a right to do so. But his right was based more or less on something ideal. This gradually lost its meaning. As a result, the territorial princes remained. And in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, we have, in a sense, something that gradually squeezes out its actual inner substance, leaving only the outer shell. The awareness that earthly human beings are sent by God is lost. And the expression of the fact that one can no longer think that earthly human beings are sent by God is precisely Protestantism. Protestantism is the protest against the real meaning of earthly human beings sent by God.
If the principle of Protestantism had been consistently applied, no crowned or princely head would ever have been able to call itself “by the grace of God” again. But things always remained as remnants. Until 1918, the remnants remained, then they disappeared. These remnants, which had already lost all meaning internally, were still there as external appearances. These German territorial princes were still there as external appearances; they only had meaning in those ancient times when they were symbols of an inspiring kingdom of heaven.
Other remnants are still preserved, and we are not even aware of how they have been preserved as remnants. Not so long ago, a pastoral letter was published by a Central European bishop — perhaps it was an archbishop. This pastoral letter stated, in essence, that the Catholic priest is more powerful than Jesus Christ, for the simple reason that when the Catholic priest performs transubstantiation at the altar, Christ Jesus must be present in the Sanctissimum, in the host. Transubstantiation must truly take place through the power of the priest. This means that the act performed by the priest compels Christ Jesus to be present on the altar. So it is not Christ Jesus who is the more powerful, but the one who performs transubstantiation on the altar!
If we want to understand such a thing, which, as I said, appeared in a pastoral letter only a few years ago, we must not go back to the times of the second imperialism, but to the times of the first imperialism, as in general many things from the first imperialism have been preserved in the Catholic Church and its institutions. Therein lies a remnant of the consciousness that those who rule on earth are gods, while Christ Jesus is only the Son of God. What is written in such a pastoral letter is, of course, as impossible for a Protestant consciousness as it is impossible for a person today to believe that thousands of years ago people saw God in their rulers. But all these are real historical factors, real facts, facts that have played a role in historical development, in historical reality, and whose remnants are still present today.
And so earlier realities play a significant role in later manifestations. Not that the view always remains the same, but the customs that arise from these views remain the same. Look at how Mohammedanism has spread. Certainly, Mohammed himself did not say, “Mohammed is your God,” as it had to be said thousands of years ago by an oriental priest-ruler. He limited himself to what was more appropriate at the time, saying, “There is a God, and Mohammed is his prophet.” Thus, for the consciousness of the people, he already assumed the mission of God, the second phase of imperialism. However, the first phase still applies to the way in which Mohammedanism spread. For Mohammedans have never been as intolerant of other faiths as those who attach importance to confession. The Mohammedans were content to conquer others and make them subjects, just as in ancient times, when confession did not matter, because it was ultimately irrelevant what one believed, as long as one recognized God. The manner in which Mohammedanism spread is the custom of the first phase of imperialism.
And something has been preserved from the first phase of imperialism—strongly colored by the second—in Russian despotism, in tsarism. There is something in the whole way in which those who recognized the tsar thought of him, at least in the mood of the mind, that goes back to the first phase of imperialism. That is why it mattered so little in Russia that what was in the consciousness of the Russian people itself grew together with what emanated from tsarism; for in fact the rule of tsarism was based on the Germanic and Mongolian elements, not on the element of the truly Russian peasantry. Thus the remnants of earlier times remained. Even in shorter periods of time, one can see how the remnants of earlier times remained.
Now for the third form of imperialism. It has only been formulated since the 20th century, since Chamberlain and his people coined the term “imperial federation”; but its causes go back further, to the second half of the 17th century, when a great upheaval took place in England, through which, for all Western areas with an Anglo-American population, the monarchy, which used to be God, then the anointed one, was reduced to a mere shadow existence, to something that cannot be called decoration, but rather something that is merely tolerated, while in fact, since the 17th century, what is publicly desired has been transferred to the entire population, certainly initially stratified by class, but then to the entire population.
Now, the Anglo-American population has different preconditions for this, let us say, will of the people, the electoral system of the people, than, for example, the French, the Romance population, or the Latin population in general. The Latin population, especially the French, certainly went through the Revolution in the 18th century; but under the influence of what I characterized for you here a few hours ago, the French people today are actually more royal than any other. One is not royal simply because there is a king at the head. Certainly, a person cannot walk around very well if his head has been cut off; but the French people are royalist, imperialist, without having a king. It depends on the state of mind. This compact feeling of unity, this whole national consciousness, is actually a very real remnant of the consciousness of Louis XIV.
But the English-speaking population had other preconditions for what could be called the will of the people. And so, little by little, what was publicly asserted as judgment really became the expression of what emerged from the elected members of parliament, and the third form of imperialism developed, which was then formulated, for example, by Chamberlain and others. But today we want to look at this third imperialism from a spiritual point of view.
The first imperialism had realities: one person was God for the consciousness of other people. His paladins were gods who surrounded him, lesser gods. Second form of imperialism: what was on earth was a sign, a symbol. God only worked within people. The third form of imperialism: that which initially emanates from souls here on earth also strips itself of the character of the symbol, the sign. Just as it has come from reality to become a sign, a symbol, so it comes from the sign, from the symbol, to become a phrase.
This is presented without any emotion, sine ira, but purely objectively as a fact arising from the necessity of earthly becoming. Since the 17th century, what has been happening in the public life of the Anglo-American population, what is being talked about, what is being fabricated in the law books, is indeed the will of the people, certainly stratified by class — we will perhaps come to the characteristics of this tomorrow or the day after tomorrow — but it is phrase, it is not even between what is spoken what is spoken and reality. So this is the way it is; spiritually, this is how it happens: from realities to symbols and then to phrases, to what is a squeezed-out, empty word. And what goes on beneath the squeezed-out, emptied word is what is real. No one imagines that these things are divine, at least not where they have their origin.
For let us consider the basis of that imperialism whose ruling element is the phrase: in the first imperialisms, it was kings; in the second imperialisms, it was the anointed; now it is the phrase. Majority decisions naturally do not become reality, but rather a ruling phrase. And the realities float beneath them and are by no means regarded as something divine. For let us take an important basis for what was happening as reality: colonization. Colonization plays a major role in the formation of this third imperialism. For the system of colonization, the expansion of the empire through the colonies, the “imperial federation” is ultimately the form, the special type of unification. But how are these colonies originally integrated into the empire? Think back to real cases: adventurers who are not really needed in the empire, who are a bit ragged, move to the colonies, become rich, then use their wealth in their homeland, but are initially not at all respected, remain adventurers, bohemians. This is how the colonial empire is brought together. That is the reality behind the phrase. But remnants remain. Just as symbols and phrases remain as remnants of the original realities, or symbolic princely crowns or zarisms, so the realities remain from the adventurous undertakings of the somewhat notorious colonists, the realities that we now have. Isn't that right, one has, let's say, “appropriated” it; the son, well, he's not so notorious anymore, he smells better. The grandson smells even better, and then, doesn't he, then comes a time when everything smells good. Then the phrase can take hold of what is already beginning to smell quite good. Then the phrase identifies with the true reality. Then the state spreads its wings, the state becomes the protector, and everything is made honest.
It is necessary to tackle things – perhaps not by their real names, because names very rarely describe reality – but by their real essence. This is necessary because it is the only way to understand the tasks that the present age sets for people and the responsibilities that the present age imposes on them. Only then can we begin to see what a fable convenue so-called history really is, that is, the history that is handed down in schools and universities. This history does not really call things by their proper names; on the contrary, it causes the names to gradually come to mean the opposite of what they mean.
What I have just described is very bad, isn't it? But you see, it is precisely a matter of directing one's feelings and emotions toward one's responsibilities. Let us now look at the other side. Let us consider an ancient empire. It was truly real in the earthly sense; the priest-king emerged from the mysteries. The second was no longer earthly-real, but the second was Symbolum. It is a long way from what the rulers and their paladins in the ancient Oriental empire wore as divine regalia, and what is then attached to people as the “red or black eagle” of third, second, or first rank. But nevertheless, that is the historical development. What was not even a sign in the end, but basically only the expression of a phrase, has become nothing. Isn't it true that even in outward appearances, the general system of phrases that has spread from the West to the rest of the world has penetrated public affairs? I have even met titular court councillors! Now, court councillors had very little to advise on – at least they knew very little – but titular court councillors! That was just a phrase that was attached to a person. And yet, everything goes back to those old customs I spoke of.
In the first phase I spoke of, we conceived of what was outwardly the physical realm, the earthly reality, as entirely spiritual; in the second phase, it was only permeated by spiritual substance. And the third phase must grow out of what I have just described to you, out of the realm of phrases and the reality we have just spoken of. The third phase must realize the spiritual realm here on earth.
While in the first phase physical reality was conceived as spiritual, in the future physical reality must not be conceived as spiritual, but instead the spiritual must be present here in the physical world. This means that spiritual reality must exist alongside physical reality. Human beings must walk around here, within physical reality, and recognize a spiritual reality, must speak as if of something real, supersensible, invisible, but which is there, which must be justified among us.
I have spoken of something very bad, of phraseology. But if the outer world had not become so phraseological, there would be no room for the penetration of a spiritual realm. It is precisely because everything old has become mere phraseology that the empty space into which the spiritual realm must penetrate is created. Especially in the West, in the Anglo-American world, humanity is heading toward continuing to speak a great deal, let us say, in the common idioms, about all kinds of things that have come down from ancient times. As I said, this will roll on like a ball rolls on. It will roll on in words. You will find countless formulas, especially in the West, that have lost all meaning but are still used. But it is not only in these formulas that what is actually phraseology lives on, in which there is no reality, from which reality has been squeezed out. There is then room for the spiritual, something that does not correspond to anything old, to take hold. The old had to become phraseology first; everything that continues to rumble along with the language must be discarded, and something completely new must come in, something that can only spread as a spiritual world.
Only then can there be a Christ kingdom on earth. For in this kingdom there must be a reality: “My kingdom is not of this world.” In the kingdom of this world, in which the kingdom of Christ first spread, there was still much of this world that had not become mere phraseology. But in the Western world, everything that comes from ancient times is predestined to become phraseology. Indeed, in the West, in the Anglo-American world, everything that is human tradition will become phraseology. That is why we have the responsibility to put a spirit into the empty vessel, of which it can be said: This kingdom is not of this world! That is the great responsibility. It does not matter how something came into being, but what we do with what has come into being. And that is how the connections are.
Tomorrow we will talk about how these connections can be realized further, since secret societies are very effective beneath the surface, especially in Western countries, and are now traditionally pushing the second phase of imperialism into the third. For in the Anglo-American population, you have mixed up two forms of imperialism: the economic imperialism of Chamberlain and the symbolic imperialism of the secret societies, which has been very effectively introduced but is kept secret from the general population.