Anthroposophy and Ecofascism VII

Turning now to the second paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 2:
If this peculiar cosmology sounds eerily similar to the teutonic myths of Himmler and Hitler, the resemblance is no accident. Anthroposophy and National Socialism both have deep roots in the confluence of nationalism, right-wing populism, proto-environmentalist romanticism and esoteric spiritualism that characterized much of German and Austrian culture at the end of the nineteenth century. But the connection between Steiner's racially stratified pseudo-religion and the rise of the Nazis goes beyond mere philosophical parallels. Anthroposophy had a powerful practical influence on the so-called "green wing" of German fascism. Moreover, the actual politics of Steiner and his followers have consistently displayed a profoundly reactionary streak.

If this peculiar cosmology sounds eerily similar to the Teutonic myths of Himmler and Hitler, it is because it has been misrepresented here so as to appear so. The thesis of Staudenmaier's article is that anthroposophy contributed to National Socialism (among other reasons because both developed in the same location and historical period and must therefore be related). So in a presentation to readers unfamiliar with anthroposophy the similarities must be carefully brought out by any means necessary.

The statement "anthroposophy had a powerful practical influence on the so-called "green wing" of German fascism" is not proven in this article. What exactly Staudenmaier means by "a powerful practical influence" is not clear. "Practical" meaning "here's how to be a good fascist?" Or practical meaning "here is how to be a good environmentalist?" The statement seems to confuse the two. This confusion is at the root of the mistake that Staudenmaier and other authors frequently make. One aspect of anthroposophy has been at the vanguard of environmentalism (something many people would acknowledge as good and something anthroposophists, as a rule, are quite proud of). Aspects of this proto-environmentalism then influenced those among the German fascists who were also interested in environmentalism. The next, mistaken leap in this logic is: Since it influenced some fascists, it must therefore be inherently fascist. Convinced they have found a smoking gun, these authors overlook the significant fact that, except for a few individuals involved in "the so-called 'green wing' of German fascism," the remainder of the Nazi state was adamant that anthroposophy was irreconcilable with their fascist values.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism VI

So that was the first paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. It tries really hard to make Steiner a nationalist. This is not an easy task, as Steiner simply was not a nationalist, and was outspoken throughout his lifetime about the dangers of nationalism. One distortion is to mistranslate "Volk" as "National". If Staudenmaier professes to be an expert on Fascism then certainly he knows the difference between "Volk" (Folk) and "Nation". So either he is not nearly the expert he pretends to be, or he as deliberately mistranslated the sentence. Likewise the "national souls" don't exist in Steiner. Steiner talks of "Folk Souls". The nation is an artificial construct that comes late in European history. Folks, or Peoples, existed long before. Steiner talks of "Folk Souls", not "National Souls". This puts him together with German and other Idealist philosophers (I am aware that these ideas have been misused by the Nazi's, and that the very concept of Folk Souls is now suspect to anti-fascist crusaders). Mistranslating to "national souls" help demonstrate nationalism, but it is very underhanded. And finally the non-existant nordic-gremanic sub-race is the ultimate demonstration of Staudenmaier's method (it simply does not exist; Staudenmaier made it up to smear Steiner).

Staudenmaier is also ignorant of the details of Steiner's life and work, picking up just enough to hang himself by weaving it into a narrative that shows he hasn't really researched any details. And this he passes off as "scholarship".

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism V

Continuing my analysis of Peter Staudenmaier's
first footnote in Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier's writes in his first footnote:
The "Nordic spirit" of Scandinavia continues to fascinate German anthroposophists; see, for example, Hans Mändl, Vom Geist des Nordens, Stuttgart 1966.

Yes, "'Nordic spirit' of Scandinavia" continued to fascinate at least one anthroposophist as late as 1966. The book Vom Geist des Nordens by Hans Mändl is the work of an Austrian Jew who fled the Nazis in 1938 and lived in Sweden until his death in the 1970's. (So the implication that Mändl is German would be incorrect - see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm). For Staudenmaier's assertion that Hans Mändl's book is proof that "the 'Nordic spirit' of Scandinavia continues to fascinate German anthroposophists" there is scant evidence.

It appears that Staudenmaier has placed the footnote simply to appear scholarly and informed. It doesn't actually give sources for any of the facts that he claimed in the paragraph. Nor is it even accurate as it stands, which is typical of the entire piece. It's funny how the little details seem to persistently trip up Staudenmaier's thesis.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism IV

Continuing my analysis of the first paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In his book "The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls" the only thing Steiner might appear guilty of is making generalizations about the different races. Throughout the book he is careful to reiterate that there is no basis for claiming the superiority of one race over another. And even Steiner's generalizations seem value-free. For example, we hear:

"If we state that the negro race was born of the cooperation between the normal Spirits of Form and the abnormal Spirits of Form centered in Mercury, then from an occult standpoint we are perfectly correct in describing the Negro race as the Mercury race"
(Rudolf Steiner. The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in relation to Teutonic Mythology. London 1970, page 101. Lecture of June 12th, 1910.) The German original is Rudolf Steiner. Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhange mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie. Dornach 1962, page 104 and reads:
"Wenn wir den Punkt, den wir vor einigen Tagen in unseren Darstellungen in Afrika gefunden haben, uns jetzt näher dadurch charakterisieren, daß, weil die normalen Geister der Form zusammenwirken mit denjenigen abnormen Geistern der Form, die im Merkur zentriert sind, die Rasse der Neger entsteht, so bezeichnen wir okkult ganz richtig das, was in der schwarzen Rasse herauskommt, als die Merkur-Rasse."

Lest the reader think that the reference to the working of the abnormal Spirits of Form is unique to the negro race and therefore constitutes a denigration of that race, I should point out that in the previous pages Steiner had just finished describing how all races are caused by the combined work of normal and abnormal spirits of form. The reader can verify this statement by reading the whole lecture, which I have posted online.

Europeans are described as the "Jupiter Race" - the Europeans, not the Aryans, not the Germans and not the Scandinavians). An unsympathetic critic with no understanding of Steiner's spiritual science might call the whole idea silly, but it hardly constitutes a doctrine of Aryan superiority. And it is flatly counter to the claim that Steiner's teaching promotes genocide when Steiner specifically points out that all ethnic groups, no matter how small, have an important role to play in the evolution of humanity. This will not be the last time that Staudenmaier finds himself being flatly contradicted by his source material.

Note that Staudenmaier's footnote, which one would expect to indicate the source of his claims - perhaps a page number or the date of the lecture from which his summary is derived - instead informs us that a later student of Steiner continued to be fascinated by the concepts of the book, offering as proof the title of a book published in 1966. The book is titled "Concerning the Spirit of the North". I should point out that passing judgment on a book on the basis of its title is hardly the mark of serious scholarship.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism III

Continuing my analysis of the first paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.

While the summary of the nonexistent lecture given above bears some superficial resemblance to a few themes in the book it flatly contradicts Steiner's actual thesis. For one, no portion refers to the superiority of the fifth root race (nor has Staudenmaier been able to produce one during a back and forth discussion of several months on a public e-mail list). We find at the start of lecture five (June11th, 1910):

"It will be seen from the last lecture that if we wish to make an impartial study of the facts underlying our present investigation we must transcend those prejudices which might easily arise on matters which I must now describe objectively. So long as one has the slightest tendency to take personally an objective description of a particular race or people, it will be difficult to reach a unprejudiced understanding of the facts presented in this lecture-course. For this reason these matters can only be discussed in the light of a systematic knowledge of the spirit. For however deeply one may be involved emotionally in a particular people or race, as Anthroposophists we have an adequate counterpoise in the teaching of karma and reincarnation, when rightly understood. This teaching opens a vista into the future and reveals that our integral Self is incarnated in successive ages in different races and peoples. When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also the negative aspects of all races and peoples; but we may be sure that in our inmost being we shall also receive the countless blessings of all races and all peoples since we are incarnated in different races at different times.
"Our consciousness, our horizon, is enlarged through these ideas of karma and reincarnation. Only through these teachings therefore do we learn to accept what is revealed to us at the present time concerning the mysterious relations of race and nation. If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbor no regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race. But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics may, nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the spirit I have already suggested. The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards the total evolution of humanity. In the second part of this lecture-course I propose to show - and herein lies its real importance - how the particular influences of the missions of the several peoples are merged in the whole of humanity and how even isolated ethic groups which are scattered here and there amongst larger national groups have their part to play in the great harmony of human evolution."
Rudolf Steiner. The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in relation to Teutonic Mythology. London 1970, pages 82-83.

So rather than a paean to the superiority of an Aryan race we find Steiner praising the virtues of all races and telling his listeners that they will reincarnate into every race.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism II

Continuing my analysis of the first paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.

During the period of the Norway "tour" many of Rudolf Steiner's lectures were attended by as little as 10 to as many as 100 people. By all accounts Steiner's listeners were generally attentive. (Various sources put the audience size at about 70. Whether this constitutes a "large" audience depends on your definition and perspective). I am not sure where Peter Staudenmaier got his information on the audience size; it is not in any of his cited sources, so perhaps he made it up, an "opening device" or "hook" for the Norwegian readers of the article. (Peter Staudenmaier, in an e-mail posting to the Waldorf Critics list: " Writers call this an 'opening device'," and " I"I used [the non-existent lecture] merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology. ")

The lecture referenced in Staudenmaier's text above cannot be identified with any of the known Steiner lecture texts from this period in Norway, a fact that Peter Staudenmaier has not been able to explain. When challenged on this by Sune Nordwall, he first claimed that his source was the rare 1911 German version. This edition has never been translated into English. Without any actual evidence, he continued to claim that the 1911 version would support his writing. However, a comparison of the 1911 edition with the 1922 edition shows only minor corrections to words and phrases within sentences, and not a wholesale rearrangement of content. Later Staudenmaier admitted, "Everything I wrote in my paragraph was based on secondary sources" but continues to argue that his secondary sources are more accurate than the primary source. Further, a check of the only secondary source mentioned by Staudenmaier- Hans Mändl's Vom Geist des Nordens, page 6 - clearly states that the title refers to the entire series of lectures and not to an individual lecture as Staudenmaier claims. (see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm). It is typical of the quality of his scholarship that Staudenmaier cannot acknowledge an error that obvious, and his attempts to weasel out are quite telling of his relationship to truth. He appears to feel comfortable making things up if he feels that it is unlikely anyone will catch him on it, and cannot face up to his errors when they are pointed out to him.
Paragraph 1 commentary to be continued…

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism I

One of the longest sections of my Defending Steiner website is my rebuttal to Staudenmaier's piece of attack journalism Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. The piece itself is quite a work. It is well-written and quite effective. If you had never heard of Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy, then after reading it you would doubtless feel convinced that you now knew what was really going on. There is only one small problem with the whole piece: it is almost completely inaccurate. From the sweeping conclusions to the minor details it is all wrong. Indeed, it is amazing how someone can write something to be almost the exact opposite of the truth. Really amazing. Well, I can opine at length about how wrong the article is, but that is unlikely to convince anyone. Instead I should provide evidence and reasons as to why I feel it is wrong. So let's start…

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 1:
In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture was titled "The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour Steiner presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."PS1

This introductory paragraph gets right down to business, introducing the thesis and supporting it with vivid examples. It is also inaccurate in almost every detail, which is characteristic of the entire piece. For one, Rudolf Steiner's speaking "tour" of Norway consisted entirely of lectures in Oslo over a two-week period. In addition Steiner gave two lectures in Oslo on June 13th, one about Christ, and one on philosophy, focusing on Hegel. This information can be found in Christoph Lindenberg's excellent Rudolf Steiner: Eine Chronik. (Stuttgart: 1988. Page 295.) This book is an exhaustive and accurate day-by-day and month-by-month chronology of Steiner's working life. You can look up what he was lecturing on and writing at any given point in time. At a glance we can see that immediately before Oslo Steiner was in Copenhagen (from June 2nd to 5th) lecturing on "Wege und Ziele des geistigen Menschen" (paths and goals of the spiritual human being) published in volume 125 of the complete works, and on the 22nd of June he was in Berlin, probably writing the first draft of his drama "The Portal of Initiation" (published in volume 44). Unfortunately this book is available only in German.

During this "tour" of Norway Steiner spoke primarily on the subject of "Folk Souls", in a series of eleven lectures from June 7th to June 17th, 1910 under the title "The Mission of Individual Folk Souls In Connection With Germanic-Nordic Mythology". In the German, "Die Mission Einzelner Volksseelen Im Zusammenhange Mit Der Germanisch-Nordischen Mythologie" Note the subtle but important change from "Individual Folk Souls" to "Individual European National Souls" in this erroneous translation. The word "European" appears nowhere in the German, and changing "Folk" to "National", while questionable from a translators perspective, was important for Staudenmaier's need to create evidence of Steiner's nationalism, because there is otherwise none present.

A transcript of these eleven lectures was published in book form in two different German versions and many editions. The version edited by Steiner for publication has been translated into several languages including English (twice).

This thread to be continued...

About Sub-Races

The concept of Sub Races is related to Root Races, in that Sub Races are a subdivision of Root Races. In href="http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/faqs/index.html">Theosophy there are seven Sub Races for each Root Race. Steiner maintained the structure, but renamed the Root Races "Epochs" and the Sub-Races "Cultural Epochs" and specifically de-emphasized the racial aspects.
In 1908 Steiner said:
"When people speak of races today they do so in a way that is no longer quite correct; in theosophical literature, too, great mistakes are made on this subject ... Even in regard to present humanity, for example, it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of races. In the true sense of the word this development of the races applies only to the Atlantean epoch ... thus everything that exists today in connection with the [different] races are relics of the differentiation that took place in Atlantean times. We can still speak of races, but only in the sense that the real concept of race is losing its validity."
Steiner, Rudolf. Universe, Earth and Man (GA 105), London 1987, lecture of 16 August 1908.

Steiner:
"For this reason we speak of ages of culture in contra-distinction to races. All that is connected with the idea of race is still a relic of the epoch preceding our own, namely the Atlantean. We are now living in the period of cultural ages ... Today the idea of culture has superseded the idea of race. Hence we speak of the ancient Indian culture, of which the culture announced to us in the Vedas is only an echo. The ancient and sacred Indian culture was the first dawn of post-Atlantean civilization; it followed immediately upon the Atlantean epoch."
Steiner, Rudolf. The Apocalypse of St John (GA 104), London 1977, lecture of 20 June 1908.
Explaining the issue at length in 1909, when he was still the General Secretary of the German section of the Theosophical Society in Germany, Steiner said:
"If we go back beyond the Atlantean catastrophe, we see how human races were prepared. In the ancient Atlantean age, human beings were grouped according to external bodily characteristics even more so than in our time. The races we distinguish today are merely vestiges of these significant differences between human beings in ancient Atlantis. The concept of races I only fully applicable to Atlantis. Because we are dealing with the real evolution of humanity, we [theosophists] have therefore never used this concept of race in its original meaning. Thus, we do not speak of an Indian race, a Persian race, and so on, because it is no longer true or proper to do so. Instead, we speak of an Indian, a Persian, and other periods of civilization. And it would make no sense at all to say that in our time a sixth "race" is being prepared. Though remnants of ancient Atlantean differences, of ancient Atlantean group-soulness, still exist and the division into races is still in effect, what is being prepared for the sixth epoch is precisely the stripping away of race. That is essentially what is happening.
Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character.
That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races, and each of these root races was divided into seven sub-races. These seven periods were said to repeat in a cycle so that one could always speak of seven races and seven sub-races. However, we must get beyond the illness of childhood and clearly understand that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time."
Rudolf Steiner. The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1990. Pages 12-13. Lecture of December 4th, 1909.

More on Root Races

In my article on Root Races I wrote that Blavatsky originated the term. Someone asked me if it was not true that Alfred Percy Sinnett first published the term in his book "Esoteric Buddhism" (1883). I looked into it a bit, and found the following. The idea and structure of root races, but not the term itself, was present in Blavatsky's 1877 book "Isis Unveiled". Sinnett's "Esoteric Buddhism" may have been the first book to print the term. I haven't seen the text of the 1883 edition, only the 1885 revised edition, which does include the term. It may have been used in a magazine article as well; I haven't been able to run down the first published use. However, Sinnett was frequently with Blavatsky as one of her close pupils throughout this period while she was writing "The Secret Doctrine". It is clear that the whole concept comes from Blavatsky, even if Sinnett did publish the term first (and I'm not sure he did, though he may have). Sinnett himself would certainly not claim credit for originating it.

My article What is a Root Race?

The whole question of "Root Races" is an interesting one. In our age, which is so finely attuned to hints of racism (and rightly so) the name alone can immediately suggest racism. This is complicated by the fact that a number of genuine racists, including neo-Nazis proud of the label, employ the term and pervert the underlying concepts. In the article I look at the origin of the term and its meaning, both in Theosophy and Anthroposophy.

About Rudolf Steiner and Theodor Reuss

On occasion you will read about how Rudolf Steiner was a member of the OTO and practiced sexual magic. Such accusations were already being bandied about in his lifetime, and to anyone who knew him or his work they were and remain ridiculous. No hint of such rumors ever emerged from people close to Steiner. Rather it was people who simply wished to discredit him who slung such accusations around. If anyone believed such accusations, then or now, it might be because there really were occultists running around practicing sexual magic. Steiner spoke of occult knowledge, so it appears plausible, right? One such group practicing sexual magic was the OTO (or Ordo Templi Orientis). Their history is complex, the more so for being short of actual historical documents. That is, there is precious little actual documentation and lots of inflated claims. But the fact that they practiced sexual magic is not disputed. One of the main founders of this order was a man called Theodore Reuss. . Details of his life are sketchy, but Reuss seems to have been in the business of selling Masonic titles. One person who bought such at title was Rudolf Steiner. This happened about 1906 when Steiner appears to have intended to revive or create some sort of Masonic order. Steiner obtained the title, but appears never to have done anything with it. Steiner himself was very specific about what he wanted. He wanted to permission to use the name, and nothing else. This he stipulated in writing. He did not want any rituals or any initiation for himself. Nor was he ever in direct contact with Reuss. This he left to Marie von Sievers. Nonetheless this limited contact has been held up as proof; proof of all sorts of things. Once the connection has been made, you can go on to make all sorts of claims. Reuss went on to found the OTO and promulgate sexual magic. Steiner had nothing more to do with him, and deliberately ignored all attempts by Reuss to contact him. Commenting on the episode years later in his autobiography, Steiner wrote:

It is obviously easy to make the observation afterwards that it would have been far more "discreet" not to link up with practices which could later be used by slanderers. But I would remark with all positiveness that, at the period of my life here under consideration, I was still one of those who assume uprightness, and not crooked ways, in the people with whom they have to do. Even spiritual perception did not alter at all this faith in men. This must not be misused for the purpose of investigating the intentions of one's fellow-men when this investigation is not desired by the man in question himself. In other cases the investigation of the inner nature of other souls remains a thing forbidden to the knower of the spirit; just as the unauthorized opening of a letter is something forbidden.

Rudolf Steiner and Heinrich von Treitschke

I was surprised to read once that Steiner was an admirer of Heinrich von Treitschke. I wondered what evidence, biographical or anecdotal, existed to support such a conclusion. The claim was made by Peter Staudenmaier so I was not at all surprised to find that, once again, Staudenmaier had misrepresented the situation. I wrote an entire article on the subject. It starts:

Rudolf Steiner did not admire Treitschke. Far from it, he was quite critical of him in several places. Steiner did find one or two ideas that Treitschke put forth that he liked, but these were certainly not the controversial ideas of Treitschke's.

And after considering several quotes that are indicative of Steiner's attitude I conclude:

Steiner did speak favorably of certain aspects of Treitschke's works in a number of places, but his praise was always narrowly directed. And Steiner was careful not to praise Treitschke's person, only aspects of his work. Thus I do not feel that it is accurate to call Steiner an admirer of Treitschke.

Rudolf Steiner and Friedrich Nietzsche

The offhand description of Steiner as a "disciple" of Nietzsche by Peter Staudenmaier in his article Anthroposophy and Ecofascism caused me to look into their relationship in more depth. After reading a few books on the subject (some standard Steiner biographies and a few books and articles by Steiner) I came to the conclusion that "disciple" is not the best descriptive adjective. I concluded:

So we see Rudolf Steiner as an early scholar of Nietzsche; someone who made great efforts to understand Nietzsche's thought, but at the same time someone who distanced himself from Nietzsche's conclusions, and from the bands of enthusiasts who took up the cause in Nietzsche's name.

This was but one of the many misrepresentations by Staudenmaier in his article Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Sitemap of Defending Steiner

I was looking at my Defending Steiner site recently when I realize that there was no easy way to get an overview of the whole thing. I know what it looks like because I built it. But if you landed on the main page you would not easily see at a glance everything that is there. So I decide what it really needed was a Site Map. So that is the latest thing I have added.

Defending Steiner Home Page

Rudolf Steiner - Links to Biographical Information

Index of Allegations

Was Rudolf Steiner a German Nationalist? Was Rudolf Steiner was an anti-Semite Does Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophical approach to medicine reject conventional scientific medicine? Was Rudolf Steiner an admirer of Heinrich von Treitschke? Was Rudolf Steiner a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche? Was Rudolf Steiner a member of Theodore Reuss's OTO?

Index of Misconceptions

What is a Root Race? What are "Sub-Races"? Steiner and the mythical "Nordic-Germanic Sub-Race" What is an Anthroposophist?

Index of Refutations

Contra Staudenmaier: A Critique of "Anthroposophy & Ecofascism"

Index of Articles

Anthroposophy and Science Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Haeckel Rudolf Steiner and Fredrich Nietzsche Rudolf Steiner and Guido von List Rudolf Steiner and von Trietschke Rudolf Steiner and Theodore Reuss Rudolf Steiner and the OTO

About Daniel Hindes, author of this site.

Related Links

Book Reviews

Ecology in the 20th Century – A History By Anna Bramwell The Fate Of The German-Speaking People And Their Plight – Is There A Way Out? By Karl Heyer

Who is __? A list of related persons.

Rudolf Hess Peter Bierl Gregor Schwartz-Bostunitsch

Anthroposophically Extended Medicine

In another section of my site Defending Steiner I consider the questions of whether Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophical approach to medicine, called "Anthroposophically Extended Medicine" rejects conventional scientific medicine. I wrote:

Rudolf Steiner's approach to medicine is specifically called anthroposophically extended medicine because it extends conventional medicine. The very first requirement to practice anthroposophically extended medicine is to obtain a conventional MD degree. All "anthroposophical" doctors are fully licensed, board certified medical doctors. Steiner insisted on this, and his wishes have been respected down to the present day. Once they have completed conventional medical training, a medical doctor can extend their knowledge by adding further perspectives and additional treatment techniques by taking extension courses. Anthroposophical doctors will be the first to praise the advances in trauma care, or send their patients for surgery when necessary. So anthroposophical doctors reject nothing in the toolbox of conventional medicine a priori. Every option is considered for its appropriateness in a specific instance. Antibiotics are used when necessary, but so are homeopathic remedies. Physical therapy is prescribed, but so is curative eurythmy (movement exercise to balance the forces within the body).

Most anthroposophical doctors are family practitioners. This is the most demanding area of medicine from the perspective of the breadth of knowledge required. It deals with all ages and all types of conditions. The extended toolbox of anthroposophical techniques has proven an invaluable resource for family practitioners. And the experience of the last 80 years has shown how useful and effective these additional techniques can be, especially in treating chronic and long-term conditions.

How to define the word "anthroposophist"

An interesting diversion along the way in making the site were some thoughts about how to define the word "anthroposophist". It might seem odd, but in such intellectual disputes as I have had with critics of anthroposophy (among others, Peter Staudenmaier) hair-splitting definitions has been an issue. Peter likes to use words loosely, even as he pretends to use them precisely. So he will call Rudolf Hess an "anthroposophist - without any supporting evidence – and never clarify what this claim is supposed to mean. The reader is left to imagine Hess at the Goetheanum paying tribute to Steiner's genius, and perhaps pouring over Steiner's printed work in his free time. As the article I translated shows, Hess hadn't a clue about any of the content of Steiner's work, talked to only two anthroposophists in his life, and showed an interest in biodynamic farming as a practical endeavor only inasmuch as it could be separated from actual anthroposophy. Staudenmaier ought to know this, after all he cited the source material from which it was taken. But accuracy is not what he is aiming for, and as he frequently does, he ignores the facts in order to make a compelling argument.

Rudolf Steiner's nationalism.

I've been working on Defending Steiner for about the last year. I haven't been able to devote as much time to it as I would like, but progress was continual. In fact, I have a number of further articles in various stages of preparation. But at this point I judged it sufficiently far along to post online. I got several people to look at it first and their comments were helpful. Help was especially useful in my ongoing battle against typos - it was embarrassing how many there were even after I had gone over it dozens of times.

One of the first questions I wrote on concerns Rudolf Steiner's nationalism. In that article I pointed out that despite some direct claims that Steiner was a blatant German nationalist during World War I, there is precious little evidence of it among the observations made by his contemporaries. Steiner himself was not even free to travel within Germany during this period! Check out the article and let me know what you think.

About my Defending Steiner site.

I'd like to introduce my new site Defending Steiner. It was my goal to discuss some of the things that I have been reading about Steiner on the Internet during the past several years. I've been reading Steiner since the early 1990's, and read several biographies as well. Yet the character that I was meeting in some Internet profiles was nothing like the Steiner I knew. Was I severely mislead and missing important aspects of Steiner's character? At first I wasn't sure. "Perhaps it is true, and I've missed it all these years." I thougth to myself. After all, it is a well-known fact that humans can focus on only what they want to see and miss obvious things that they don't want to know about. So I resolved to get to the bottom of it.

Reading some of the accusations carefully, I went systematically through the sources referenced to see what it was I had overlooked all these years. Instead, what I found was very interesting, and actually upset me quite a bit. For the most part the sensational accusations of racism and anti-Semitism were entirely fabricated! That is, the "evidence" to establish the claim was almost all falsified in one way or another!

Now certainly it is easy for me to write such counter-accusations; as easy as it is to make them up in the first place. So if you want to know what to believe, then I encourage you to do the research yourself. Or at least look at some of the things I have written. I'll go into it in detail in future posts.

Intro

First post on Blogger! My name is Daniel Hindes and I have a web page over at Aelzina. My interests include anthroposophy and the work of Rudolf Steiner. In fact, I have just completed a site Defending Steiner answering a number of allegations that I consider incorrect concerning Steiner's life and work. Check it out!

I will present a few thoughts that I have written about over there there in here during the next several of weeks.