A Man In Time
As students of History and seekers of knowledge, as politically minded civic individuals, as scientists, laymen or professionals, the modern White Nationalist has a distinctive and honourable tradition of men of genius. We have our writers, scientists, and moralists; we have our men of war-craft, of political foresight and historical vision, not so much as we have come to know of as ‘historians’, but a milder and more temperate acumen of individuals who, firstly, have a penchant for being curious, who seek to see beyond the simple and exhaustive facts and formulas of typical historicity. Of course, in a true and noble sense, we are speaking of visionaries, those few individuals who, sometimes slowly, and sometimes with a force better left for the battlefield, part the crimson curtain of ‘yesteryear’, exposing the real life epic of what has ‘gone before’, and have added an individual quality of analysis, of speculation, and brought the two together, paired as two eagles in flight, soaring where few have been privileged to soar; and what this height allows, unencumbered by the flaccid and boring relations of men, may scan the world in its magnificent panorama – in all its various directions and happenings – and, perhaps, the wisdom of the past comes to them as the burgeoning future, held within the fingers of a rosy-coloured dawn.
Many of these men have been students of the accidental, the layman, as he sees the physical world around him and is able to grasp the many impressions upon his soul; if he is able, he accumulates the natural energy and experience of his life, and then the world may, or may not, marvel at his conclusions, as man is, by nature, either gullible or skeptical as the role of the common man is usually one of passivity and superstition. There are others, of course, who have learned disciplines, forged from youth with the care and interests of others who see the need for an extension, a broadening of will and knowledge, and take the time to present a young and burgeoning mind with the skills, but not the will, to accentuate what lies within – a burning desire to speak for the past, and present its beauty and lessons to those of his time, indeed, for all time.
Such, in my opinion, was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a man both within his own time yet, a man beyond it. This is not a case of hero worship, nor is it, simple flattery. It is bourne of a pride, which is felt by all honest men, when a member of their family does something great, or overcomes great obstacles. This man did both.
We all know of the works of men such as the great Classic philosophers, of Francis Parker Yockey and Oswald Spengler, the mention of which is for their voluminous studies, as well as the unique and qualitative reporting of their insights, but also the thread, the kernel if you will, of all these men: they were men of Quest, of a search for truth within the cosmos of blood, of race, and all those quantifiers which enabled men and women of antiquity to become, not only historical figures of record, but of historical figures which, like you and I lived, and lived in ways which, cumulatively, presented a much larger and more precise telling of the way they lived, why they lived the way they did, and to what positive – or negative – end in which their sacrifices were made. This has been called, by some Folkways, and I understand this euphemism; I use the term folk-community, perhaps too much of a present tense, yet community describes, for myself at least, a working continuity, a continuity of interests held in common, both for yesterday and today, making the future a more logical and directed endeavor, as community gives stability and, if not disrupted, and gives also, an extension of itself in both the political and personal realm. This, of course is Tradition.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, as well, understood this intuitively as well as intellectually, and was graced with an abiding sense of who he was, and his knowledge of a grand and distinctive family legacy did much to buttress his understanding of himself and the world into which he had been bourne. In my opinion, such are the great men of history, gifted to us all as it were, a legacy and a memory intended to remind, one and all, of both our strengths and our failings in one common thread of life, of continuity and human relations. They live as bright and shinning stars, the next they are gone, food for carrion and critics, yet they remain alive so long as we, their children, remember and present their efforts to our own children.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain was born at Southsea in 1855, the son of Admiral William Charles Chamberlain. Two of his uncles were generals in the English army; a third was the well-known Field-Marshal Sir Neville Chamberlain (1820-1902). His mother was a daughter of Captain Basil Hall, R.N., whose travels were the joy of a generation of young men and boys, while his scientific observations won for him the honour of Fellowship of the Royal Society. Captain Basil Hall’s father, Sir James Hall, was himself eminent in science, being the founder of experimental geology. As a man of science therefore (and natural science was his first love), Houston Chamberlain may be regarded as that living expression of atavism, that recurring elemental force of genes, of Heredity – of that horrible, to some, science of inevitability, of eugenics. Despite the constant attack by our opposition, those jealous and small-minded individuals who mistake nobility and poise, with boogymen-like terms, such as ‘hitlerism’, and equate, therefore, the aspirations of a people, an ethny, with disaster and chaos. This is always true with small and hideous examples of those who lack the very traits with which men, like Houston Chamberlain took for granted, as something, which was manifestly proper, and singularly important to pass on.
His education was almost entirely foreign. It began in a Lycée at Versailles.
As was common of a Family such as he was bourne to, his service to the Army was a foregone conclusion, and afterwards he was to be sent to Cheltenham College, but as fate, that cruel and hoary mistress would have it, became ill (age 14), the doctors wrongly suspecting that he had respiratory diseases, and had to leave England for numerous visits to various ‘spas’ for treatment. He was accompanied by his aunt, and a Prussian private mentor, Herr Otto Kuntze, who taught this bright lad the German language, and encouraged him in German history, literature, and philosophy. Rather than fulfilling his former obligations due to health, his lessons in the ‘goose-step’, of the subtleties of the Drill, his mind was to be filled with the stories and disciplines of Troy and Rome, by the good professor. This ‘seed of though’ had been planted, and the soil was very receptive.
After a while he went to Geneva, where under Vogt, Graebe, Müller Argovensis, Thury, Plantamour and other great professors he studied disciplines of botany, geology, astronomy, and later the anatomy and physiology of the human body. But the strain of work was too great and laid too heavy a tax upon his strength; so, for a time at any rate, natural science had to be abandoned and he migrated to Dresden, a forced change which was another blessing in disguise; at Dresden he plunged heart and soul into the mysterious depths of Wagnerian music and philosophy, the metaphysical works of the master probably exercising as strong an influence upon him as the musical dramas.
Chamberlain’s first published work was in French, Notes sur Lohengrin. This did not prove to be a career, and disgusted with the vicious and pedantic, not to mention petty jealousies, decided to trash the idea of being a ‘art critic’, and fell into the arms of his true love, the natural sciences, and gave up the lineal majesty of Dresden for the undulating grace of Vienna, and the apt tutelage of one Professor Wiesner. His health, however, tormented him, and his studies not only withered, but died on the vine; out of the chaos of wrecked studies, he saved the remnants of his Recherches sur la sève ascendante, recognized as an authority among the continental botanists of that time, and laid them aside, for a reemergence of this love for Music, and that meant Wagner and his dramas.
In 1892 Chamberlain offered his Das Drama Richard Wagners, which received a less than cordial acceptance, with less than a dozen copies sold in twelve months, and this included Chamberlain himself, but which would have been eclipsed, at any rate, by the Life of Wagner, translated into English, and made a respectable reputation for the indomitable Chamberlain. All this, however, was simply a precursor to his magnum opus, Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, published in 1899. This seminal work was spared no criticism nor approbation, by leading figures, no doubt jealous and a certain national prejudice predominated between Germany and Englanders, but this was diluted with the public praise for this work.
Chamberlain was a master, and he also learned from Masters in the field of archeology, science, and Cuneiform script; he was condemned by such Assyriologists as Professor Delitzsch, but this was simply a strong mind being forced to accept his own failings, and that his understanding of ‘monotheism’ must have come from the Semitic influence of those immigrants into Canaan, around the time of Khammurabi, who brought the name of their god, Javh (Jehova) based on a few simple tablet fragments, or shards, of cuneiform tablets, without benefit of comparison. Such has been the lot of archeology and the battle for religious and racial preeminence.
The writing of the Foundations of the Nineteenth Century was a immense endeavor. His style is like none I had read before; not for sheer intellectual value, but in its almost prose-like delivery. Even the stuffy old scholars of his day could not keep from its mesmerizing spell, even though Chamberlain destroyed the idols of their tradition, the remnants of these idols bearing, in sharp relief, the fallacy of such treasured illusions as had been deemed ‘fact’ but a generation before. Chamberlain did not simply present ‘history’ as that of a numerical accounting of ‘ruling houses’, nor the typical accounting of mass slaughter on the battlefields, but of the story of Life, of the rise of thoughts and poetry, of learning and civilization, of Art; in short, this work is about the organic transmutation of ‘one thing into another’, that complex and magnificent story of our ancient and prolific Indo-European antecedents: our Mothers and Fathers.
In far away Asia, behind and beyond the great and impenetrable recesses of India, in times so remote and lost to memory, even Tradition and Fable are weakly representative of this time, that we know of a race of ‘white men’, herders, shepherds and those who tilled the soil, who practiced poetry and looked to men who cherished thought for its own sake; these were the Aryas – noblemen or householders – a leading caste of independent and original thinking tribesmen. From these harsh and primitive beginnings, the dominate caste of India and Persia were formed, and the continuing continuity of race, ever moving westward, embedded themselves into Europe meeting, perhaps, those of the same house (Cf. Waddell). The great migrations of these peoples, two southward, and one into Europe became the epic of the Aryans, and wherever they went, they went as masters. The Greek, Latin, Keltische, Teuton and Slav – all of the same House. Conquest made its mark, and Varna, or colour, distinguished the white conquerors from the defeated ‘black’ man, the Dasyu, and developed into the caste of colour.
It is to the Teutonic branch of the Aryan family that he felt the first place in the world belonged, and the story of the Nineteenth Century is the story of the Teuton’s triumph yet, as we know today, this story is much more than this, as this family story is more varied a mosaic than simply that of one ‘people’ or region. Undoubtedly, this work by Chamberlain is chauvinistic, but only in regards to his time, not to ours; the width and breadth of his studies are, however, something that we pass by at our own peril.
Many of us, have been taught to hold the Greeks up to admiration as being historically the first thinkers. Nothing could be further from the truth. They (the Greeks) laid the foundations of our science, of geography, natural history, logic, ethics, mathematics – of metaphysics they were not the founders, though they did teach us to think. Bacon condemned their philosophy as “childish, garrulous, impotent and immature in creative power.” Centuries before the birth of the great Greeks, India had produced philosophers who in the realms of thought reached heights which never were attained by Plato or Aristotle. The doctrine, of the transmigration of souls was brought by Pythagoras from India. In Greece, until it was published by Plato, it was regarded as the ‘mystery of mysteries’, only to be revealed to the elect – to the high priests of thought: but in India it was the common belief of the coarse man; whereas to the philosophers, a small body of deep thinkers, it was and is an allegorical representation of a truth only to be grasped by deep metaphysical pondering. The common creed of the Indian coolie, invested by Plato with the halo of his sublime poetry, became glorified as the highest expression of Greek thought.
While metaphysics may be sublime, it was the structure and discipline of Rome, with which Chamberlain, was most taken. The political tendencies of Roman Law, coupled with the determination of War, with slaughter and destruction, to which the Roman State owed its supremacy, was a more practical metaphysics, and bespoke the logical assessment of a State, which knows its own way. A case in point is the great City-state of Carthage.
Historians from the earliest times, from Polybius to Mommsen, have denounced the barbarity shown by the Romans in the extermination of Carthage. Chamberlain offers in a few convincing paragraphs the real issue. He shows that annihilation was an absolute necessity; after all, this was not the Carthage of Queen Dido and Aneas. Rome and Carthage could not exist together. The fight was for the supremacy in the Mediterranean, and therefore for the mastery of the world. On the one side was the civilizing influence of Rome, colonizing under laws so beneficent that nations even came to petition that they might be placed under Roman rule: on the other side a system of piratical colonization undertaken in the sole cause of gain, the abolition of all freedom, the creation of artificial wants in the interest of trade, no attempt at legal organization beyond the imposition of taxes, slavery, a religion of the very basest in which human sacrifices were a common practice.
The Roman felt that it must be a war of the knife without quarter. In his own interest and, perhaps, he was only unconsciously aware of this, and did not necessarily deliver it in a cognizant way, that is, so that the judicial review of the world would be understanding, there could be nothing short of extermination. “Delenda est Carthago” was the cry. Had the body of Rome failed, in this mercantile/cultural defense, the elements of semitic influence, coupled with Phoenician and Babylonian war power, the logical and sublime establishment of reason and law would have been way-laid for an unforeseeable future, a future that would have been, no doubt, retarded and weakened, perhaps never reaching greater Germania, nor infusing the Teutonic peoples with such ardor for practical and robust ingenuity.
Houston Chamberlain was, most definitely, a ‘germanophile’, but not in the crass and limited vision of today’s (and yesteryear’s) pundits and philo-semitic distorters; his was the ‘grand vision’ of Teutonic migrations and ethnic hegemony, the seeds of which had been planted so very long ago, and maintained in that organic and fiery forge of struggle and evolution:
Without Rome it is certain that Europe would have remained a mere continuation of the Asiatic chaos. Greece always gravitated towards Asia, till Rome tore it away. It is the work of Rome that the centre of gravity of culture has been once and for all removed to the west, that the Semitic-Asiatic spell has been broken and at least partly cast aside, that the predominantly Indo-Teutonic Europe became henceforth the beating heart and thinking brain of all mankind. While this State fought for its own practical (but, as we saw, not unideal) interests without the least regard for others — often cruelly, always sternly, but seldom ignobly — it has put the house in readiness, the strong citadel in which our race, after long aimless wanderings, was to settle down and organise itself for the salvation of mankind.
It is with such words that Chamberlain is accused of ‘anti-semitism’ and that his affiliation with ‘nazis’ makes him persona non grata in a more modern time – but this is simply the same old and tired accusations of an age-old nemesis, which, epoch after epoch makes its appearance known, once again. His relationship with Cosima Wagner has added to the vile and stupendous tripe written about this man; his marriage to Eva, the daughter of Wagner and Cosima keeps the gutter snipes busy, ever eager to besmirch the high-born, as they, themselves, wallow in their mediocrity.
Jesus – Not a Jew
A recurring theme in Chamberlain’s work is that Jesus was not a Jew. He has no hard proof, he admits, but he does offer some plausible circumstantial evidence. To wit:
- King Solomon sold Galilee to the king of Tyrus (1Kings 9:11) because the region was scarcely inhabited by Jews.
- Jesus was born, not in Jewish Judaea, but in foreign Galilee, And Gelil haggoyim means ”district of heathens“.
- Jesus himself denounces Jews: Matthew 8:12: „…but the children of the kingdom [i.e., the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness…“; John 8:47: „He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto Him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan…“; Matthew 23:33: „Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers…“
According to Chamberlain, Christianity developed into a murderous totalitarian system because of two factors – the Catholic Church’s emergence from racial chaos after the fall of the Roman empire; and the laws of the Old Testament, which can be attributed to Jewish influence. Only after centuries of Roman Catholic terror did the Germanic forces, embodied by Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther and others, turn Christianity into the religion that Jesus had envisioned (this, of course, is still hotly debated in ‘theological’ circles). In Chamberlain’s day, Emperor Wilhelm II was convinced by these theories and even argued that the Old Testament should be removed from the Bible (with the exception of a few psalms) to sever any remaining links between Christianity and Judaism. These issues, so hotly debated for centuries, and ever decimating the ranks of our folk-community are, hopefully, behind us. The issue of the ‘church’ however, is still with us, and the machinations of this institution still seemingly unresponsive to out present plight.
Germany’s Emperor Wilhem II invited Chamberlain to come to his palace at Potsdam. Whilhelm was delighted by this stalwart Englishman who had praised the Teutonic race so highly, and in a letter to Chamberlain he wrote: “It was God who sent the German people your book and you personally to me.” Chamberlain then became Wilhelm’s friend and counselor. In one significant letter, Chamberlain advised the Emperor:
…Deutschland […] kann dahin gelangen, die gesamte Erdkugel (teils un mittelbar politisch, teils mittelbar, durch Sprache, Kultur, Methoden) zu beherrschen, wenn es nurgelingt, beizeiten den neuen Kurs’ einzuschlagen, und das heißt, die Nation zum endgültigen Bruch mit den angloamerikanischen Regierungsidealen zu bringen. Die Freiheit, die Deutschland braucht, ist die […] unbeschränkte Freiheit des Denkens, der Religion, der Wissenschaft— nicht die Freiheit, sich selber schlecht zu regieren.”
An Englishman showing respect and duly noting its heritage doe not make Chamberlain a member of the NSDAP, nor a theological seminarian; it does, however, make him an individual who saw the world in more than simply a one-dimensional prism. Like most of our pantheon of genius, Chamberlain was both warrior and poet, yet his failings, as with all men of another generation, do not always hit the mark, our mark, in our own time. Nevertheless, this was a great man, independent and a tireless worker for the betterment of our peoples, the world over.
World War I
After England tenuously played with the Entente forces in WWI (1914-1918), a disappointed Chamberlain accused the government and the ‘fatherland’ of complicit treason against the ‘germanic’ race. During the war he wrote many essays on the war, which sold thousands of copies. In many of these works, he remarks repeatedly of a future leader, “the man with the lion’s heart.” In his essay Der Willezum Sieg, 1916, he wrote: “Die Deutschen stehen bereit; ihnen fehlt nurder vom heiligen Geist eingesetzte Führer.”
In these ‘essays’ another seed was to be sown which would lay the groundwork for what historians would call the Dolchstoßlegende, the ‘dagger-blow’, and would embolden the war-torn german army and populace with the knowledge of a Niederträchtige, those infamous elements and individuals within Germany who wanted to see Germany fail in the war, and Wilhelm despoiled of his rule; to do this, Germany must lose the war, and the ‘empire’ destroyed. This point of view was not unjustified, and there was quite a movement afoot to see that this did, indeed, happen. Albert Einstein, it so happened, was a prominent representative of this movement.
According to Chamberlain’s biographer, professor. Geoffrey G. Field, “Hitler, Hess, Goebbels, Eckart, Himmler, von Schirach, and above all Rosenberg had read Chamberlain and professed to have been influenced by him. Hans Kerrl, the Minister for Church Affairs, and Hans Schemm, the Bayreuth schoolmaster who became Bavarian Kultusminister, were also firm admirers, while national socialist intellectuals such as Hans F. K. Günther, Alfred Bäumler, Walter Frank, Ernst Krieck, and the Nobel physicist Philipp Lenard showered him with filial respect.“ 
Other admirers were Lord Redesdale, Winston Churchill, D. H. Lawrence, the American senator Albert J. Beveridge, Nobel prize winner Albert Schweitzer, and the Dutch mystic philosopher P. H. Hugenholtz. (15)
The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century
The writing of Die Grundlagendes neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (1899) was Chamberlain’s most important work, at least in regards to the West, as an organic and related folk-community; his central thesis being the idea that Western civilization’s moral, cultural, scientific and technological superiority comes largely, and specifically from the positive influences of the ‘germanic’ race, as this would include Slavs and Kelts, on the essential and positive progress of Culture down through the ages:
Certain anthropologists would fain teach us that all races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie! The races of mankind are markedly different in the nature and also in the extent of their gifts, and the Germanic races belong to the most highly gifted group, the group usually termed Aryan. Is this human family united and uniform by bonds of blood? Do these stems really all spring from the same root? I do not know and I do not much care…
Chamberlain, a product of his time, saw a great evil to the ‘germanic race’ in the form of the catholic church, “the shield and armor-bearer of all Anti-Germanic movements,” jewry, the Jesuit Order and all those ‘obscure’ and evil forces who continued to fight a ‘race war’ with those who would retard culture, against those who would continue to build and maintain Culture.
Chamberlain was now a public success in Germany; the Church and ‘jewish circles’ received it with lesser ado, and a bestseller his work became. It was translated into English and French, and had a certain persuasive influence upon men of his time, George Bernard Shaw, in his review of the Foundations wrote:
“It is a masterpiece of really scientific history. It does not make confusion, it clears it away. He is a great generalizer of though, as distinguished from the crowd of our mere specialists. It is certain to stir up though. Whoever has not read it well be rather out of it in political and sociological discussions for some time to come.”
Theodore Roosevelt, who was not too keen of Chamberlain, wrote:
…a man who can write such a really beautiful and solemn appreciation of true Christianity, of true acceptance of Christ’s teachings and personality, as Mr. Chamberlain has done, […] represents an influence to be reckoned with and seriously to be taken into account.
Did Chamberlain influence Adolf Hitler? The two men did meet in Bayreuth on September 30th, 1923, on a so-called ‘German day’. Chamberlain, who was by now elderly, ill and embittered, regarded Hitler as Germany’s future saviour, and after this meeting he wrote to Hitler: “In no way do you resemble the descriptions depicting you as a fanatic. I even believe that you are the absolute opposite of a fanatic. […] The fanatic wants to persuade people, you want to convince them, and to convince only.“
This letter meant a lot to Hitler, because the famous writer’s approval would certainly attract new members to his nascent political movement. After staging an unsuccessful coup that began in a Workers ‘beer-hall’, Hitler was imprisoned in Landsberg, where he wrote his well known political manifesto, Mein Kampf. Unfortunately, Hitler’s letters from Landsberg to Chamberlain are now lost, and no one knows what Hitler told his fellow-author about writing the book. Mein Kampf refers just once to Chamberlain:
Those who had the government of the country in their hands were quite as indifferent to principles of civil wisdom laid down by thinkers like H. S. Chamberlain as our political leaders now are. These people are too stupid to think for themselves…
The title of Mein Kampf may echo, Der Kampf, the third section of Chamberlain’s Foundations, which discusses the physical and intellectual battle of Germanics against Roman Catholic imperialism and Jewish theocracy, but as they were contemporaneous, this would be understandable. At any rate, Hitler condemned conservative nationalist German scholars who would write and write but never act:
Nobody of common sense would appoint to a leading post […] some Teutonic Methuselah who had been ineffectively preaching some idea for a period of forty years, until himself and his idea had entered the stage of senile decay. […] It is typical of such persons that they rant about ancient Teutonic heroes […] whereas in reality they themselves are the woefullest poltroons imaginable.
It would seem that men in time are always amongst us, and men against time, are purer and a rarer form of men, in all ages. In May 1926, Hitler visited this old writer for the last time. A passage in Goebbels’ diary describes the meeting:
Shattering scene: Chamberlain on a couch. Broken, mumbling, tears are in his eyes. He holds my hand and won’t let me go. His big eyes burn like fire. Greetings to you, spiritual father. Trailblazer, pioneer! I am deeply upset. Leave-taking. He mumbles, wants to speak, can’t – and then weeps like a child! Long, long handshake! Farewell! You stand by us when we are near despair. Outside the rain patters! I want to cry out, to weep.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain died a few months later, on January 9th, 1927, in Bayreuth. He was 71 years old. The last book he had written was Mensch und Gott (Man and God), a plea for a new Christianity without dogmas and sacraments. Upon his gravestone were engraved the words of Luke 17:21: “Das Reich Gottes ist inwendig in euch“. The Kingdom of God is within you.
Like Pelagius, this great man would sense a greater truth than most that, truly, a man in time, just as his counterpart, that unique and powerful man against time, need seek no further than this own Muse.
 Prof. Field wrote, in his excellent biography “Evangelist of Race” the following:
“Most decorated of all was Chamberlain’s favorite uncle and boyhood hero, Sir Neville Chamberlain, who won fame for his bravery in the Afghan and Sikh Wars and in the Mutiny. He was eventually promoted to Field Marshal by Queen Victoria and made a Knight Commander of the Bath.” (p. 19). This should also draw our attention to the same endeavors we are presently in, and if not too blind, to see how our fate is to be tied in with other failures of our intemperate colonialism; an Imperium with race, is always destined to be a failure. FLS
 Chamberlain, H.S. – The Foundations of the 19th Century, 2nd ed., published by John Lane, The Bodley Head, 1912.
 See the two sections, The Galileans and Christ not a Jew, from The Foundations, or Betrachtung über Jesu Verhältnis zu dem Juden from his book Menschund Gott, p. 110. Note also that Chamberlain never ever wrote that Jesus was an Aryan, a Teuton or a German, as his critics are likely to tell us (and still profess). See for instance the Jewish anthropologist M. Fishberg, who wrote (The Jews, a Study of Race and Environment, 1911) that “H. S. Chamberlain is even convinced that Jesus was an ‘Aryan’ or ‘Teuton’“. “Why not a Berliner?“ was Chamberlain’s obviously dry comment (La Genèse du XIX me siècle, p. 299).
 Cf. remarks from Emperor Wilhelm II in Chamberlain’s book, Menschund Gott, inserted in Briefe 1882–1924 und Briefwechsel mit Kaiser Wilhelm II, p. 265 and p. 273.
 For the entire letter from the Emperor, see Briefe 1882–1924 und Briefwechsel mit Kaiser Wilhelm II,vol. 2, p. 141.
 Ibid, Briefe 1882–1924 und Briefwechsel mit Kaiser Wilhelm II, letter of February 20th, 1902: “Germany […] can achieve complete control of the world (partly by direct political means, partly by language, culture, methods), only if it succeeds in taking a new direction in time, which means the final rupture with Anglo-American ideals of government. The freedom that Germany needs is the […] unlimited freedom of thought, of religion, of science— not the freedom to rule itself badly.“
 H. S. Chamberlain uses the expression “Mannmit dem Löwenherzen“ — man with the lion’s heart — in his essays Deutschlands Kriegsziel, 1916, and Der Willezum Sieg, 1916. His essay Demokratie und Freiheit, 1917, is dedicated to this future leader. He refers to Martin Luther’s Über den Nutzen der Historien, where the same phrase is used, although Luther did not mean a ‘leader figure”, but a man who dares to write the truth, no matter the consequences.
 “The Germans are ready for it; all that is missing is a God-sent Führer.”
 See for instance Die Zuversicht, 1915, or Das eine und das andere Deutschland, 1917, translated into English (The one and the other Germany), or Die deutsche Vaterlandspartei, 1916.
 Cf., Abraham Pais ‘ Einstein Lived Here, chapter Einstein and the Press (p. 117 of the dutch translation).
 Cf., G. G. Field’s Evangelist of Race, p. 452.
 Cf., The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, vol. I, p. 542. These ‘Certain anthropologists’: Chamberlain is referring to the learned men of the Allgemeine Versammlung der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft, who had written, 1892, that “The development of culture is manifestly the common achievement of all these types. All European races, so far as we have penetrated into the secret of the nature of race, are equally gifted for every task of culture.“
 Cf., The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, vol. I, p. 557.
 Published in the Fabian News, June 1911. Shaw also described The Foundations as “the greatest Protestant Manifesto ever written, as far as I know“ (A Treatise on Parents and Children, chapter 58)
 For the entire letter to Hitler, see Briefe 1882–1924 und Briefwechsel mit Kaiser Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 124.
 Mein Kampf, vol. I, chap. 10, p. 296; in the English translation by James Murphy, published by Hurst and Blackett, London, 1939, vol. I, chap. 10, p. 153.
 Ibid, chap. 12, p. 204.
 Das Tagebuch, von Joseph Goebbels 1925/26, p. 77.