The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] Among the lectures I have given here recently, several dealt with the now pressing and burning social issue. That what has long been called the social question—and is still called that today—is something pressing and burning in the social life of all humanity is something that anyone can know today who does not observe the events in which their own existence is entangled as if in a spiritual slumber. To what extent the social question has taken on a specific form—the form that is so decisive for life today—in the necessities of modern human life and in the entire recent development of humanity can be seen from the lectures I have given here, and which I have also presented publicly, at least in summary form, at various locations throughout Switzerland. Thus, among us who are involved in the anthroposophical movement, a certain need has arisen to arrive, from our own perspective, at some kind of judgment regarding the fate of humanity—particularly with regard to the social question—that could be translated into reality in whatever way is possible for us.

[ 2 ] For quite some time now, members of our group have been striving to devote their energy to serving our community during these difficult times. Many things have been considered in this regard, and many possibilities have been explored. Of course, my dear friends, each person can only seek to intervene in events in the way that is predetermined by their destiny, by their karma, and by their—let us say—position in humanity, which has been laid out for them. Well, from the various aspirations that have emerged from our midst, the following has resulted: the three gentlemen who have set themselves the special task of working in Stuttgart in a way that is appropriate to the necessities of life in the present time—these three gentlemen, whom you know well — Mr. Molt, Dr. Boos, and Mr. Kühn —, came to see me in early February, and the intention arose to put into practice, so to speak, what we can derive from our worldview and outlook on life, as best we can for the time being and as seems appropriate for now. Well, my dear friends, when it comes not to abstract considerations but to concrete realities, then we can only ever speak of what is appropriate and fitting at a very specific point in time—what is suitable for making a start in a certain respect. Anyone who does not want to make a start—an appropriate start—but instead wants to, as the saying goes, “get straight to the point,” will generally achieve nothing of note.

[ 3 ] Given the circumstances at the time, our priority was to do something—anything—that seemed right to us at that moment, especially with regard to the German people, who were facing such severe hardships. If one looks at current events, the most significant phenomenon that emerges—one I have often described here—is that there is a chasm, an abyss, between the classes of people: on the one hand, all those circles that have more or less guided the fate of humanity up to now—and on the other hand, the proletariat, which is now coming to the fore precisely with the real demands of the social question. To the discerning observer, however, the proletariat appears in two forms: the proletariat as such and the leaders of the proletariat. I have often discussed here how all the thoughts, feelings, aspirations, and impulses that the leaders of the proletariat hold in their minds—and from which they derive their influence within the proletariat—are, at their core, the legacy of bourgeois thought from the past centuries. Well, we have discussed this here from a wide variety of perspectives and have attempted to substantiate these points.

[ 4 ] One of the most significant developments, however, remained the fact that there is a deep divide between these two—let’s say—groups of people. In recent days, this divide has become clearly evident to anyone who has been following current events: on the one hand, Paris, where—from a certain perspective, namely that of the circles that have hitherto led humanity—the fate of humanity and the present is being taken into hand; on the other hand, Bern, with an assembly in which everything that is separated from the other by a deep chasm is alive. Anyone who has closely followed what is emanating from Paris, anyone who has closely followed what was attempted at the socialist congress in Bern, will have no choice but to admit that what is essential—that which is significant and will have a lasting impact on human development—is, for the time being, not at all what is conceived and intended in Paris in Bern—but rather that two entirely different social languages are spoken in these two places. And if one is inwardly honest, one cannot help but admit: these are two languages that are completely different from one another, in which, for the time being, mutual understanding is impossible.

[ 5 ] This is such a fundamentally important phenomenon, such a significant phenomenon, that upon proper consideration, anyone can see the truth of what I have often said here: that in order to understand these things and to contribute to finding possible solutions to them, we must seek out much deeper foundations than those that are still being sought today on one side or the other. It always seems, as I said the day before yesterday in my public lecture in Basel: Today, the social question—the social movement—already stands before a large part of civilized humanity as a matter of action, as a question of freedom of such decisive significance in the historical life of humanity that there has hardly ever been anything in this historical life that has had such a profound impact on all of humanity on Earth; for this is how it appears to anyone with insight. The foundations must be deeper. And how often have I pointed this out here: the deeper foundations can only be found in that view of reality which is taken as the starting point here in the spiritual science movement—in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—even for the social consideration of life and things.

[ 6 ] I just pointed out something significant, I believe, in our New Year’s Eve reflection—namely, that it is possible today to be completely pessimistic about humanity, not on the basis of some emotional judgment, but on the basis of a realistic social assessment. I read you an essay back then by a man who is truly capable of such social analysis. And I told you: it is only realistic to think so pessimistically if, on the other hand, one cannot still have the full awareness that turning to the spirit can still help. But this awareness should spread further and further: there is reason to believe in destructive forces that will have a terrible effect in the coming decades if people are unwilling to turn to what follows from spiritual science in terms of our view of reality. Of course, this does not refer to the dogmas of any particular spiritual scientific school, but rather to an appeal to the spiritual forces, which, at this significant turning point in human development, can be the only healing and helpful forces.

[ 7 ] Thus, in a certain sense, this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—because it did not arise out of arbitrariness but from the observation of the forces of the times—becomes, in one of its aspects, a remedy for the times in the most eminent sense. It truly did not spring from arbitrariness. It is truly not the program of a single person or a few individuals, but has arisen from the observation of what the spiritual guidance of the world itself dictates as necessary for entering into the current course of human history. Only for this reason can one speak of an anthroposophically oriented spiritual science in this way; otherwise, such speech would, of course, be presumptuous. But what, in its origin, springs from honest modesty need not, if it wishes to assert itself, shrink from the accusation—which folly may level—that it is a matter of presumption.

[ 8 ] One could say that Paris radiates everything that has flowed on the wings of a worldview which has clearly shown itself to have been reduced to absurdity over the past four and a half years. From Bern flowed what a number of people consider a remedy, but which is drawn from a source that is not deep enough. From Paris flows what nearly all of humanity fears; from Bern, there was an attempt to let flow what a large number of people believe they can hope for. And these two things still speak very different languages today. It is impossible to communicate across the chasm. We will only be able to communicate when we are willing to heed the soul’s inner call to spiritual science.

[ 9 ] It was from such impulses that the idea arose to first appeal to the understanding of at least some people. For understanding is what matters. I have emphasized this time and again: we will make no progress amid social chaos unless we succeed—before instincts run too wild—in fostering understanding among a sufficiently large number of people in the civilized world. This, indeed, is what has underlain the spirit of my recent lectures in Zurich, Bern, and Basel. With the various people I have spoken with during this time, the question has been raised time and again: How can one find the path to understanding—or: Is it even still possible, before a complete debacle sets in, to find the way to people’s understanding? — Well, the latter question cannot really be posed for a person who thinks in terms of reality. For a person who thinks in terms of reality does not formulate hypotheses about what is possible or impossible, but rather takes hold of what they consider necessary to be done. When one sets out on a path, the task is to take the first step. And one should not assume that, just because the first step looks different from what one regards as the goal, this first step might therefore be inappropriate. After all, the first step on a long path can only ever cover a very short distance of that path. The point is simply that, when one is heading toward a specific goal, one must, first of all, not go in the opposite direction or to the left or right of the goal; and second, one must have the will, once one has set out in a certain direction, to remain on that path and not allow oneself to be pushed off course to the left or right by all sorts of things. Furthermore, when dealing with current events, one must build upon what actually exists, not construct things out of thin air, if one wishes to adopt a certain realistic standpoint. The thought must be grounded in something that has, so to speak, demonstrated that a real current is flowing in a certain direction. Sometimes it may even seem as if the first step were something highly unfortunate. That it is not may only become clear after some time has passed.

[ 10 ] When the three gentlemen mentioned—Mr. Molt, Dr. Boos, and Mr. Kühn—wanted to discuss the matter with me, the first thing to consider—since this had to be an intellectual initiative, an appeal to people’s understanding—was to raise the question: Where has it ever been seen that something had an effect on people’s thoughts in the first place? Just recall that appeal to the cultural world—the so-called cultural world—which was once issued by ninety-nine German figures, most of whom, I believe, were professors. Perhaps, if one judges not on the basis of emotion but rather from reality, one cannot even arrive at any other conclusion than that this appeal to the cultural world was quite clumsy. Well, they were mostly professors. But it made an impression; it found its way into people’s minds in a rather unfortunate way. And it still haunts us today. In a certain sense, it was a reality—precisely a reality that contributed more to the misfortune of the German people than many other things, for it caused quite a stir.

[ 11 ] And so one might think: What if this body of ideas, which was imposed on humanity at the wrong time — unleashed upon humanity based on ideas that bore the mark of their obsolescence on their foreheads —, what if, now that everything is urgent and pressing, we were to do something to foster understanding; what if we were now to issue an appeal to humanity drawn from the real living conditions of today’s people; first of all—as the matter itself dictates—specifically to the German people, who have, after all, experienced the fate of seeing their supposed mission within a certain state framework lost because that state framework has simply been swept away—if we were to appeal first to this German people, drawing their attention to the fact that it is the facts that speak to them, not merely words, not merely judgments, just any thoughts, but the facts themselves. While such a message might still be in vain for a large part of humanity—perhaps because the old frameworks are still in place—the German people might yet listen—so one might well think—because the old framework has simply been taken away from them, because they can no longer stand on the ground of the old, but must necessarily seek new ground for their life’s mission. People are like that, after all: as long as the old way holds on even a little—unless we’re talking about skirts—they cling to it unconditionally and miss everything that suggests it’s impossible to hold on to it any longer. You wouldn’t believe what a role comfort actually plays in the innermost life of human beings.

[ 12 ] Based on this idea, my dear friends, I have now written a kind of manifesto that I believe could be heard by those whose hearts can be won today to an understanding grounded in the healthy reality of our unique cultural question; that it can be understood first and foremost by the discerning members of the German people, to whom it is directly addressed. But I believe that it should also be read by the enemies of the German people as something deemed appropriate in the present, to be considered by this German people and put into practice. I thought: ninety-nine signed it back then; if, in turn, one can find ninety-nine from the ranks of the Germans of Germany, of the former Germany, of the former Austria—and perhaps add to these ninety-nine a small number of individuals who can be won over to an understanding of the current necessities of life in neutral countries, notably Switzerland—then something positive would have been accomplished in contrast to the negative actions undertaken by the ninety-nine at that time.

[ 13 ] So please understand me correctly: This appeal is directed first and foremost to the German people. However, it is our intention that what is discussed in this way among the German people be heard throughout the entire civilized world. I will now have this appeal read aloud here, my dear friends. These ideas will, of course, be familiar to you, since we have discussed them many times. Naturally, when keeping things brief, everything must be very concise. The intention here is not to lecture anyone, but to say something that can draw people’s attention to the fact that there is a path, and to help them find the right way to that path. Certainly, some may take offense at the brevity of the presentation. But this is not a textbook; rather, the aim is to say something that points to the fact that there is something within humanity that can help. So the call is:

[ 14 ] To the German people and to the cultural world!

[ 15 ] The German people believed that the Reich they had built half a century earlier was secure for all time. In August 1914, they believed that the military catastrophe they found themselves facing at its outset would prove this edifice to be invincible. Today, they can only look upon its ruins. After such an experience, self-reflection must set in. For this experience has shown that the prevailing opinion of half a century—and in particular the dominant ideas of the war years—were a tragically fatal error. What are the reasons for this fateful error? This question must drive self-reflection into the souls of the members of the German people. Whether the strength for such self-reflection exists now is what determines the German people’s very survival. Their future depends on whether they are able to ask themselves this question in earnest: How did I fall into my error? — If it asks itself this question today, it will come to realize that half a century ago it founded an empire, yet failed to assign to that empire a mission springing from the very essence of the German people. — The Reich was founded. In the early days of its existence, efforts were made to organize its internal conditions for survival in accordance with the demands that arose year after year from old traditions and new needs. Later, the focus shifted to consolidating and expanding the external position of power grounded in material resources. This was accompanied by measures addressing the social demands born of the new era, which, while taking into account what the day-to-day situation dictated as necessary, nevertheless lacked a grand purpose—one that should have emerged from an understanding of the forces of development to which modern humanity must turn. Thus, the Reich was placed within the context of world affairs without an essential purpose that would justify its existence. The course of the catastrophe of war has revealed this in a tragic way. Until the outbreak of the war, the non-German world had been unable to discern anything in the Empire’s conduct that might have led it to believe that the rulers of this Empire were fulfilling a mission of world-historical significance that could not be swept aside. The failure of these rulers to find such a mission inevitably gave rise to the view in the non-German world which, for those with true insight, is the deeper cause of Germany’s downfall.

[ 16 ] An immeasurable amount now depends on the German people’s unbiased assessment of the situation. In the midst of misfortune, the insight that has refused to emerge over the past fifty years must finally come to light. In place of narrow-minded thinking about the most immediate demands of the present, there must now emerge a broad outlook on life that strives to recognize the forces of development in modern humanity through powerful ideas and that devotes itself to them with courageous determination. The petty urge that renders all those who focus their gaze on these forces of development harmless by labeling them as impractical idealists must cease. The arrogance and haughtiness of those who consider themselves practical must cease—for it is they who, through their narrow-mindedness masked as practicality, have brought about this misfortune. Consideration must be given to what those who are denounced as idealists—but who are in truth genuine practitioners—have to say about the developmental needs of the new era.

[ 17 ] “Practical thinkers” of all persuasions had, admittedly, long recognized the emergence of entirely new demands on humanity. But they sought to meet these demands within the framework of time-honored ways of thinking and established institutions. Modern economic life gave rise to these demands. Satisfying them through private initiative seemed impossible. The transition from private to social labor became a necessity for one class of people in certain areas; and it was realized wherever this class deemed it beneficial according to their worldview. The radical transformation of all individual labor into social labor became the goal of another class, which, due to the development of the new economic life, has no interest in preserving the traditional private goals.

[ 18 ] All the efforts that have emerged to date in response to humanity’s new demands are based on a common principle. They push for the socialization of the private sphere and, in doing so, count on the latter being taken over by communities (the state, the municipality) that stem from conditions having nothing to do with these new demands. Alternatively, they rely on newer communities (e.g., cooperatives) that did not arise fully in accordance with these new demands, but rather are modeled after the old forms based on traditional ways of thinking.

[ 19 ] The truth is that no community formed according to these old ways of thinking can accept what people want it to accept. The forces of our time are pushing toward an understanding of a social structure for humanity that envisages something entirely different from what is commonly envisaged today. Social communities have, for the most part, been formed thus far out of humanity’s social instincts. Penetrating their forces with full consciousness will be the task of our time.

[ 20 ] The social organism is structured like the natural organism. And just as the natural organism must carry out thinking through the head and not through the lungs, so too is the social organism necessarily structured into systems, none of which can take over the task of another, but each of which must interact with the others while maintaining its independence.

[ 21 ] Economic life can flourish only if it develops as an independent component of the social organism, according to its own forces and laws, and if it does not disrupt the fabric of that organism by allowing itself to be absorbed by another component of the social organism—the politically active one. Rather, this politically active component must exist alongside the economic one in full independence, just as the respiratory system exists alongside the nervous system in the natural organism. Their beneficial interaction cannot be achieved by having both components governed by a single legislative and administrative body, but rather by each having its own legislation and administration that interact dynamically. For the political system must destroy the economy if it seeks to take it over; and the economic system loses its vitality if it seeks to become political.

[ 22 ] A third element must be formed in full independence and based on its own life potential to join these two elements of the social organism: that of spiritual production, which also includes the spiritual component of the other two spheres—a component that must be entrusted to them by the third component, which is endowed with its own lawful regulation and administration, but which cannot be administered by them or influenced in any way other than how the coexisting component-organisms of a natural overall organism influence one another. Even today, what has been said here about the necessities of the social organism can be fully substantiated and elaborated upon in every detail from a strictly scientific standpoint. These remarks can serve only to set forth guidelines for all those who wish to investigate these necessities.

[ 23 ] The founding of the German Empire coincided with a time when these necessities were presenting themselves to modern humanity. Its administration failed to understand how to define a mission for the Empire by taking these necessities into account. Such a perspective would not only have given it the proper internal structure; it would also have provided its foreign policy with a justifiable direction. With such a policy, the German people could have coexisted with non-German peoples.

[ 24 ] Now, insight must grow out of this misfortune. We must develop the will to create a viable social organism. It is not a Germany that no longer exists that should face the outside world, but rather an intellectual, political, and economic system—represented by its delegates—that should be willing to negotiate as independent delegations with those who brought down the Germany that, through the confusion of the three systems, had turned itself into an impossible social entity.

[ 25 ] One can almost hear the practical-minded people in one’s mind complaining about the complexity of what has been said here, finding it inconvenient even to think about the interaction of three bodies, because they may know nothing of life’s real demands but want to shape everything according to the convenient demands of their own thinking. They must realize: either one will adapt one’s thinking to the demands of reality, or one will have learned nothing from misfortune, but will instead multiply the misfortune one has brought upon oneself through further misfortunes, ad infinitum.

---

[ 26 ] In response to this call, the three gentlemen mentioned above have now traveled to Germany, and while I was giving my lectures in Zurich, Basel, and Bern, they worked to put into practice what we had set out to do: to collect about a hundred signatures. Mr. Stein took on the task for Austria, while other gentlemen worked on it here in Switzerland.

[ 27 ] Well, it’s only been a short time so far, but still, we—who wanted to take a first step—can be fully satisfied with what has come of it so far, because we now have a call to action that is supported in the same way as that ill-fated call from back then. During my most recent lectures in Zurich—which were deliberately held there, since Switzerland is now, in a sense, the linchpin of all conditions in the civilized world—my intention was to be able to point out that here and there people are coming forward for whom the message is taking hold. And so, naturally, the task was to find out the results before the final lecture in Zurich. And it turned out—to my great delight—that I was already informed on the 11th: so far, about a hundred names have been collected, excluding Switzerland and Vienna. This was reported to me from Germany, where our friends have set out in all directions to put this matter into practice in the appropriate manner. I received a telegram from Vienna on the same day: “As of noon on the 11th, we have seventy-three signatures; certainly more tomorrow.” — And the following day: “Total result: ninety-three signatures.” — That was the report from Mr. Stein. Then there were a number of additional signatures that were reported later. So the results so far are certainly satisfactory. And it would be desirable—since we have now come this far—that a number of people, and this is always what matters in such a campaign, including among them those who are well-known and whose opinions carry weight, publish such an appeal wherever possible, so that it is seen and read, and thus comes to the attention of those it concerns. In fact, it concerns everyone living today. One could even say: deep within the human soul there is something that calls upon people to strive to understand such a matter.

[ 28 ] As I have told you in the course of these lectures, the idea that is now coming to light in this form is by no means new to me; rather, at the time when the catastrophe of war had reached a decisive turning point, I endeavored to help this necessary impulse take effect in the areas that were relevant to me. I have described to you how that happened. At the time, I told people who were relevant to the cause: It is not a program, not an ideal, but rather that which is observed as the developmental forces of modern humanity—forces that will inevitably come to fruition in the next ten, twenty, or thirty years. The question is not whether it will come to pass or not, but solely how it will come to pass. And to quite a few people who were key at the time, I said: You now have a choice—either to embrace reason and bring something like this about through reason—or to experience social cataclysms and revolutions. People were only too soon convinced that the latter was no false prophecy. But today’s complacent person finds it difficult to make the transition from a certain understanding to the courage to face life that is necessary to bring the cause to fruition, as far as his position allows.

[ 29 ] Here in Switzerland, too, a few signatures have already been collected. People here always have the concern that the first part of this appeal says quite a bit about the German people’s need for self-reflection and about the error in which the German people were caught up. So they say that, as Swiss, they certainly do not have the right to lecture the German people from across the border. I believe, my dear friends, that we should no longer speak that way today. Such ideas may have had a certain significance as outdated relics of thought before 1914; but today, they no longer hold any significance. Today, the narrow-mindedness that stems from such a nationalistic way of thinking should also come to an end. For that is precisely what the misfortunes of the past four and a half years should have taught people. We should already be able to think differently today—forgive me—even in Switzerland, than we did four and a half years ago; we really should. For we should have learned a thing or two here as well, so that it corresponds to what comes over one when one has followed the last four and a half years with some insight. They then truly seem like centuries that have poured down upon humanity. And it seems highly strange to one when, out of the old national and other prejudices—which really should have come to an end in 1914—when, out of these national prejudices or out of mummified ideas, people today want to shape a new world order, want to shape a new map of Europe. This European map-making will be overturned in no time by the other forces—the only ones that are powerful in the present, the only ones that determine what has been called politics: the social factors. For everything else today is a mask. But that is reality. And Europeans will be greatly mistaken if they judge and raise their objections based on these old mummified ideas.

[ 30 ] Of course, one could say—and I could very easily provide you with a handbook of all the counterarguments—that this is, in a sense, a call to action for all states, and it could only come to pass if all states were to take the first step. No, my dear friends, a single so-called state can take the first step; the nature of the matter is such that a single state can take the first step. And if one does take the lead, then it has done something for all of humanity. That is precisely the misfortune of the German people: that the founding of their empire fell into a period of modern history in which, whenever a new empire was founded, there was already a need to fill that empire with this task. And because this empire did not fulfill this task, people failed to understand why it existed in the world at all. Had it fulfilled this task, all events would have unfolded differently, for people would have seen its conditions of existence clearly, or recognized its raison d’être.

[ 31 ] Today, people judge things based on their mental mummies. You see, there are also a lot of people in Europe who can’t break free from their old European mental mummies, and yet—out of a certain sense of dread, I don’t know how to put it—they view Wilson, this run-of-the-mill figure, as some kind of savior. But people must ask themselves: Let’s set aside any judgment of Wilson for now and focus on the facts: How did this Wilson become the influential figure he is in his own country? — Because, in contrast to all other parties, he has pursued—out of a sound American instinct—a policy that is exactly the opposite of the direction in which a large part of Europe now wants to sail. A large part of Europe wants to enter into a community, into a social policy of collective action, in which the liberal, individual forces of the single person are submerged. Wilson owes his election and his influence solely to the fact that, as an American Democrat, he helped unleash the forces that were latent as individual forces within economic life. Let us assume, hypothetically, that Europe achieves the ideals of Bolshevism, achieves the ideals of Bernese social democracy—that is, the social democracy of the Socialist Congress. Let us assume this were to be realized; that people achieved what they dream of. Then Europe would become an entity from which—despite all national prejudices—all free forces would necessarily flow toward free America, where Wilson has become great precisely through the opposite approach. A terrible competition between Europe and America would ensue, in which the only possible outcome would be that Europe would sink into pauperism and America would become rich—not as a result of any injustice, but because of the folly of European social policy. For this is how things would turn out if the social forces—the very development of which is the task of European humanity—were not conceived and realized in such a way that they correspond to a healthy social organism.

[ 32 ] In this appeal, we are not merely dealing with something that has been conceived, but with something that points to forces that are present everywhere in reality—forces that must be realized; without their realization, the fate of not only Germany and Austria, but of all of Europe, will truly be one of impoverishment, impoverishment, destitution, and spiritual decline.

[ 33 ] We are living in serious times, when petty thoughts are not enough. There is also something within people that draws them to what is expressed in this appeal. You can already see this. And because this is the case—because there is hope of finding a way to reach people’s souls and hearts—an attempt has now been made to adapt what was attempted during the catastrophe of war, in the form necessary at that time—as I have told you—to what is necessary under today’s circumstances.

[ 34 ] I can only hope that no one thinks such a matter has absolute significance. In January 1918, I spoke to a gentleman—who would later play an important role—about this matter in the form in which it was written at the time, but I said: This matter can, of course, take on ever-changing forms depending on the circumstances of the time, for it is not a theory, not a program, not an ideal, but rather something conceived out of reality. — And I went on to say: Because it is conceived out of reality, I am not at all concerned with what many utopians are concerned with. The utopians who draw up programs imagine that everything is bad if these things are not realized exactly as they are formulated in their programs. That is not at all what matters to me. It could be, for example, that such an idea strikes a chord in people’s hearts, so that—because it is conceived in practical terms—they begin to put it into practice in everyday life. In every field today, it can already be stated quite clearly how to go about putting it into practice in that particular field. But I could imagine that then, of what has been said here—and what was also said in my lectures in Zurich, Bern, and Basel—not a single stone will remain standing; rather, everything will take on a different form. For those who think in terms of reality, what matters is not that their formulas or statements come to pass, but that a hold is gained on reality somewhere. We’ll see what comes of it. That’s what matters; perhaps everything will turn out differently—I certainly want to suggest that as a possibility—but what must emerge is what is appropriate to the circumstances; that is certain. For it is not some abstract ideal, nor is some program being set forth, but rather the forces of reality are simply being engaged. What is at stake now should be as far removed as possible from all fantasy and all pedantry. That is why I was so astonished when a much-discussed figure—about whom one of the three gentlemen I mentioned had assumed might also sign this appeal—had it conveyed to me: “Yes, he would have believed that I, of all people, if I were to issue such an appeal, would appeal more to the spirit of humanity and say that salvation can now come to humanity only if humanity finds its way back to the spirit.”

[ 35 ] So people want us to repeat the phrase “the Spirit” over and over again: Spirit, Spirit, and Spirit! But that is not the point; the point is that the Spirit reveals itself, that the Spirit proves itself capable of truly shaping reality. These are, in essence, the greatest pests—those who constantly speak of the Spirit without ever intending to point to the reality of that Spirit. For they are actually speaking only in the sense of an ideology, and not of the Spirit. And we should be grateful, my dear friends, that from within our society there have emerged individuals who possess understanding—but practical understanding, such that they actually do something—practical understanding of what is intended here. And after all, the echoes are beginning to be heard.

[ 36 ] After my last lecture in Zurich had concluded and I had referred to the outcome and to this call to action, our friend Dr. Boos issued his own appeal, urging a number of people in the audience to come forward immediately and provide their addresses if they were willing to actively participate in the effort. And there, too, the result was extraordinarily satisfying for that evening. Certainly, objections were raised. I can well understand these objections. But these objections are such that one can see from them: people today are not grounded in reality; they are dreamers. Indeed, it is precisely those who have been regarded until now as the greatest practitioners who are, in fact, dreamers. That is why I said during a lecture in Zurich: What is a good example of a modern-day dreamer, of an idealist? — General Ludendorff! He is the archetype, the representative of a dreamer; a man who, for better or worse—but in my opinion for the worse—understood strategy, but who, in every other respect, was completely detached from all of life, exerted a great and disastrous influence, stood entirely removed from all reality, had no inkling of the conditions of the reality in which he was supposed to operate, and was as abstract an idealist as any socialist utopian could be. We should finally take a good, hard look at this nefarious concept of the “practitioner,” which has brought such infinite harm upon humanity. This “practice,” which has prevailed until now—and which is nothing other than fanciful idealism and an unrealistic way of thinking, brutally imposed upon reality—is what must disappear above all else. That is what matters, my dear friends. And it is out of this very spirit that what must come will emerge precisely from the anthroposophically oriented spiritual-scientific movement.

[ 37 ] That is what I wanted to share with you today—as something that, after all, also emerged from the very heart of our movement—on this evening, which is part of our lecture series.