Anthroposophy and Ecofascism X

Moving on to the third paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier's writes in Paragraph 3:
Why does anthroposophy-a blatantly racist doctrine which anticipated important elements of the Nazi worldview by several decades-continue to enjoy a reputation as progressive, tolerant, enlightened and ecological? The details of Steiner's teachings are not well known outside of the anthroposophist movement, and within that movement the lengthy history of ideological implication in fascism is mostly repressed or denied outright. In addition, many individual anthroposophists have earned respect for their work in alternative education, in organic farming, and within the environmental movement. Nevertheless, it is an unfortunate fact that the record of anthroposophist collaboration with a specifically "environmentalist" strain of fascism continues into the twenty-first century.

Calling anthroposophy racist is still a few steps from proving it. We have already heard Steiner's praise of the importance of all races in human development, so at best our author could hope to prove that anthroposophy is a subtly racist doctrine. But a carefully examination of anthroposophy is apparently not Staudenmaier's intent.

Our author could, and later will, argue that Anthroposophy is hopelessly inconsistent internally; that Steiner would praise equality and then turn around and denigrate other nationalities. To prove that claim they would first have to cite instances of Steiner's alleged racist or fascist statements (this he has not done here - it is repeatedly and loudly claimed that Steiner was a racist, but little actual evidence of this is provided) and show that these are not in any way taken out of context. Further, to claim expert knowledge of Anthroposophy's internal inconsistencies Staudenmaier would need to read more than secondary books on the subject. Most experts on Anthroposophy have spent decades systematically studying the hundreds of volumes of primary source material on the subject. The general consensus of these experts is that Rudolf Steiner was remarkably consistent throughout his lifetime. It seems strange to me that contrary to all this existing research Peter Staudenmaier (and Peter Zegers after him) flatly dismiss the experts as brainwashed and claim that their meager reading of a few secondary sources affords them superior knowledge of such a highly complex subject. Zegers has already been spanked by no less than Noam Chomsky for making claims requiring advanced expertise in a complex subject without appearing to possess such expertise, in that case accusing an Israeli author of anti-Semitism (incidentally, something he will later also accuse Steiner of):

"I don't know Zegers, but I have to wonder whether he knows anything at all about Shahak and what he does. Of course, Shahak is making "selective use" of the Rabbinic sources he cites (rarely the Talmud, incidentally). That is true of 100% of the finest and most careful scholarship. The question is whether his choices distort the original texts. If Zegers believes he can show that, I am impressed with his scholarship; few people have the deep knowledge of the Rabbinic literature that would be required to have any judgment on the matter. I would certainly await with interest his demonstration of this charge with a careful scholarly analysis of the original sources that Shahak cites; a demonstration that has not yet been attempted, to my knowledge. Lacking that, one can only regard his charges as sheer slander."

Naom Chomsky in the Dutch journal Kleintje Muurkrant nr 360, September 2001.
For more detail on the incident, see Sune Nordwall's web page at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Shahak.htm