Anthroposophy and its Opponents

GA 255b — 1 May 1920, Dornach

Religious Opponents II

Today I would like to introduce you to one more little thing. I can't spare you all these things now. First of all, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the “Tagblatt für das Birseck, Birsig- und Leimental” – which is now, so to speak, taking a friendly line towards us, which our friends should take into account – has published a reply from our circle of friends to the attacks, of which there have been so many.

On the other hand, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the “Neue Rheinfelder Zeitung” – from which a large part or basically all [slander] has recently originated – was also obliged to include a correction. However, it has made an “editorial postscript”, and I must make you familiar with this editorial postscript. The “explanation” was somewhat distorted, as Dr. Boos just told me, but I would ask you to consider the editorial note in a somewhat more thorough manner. It reads:

Postscript from the editorial team. Our correspondent is of the opinion that it is not good to litigate about spiritual currents and aberrations, as which we also regard anthroposophy. What can be asserted in the above explanation without proof can just as easily be rejected without counter-proof. ...

Yes, the “above explanation” is Dr. Boos's, in which the 23 whopping lies that originated from this site are corrected; and in response to the correction, this sentence is said: “What can be asserted in the above explanation without proof can just as easily be rejected without proof.”

I must once again point out how we live in a certain topsy-turvy world today. You can lie and slander in any way you like, and the person affected by it is given the burden of proof, instead of knowing that the person who originally makes a claim has the burden of proof. Such things should be pointed out today.

... It is also interesting to note that something that could be published in newspapers without contradiction in 1914 and 1916 is now suddenly said to be defamatory.

That is, people were already lying back then, and because they were not already slapped in the mouth back then, they are spreading it again today and believe that the statute of limitations for lies makes the lie the truth. That, my dear friends, is Catholic logic, as expressed in the “Neue Rheinfelder Zeitung”. At the top of the Neue Rheinfelder Zeitung are the words, “For God and Fatherland, for Truth and Justice.” That is the custom of today's world.