Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 88

Continuing my commentary on the 26th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Hemleben, cited by Staudenmaier, carefully shows the extent and limits of Steiner's admiration for Haeckel, and demonstrates conclusively that Steiner never subscribed to the Monist platform. If Peter Staudenmaier is citing Hemleben to show that he has read extensively in the field, he might consider mentioning that Hemleben's work directly contradicts his own thesis. However, it is also possible that this book is mentioned only for its title (like Hans Mändl's Vom Geist des Nordens in his very first footnote) without  ever having glanced at its contents. The book is cited in Gasman as documenting the link between Steiner and Haeckel, but there is no evidence here or anywhere else that Peter Staudenmaier has seen it himself. That is dubius scholarship indeed, citing a book for its title when the contents actually contradict your thesis!