Yes, I would like to speak at least once more about what resistances exist that prevent millions of people from embracing anthroposophy, even though they probably actually want to. And that is a difficult issue. We are not afraid at all of being portrayed as conspiracy theorists. I made a video about how nonsensical it actually is to put people who seek reasons for something into the corner of conspiracy theories, because after all, it is a human drive for knowledge to search for reasons, and of course, this is always done in science. But when one searches for this in public processes, political processes, when something is deliberately planned, then that is not allowed, then one is a conspiracy theorist. And if one is very attentive, one sees that all these people who strongly point this out actually, when it suits them, very easily give reasons for something happening that they do not like. I hope I am making myself clear. So I just wanted to say that we are not afraid of being seen that way. We find it completely normal to always consider whether something is happening the way it is because, for example, certain powers in the world do not want it to happen differently.

And so I would like to talk about Rudolf Steiner, who brought anthroposophy into the world at the beginning of the 20th century as a spiritual science, not from a spiritual or religious movement, but from a science of the spirit. And if this spiritual science were to truly find a place alongside natural science, then the development of humanity could take a completely different course. And yes, one can calmly say that this is not desired by certain sides. And it was already like that back then, which also became apparent, for example, through the fact that the Goetheanum in Dornach was completely burned down. But this continued to be evident even after the death of Rudolf Steiner, and it is still evident today that certain powers do not want this spiritual science, and then all kinds of things can be brought into the world to influence public opinion in such a way that Rudolf Steiner is placed in a very strange light.

Spiritual science. Naturally, people think that if something is science, then there must be multiple scientists who can confirm certain results. That one person conducts investigations and then would find the truth—yes, that is simply not accepted at all. Over the course of the 20th century, a development has increasingly shown that a person can no longer have the truth alone, that it must always happen in groups, that it must be established through discourse whether truth is there or not. Truth actually no longer exists in the sense that it can reside in one person. And of course, this has led to spiritual science based on the investigations of one person not being taken seriously at all.

And we noticed this most clearly at the time when Rudolf Steiner was born 150 years ago. Many authors wrote biographies—I did too—and then there was a biography by Helmut Zander, who actually, more or less, I would like to say, ridiculed the entire spiritual science, including by placing the person of Rudolf Steiner in a questionable light. Spiritual science based on the investigations of one person is not accepted, that is one issue. And the other is, how shall I put it, the morality of Rudolf Steiner is doubted from various sides. And the best weapon for this in our time is if one can show that someone does not love all people, but that he loves certain people and hates others. And if these then happen to be certain races of people, where one can more or less indicate that they are not valued in the same way as the white race, then a judgment can be made: This person is a racist.

And that is what was done with Rudolf Steiner in the 1990s. It started in the Netherlands and later spread to Germany, and I have heard that it has also played a strong role in America. That Rudolf Steiner’s morality is questioned because he made certain statements from which one could infer that he was actually a racist. For me, at the time, this was something impossible when it first started to emerge. Because if one knows Rudolf Steiner’s work, then one knows that a person who is allowed to receive such spiritual science from the spiritual world—yes, he must be, he must be very, very moral, that cannot be otherwise. One could even say that he must surely be a saintly person who receives gifts from the spiritual world, who is allowed to receive them, who is allowed to pass them on.

And then, when this became an issue in Germany again, I also wrote a book against it. If anthroposophists themselves can no longer accept that this is an impossibility—and that is how it went, it was not just external forces that found it necessary to portray Rudolf Steiner as a racist. It was anthroposophists who did this, and for me, that is something incomprehensible. If one sees, if one knows the author, if one reads the books, if one reads the lectures, then it becomes clear that here speaks, has spoken, has written, a person who was far above racism. That is an impossibility. He speaks entirely from Christ consciousness, and this consciousness is a guarantee that a person who has it loves all people, and not just white people or yellow people or red people or whatever. It is an impossibility. But that is how it was brought into the world, and since then, it has been the case that many people, when they hear the name Rudolf Steiner, immediately react: “Yes, but he was a racist!”

And I have experienced this myself when I have given lectures in circles that were not anthroposophical, that whenever one speaks about Rudolf Steiner, it is said: “Ah, but he was a racist!” Let us take this seriously. He was not, and I hope to make this clear in the course of the small lectures. But it has become a tremendous opposing force, and the question is: Is it possible to present anthroposophy in such a way that it becomes clear that the person who received it was a saintly person? It must be possible, through the content, through what is compiled in the content, through the coherence found in the books and lectures, that one becomes so impressed by this person’s ability that one realizes that what has been thrown at him is a tremendous lie.

Next time, I will no longer talk about the resistance against anthroposophy. Next time, I want to really start showing what it is, and I hope it will be possible that by getting to know it together—or if you already know anthroposophy well, that we may experience it together anew—that all resistances will melt away like snow in the sun. That is my hope. And yes, it is of course clear that I love anthroposophy, and it should also be clear that I love it because it is a scientific spirituality. One does not need a religion; one does not need to bring anything along in order to understand it. Reason is sufficient if this reason is only able to receive without prejudice.

I have tried to remove three major prejudices. That is inner laziness, that is antipathy against Rudolf Steiner himself, and that is the face of today’s anthroposophy, which in my opinion does not truly show what the reality is. So I have tried to remove these three resistances or at least discuss them, and next time I will really begin with anthroposophy.