Was in der Allgemeinen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft noch vorgeht

At this year’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the General Anthroposophical Society, it was decided by a clear majority to investigate the behaviour of the leadership of the Society and the School of Spiritual Science – in particular the Medical Section. Following last year’s refusal by the Goetheanum leadership to agree to a reappraisal process proposed by two members of the Executive Board, this has now been approved by the AGM. The basis for this was a motion submitted by around 200 members, whose basic concerns were supported by the management with a supplementary motion.

One of the aims of this reappraisal would be to find mutually agreeable ways of dealing with similar challenges in the future, especially with regard to the free exchange of different points of view and their publication in the Society’s media.

According to the resolution, a working group is now to be formed with equal numbers of executive and non-executive members to address the following issues, among others:

  • The various judgements, statements and actions must be compared with each other in chronological order and evaluated according to the knowledge available at the time – also in relation to the Board of the General Anthroposophical Society and the leadership of the School of Spiritual Science. In this sense, the respective temporal context of this behaviour before, during and after the pandemic as well as the work already done must be taken into account.
  • The aim of the reappraisal is in particular to gain knowledge with regard to potentially similar social and scientific requirements.
  • Irrespective of Covid, we have been observing for some time now that the leadership of our institutions is increasingly submitting to the alleged “scientific consensus”, which has only been produced by the media and politics, and not only accepting the resulting “ban on critical thought”, but also believing that they can cooperate with the relevant institutions, conducting joint research within the “framework of thought” provided by these institutions, but also protecting Anthroposophy from attacks acting that way. [1]
  • It needs to be clarified whether the accusation is justified that within the Society a scientific debate in the sense of a free spiritual life regarding the questions existing with Covid was not allowed and dissenters were ignored or even discredited as conspiracy theorists (e.g. on the occasion of a book review in the newsletter “Das Goetheanum”)?
  • Although several members of the Goetheanum management did not fully share the views of the Medical Section leadership, they did not speak up, or not in a sufficiently recognisable way, obviously for reasons of solidarity.
  • With the theory of the virus as a pathogen, mono-causal thinking (actually a belief) has been followed, although there is no scientific evidence for this (see wtg-99.com/aufarbeitung) and Rudolf Steiner himself described this way of thinking as a modern superstition.
  • Rudolf Steiner’s statements contradicting these theories were either not reproduced at all or only in abbreviated form, so that he could appear to be in favour of vaccination.
  • It needs to be clarified whether this was a pandemic at all in the true sense of the word.
  • The question of the nature of vaccination was not addressed, although Rudolf Steiner, in relation to the smallpox vaccination at the time, already spoke of the fact that those vaccinated were “clothed with a phantom”, whereby the person would become “constitutionally materialistic”[2] .
  • It can be assumed that many decisions in favour of “vaccination” were made in reliance on the pronouncements of the Medical Section. The considerable research deficits both in relation to the processes of infection and the effect of vaccinations on the higher parts of the human being became apparent – by no means only concerning Corona.
  • Why were the critical voices of doctors and other experts, among others, not taken into account and why was there no, or only an inadequate response to the relevant information?
  • To what extent has the ongoing recognition process of the training standards at the WHO influenced the behaviour of the Medical Section, given the WHO’s preference for vaccination?

Further aspects can be added.

The first step will now be to determine the extent to which the agreed working group can be formed, which can begin its work in a completely transparent manner, supported by a common will to conduct an unbiased reappraisal.

Compiled by: Thomas Heck, 14 May 2024

Contact: aufarbeitung@wtg-99.com, www.wtg-99.com

[1] Newsletter 61, see www.wtg-99.com in the newsletter archive.

[2] GA 314, P. 278.

Translate »