Daniel Hindes

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

A few people have actually written me about my Defending Rudolf Steiner site. Some have objections, others express appreciation. Googling around I found a few people linking to it. One amusing site is Jeff Smith's ramblings. Jeff seems to be thinking out loud as he read through the site. I'm not sure that he got all my points (he even admits to have not read much of it) but also does not appear to have any serious criticisms.

In googling around I found a site that referenced my Peter Staudenmaier page. (It's over at http://fire.prohosting.com/anthro2/Peter_Staudenmaier.htm. There Jeff Smith takes me to task for "holding a grudge" against Peter Staudenmaier. He quotes some of my writing at length, and looking at it like that, I realized that it was a bit of a rant, and not really the best way of presenting things. So I moved it off to a separate "rants" page, and tried to redo the Peter Staudenmaier page to be more factual.

Continuing my commentary on the second paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism. Staudenmaier at one point acknowledges that the official policy of the Nazi state was to ban anthroposophy as incompatible with fascism, but dismisses this as petty bureaucratic squabbling. Real fascism, he informs us, was pro-anthroposophy. Aside from demonstrating rather questionable judgment, such a stance from a self-proclaimed expert on fascism shows not a little bit of arrogance mixed with a studied ignorance of the broader context. Staudenmaier's statement "the actual politics of Steiner and his followers have consistently displayed a profoundly reactionary streak" is simply untrue. For clarity we should first separate the politics of Steiner and those of his followers. Steiner's politics will be discussed at length below. Of his followers I will admit that a number, both in the 1930's and later, can be described as "profoundly reactionary." Indeed, every single one of these cases is very well known to Staudenmaier and those upon whose opinions he relies. However, I maintain that even in the 1930's the number of anthroposophists sympathetic to fascism was the smallest minority, and today is minuscule. The vast majority of Steiner's followers all over the world today are politically left of center. While making this assertion I will acknowledge that no scientific research exists on the subject. No surveys have been conducted. I draw on years worth of anecdotal evidence from my many interactions with anthroposophists, as well as discussions in several countries with numerous people on the topic. Hitler himself attacked Steiner in print in 1921, and the Nazi regime banned anthroposophy in 1935.

Continuing my commentary on the second paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism. That the Nazi state was adamant that anthroposophy was irreconcilable with their fascist values is evident in the following documents. It was written by Jakob Wilhelm Hauer to the Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst RFSS), Oberabschnitt Süd-West, Stuttgart, on February 7th, 1935. (Archival source: BAD R 4901-3285. Hauer. Translation by Daniel Hindes.):

"Anthroposophical "spiritual science", because it holds fast to outmoded spiritual concepts, causes anthroposophy to belong to the epoch of occidental thinking against which our new race- and volk- based thinking (that sees man as a unified physical-spiritual entity) is fighting for its continued existence. Anthroposophy, too, frees the spirit from its connection to race and volk and damns all that is racial and folk-based (Völkische) to lower spheres of primitivism – to the instinctual – considering it to be a drive to be overcome by the spirit, a prehistoricism. Thereby it demonstrates its interconnection with the dominant streams of previous European spiritual history, above all the Enlightenment, German Idealist philosophy, and the Liberalism of the previous century. In it remains living the idealism of the French Revolution and the humanitarian ideals of the Freemasons, as it does in Theosophy, the mother-organization from which it arose. Like Freemasonry and Theosophy, it mixes itself with oriental mysticism, occultism and spiritualism, and breaks like a large wave – similar in form to the secret teachings of the Kabbalah – over Europe… "These foundations of the world view have the effect that anthroposophy stands open in a disastrous manner to all anti-völkisch, anti-Nationalistic, pacifistic, überstaatlichen (considering something to be more important than the state) and especially Jewish influences…"

Report of the Security Service Central Office (SD-Hauptamtes) in Berlin on "Anthroposophie" dated May 1936. (Archival source: BAD Z/B I 904. Translation by the author.)

"I consider the Anthroposophical worldview, which is in every way internationally and pacifistically oriented, to be quite simply incompatible with National Socialism. The National Socialist worldview is built upon the conception of blood, race, and Volk, and then also, on the conception of the absolute state. Precisely these two fundamental pillars of the National Socialist worldview and the Third Reich are denied by the anthroposophical worldview. […] Every study and activity involving anthroposophy necessarily has its source in the anthroposophical worldview. This means that schools built upon the anthroposophical worldview and managed by anthroposophists are a danger to true German education […]"

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.

So that was the first paragraph of the first paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy 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".

Continuing my analysis of Peter Staudenmaier'sfirst 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-Sta...). 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.

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.

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.