Eric P. Wijnants: serial plagiarist
Reposted from my personal blog (Daniel Hindes' Blog)
Once upon a time I came across a site that annoyed me. It had a wealth of material on esoteric subjects, details that were available nowhere else on the web, and in some cases nowhere else at all. The only problem was that not one piece of it had any citations, and that made it essentially useless for my purposes. It is standard scholarly practice if you are talking about something that happened 300 years ago to describe the sources upon which you base your conclusions. Other scholars such as myself can then go back to the sources and verify your research, or come to different conclusions. But if you have only the conclusions without the sources, than the opinions are essentially worthless. The author of the site was revealed after some clicking around to be Eric P. Wijnants. I wrote as much in a blog post entitled “How Not to Write Occult History”.
It turns out I stumbled on something a little bit larger than just a personal annoyance. In the comments of my blog a graduate student came forward to tell how Eric P. Wijnants had conned her into sending review material, pretending to be a professor at the University of Vienna. Her entire research, previously unpublished, showed up on his website as his own work. In a follow-up post a few years later I summarized the whole affair: “Eric P. Wijnants and the problem of pseudo-scholarly writing without footnotes”. Eric himself, using psudonyms, jumped to his own defense in the blog comments.
But the story continues. It seems Susan Olsson was not the only researcher and graduate student whose material was “borrowed” by Eric P. Wijnants – solicited for scholarly review and then posted wholesale on his site. Brendan French's Ph.D. thesis was similarly plagiarized, as was that of Dr. Walter Penrose.
Because his own name is now linked to this broadening plagiarism scandal, Eric P. Wijnants has increasingly used pseudonyms to solicit work. He also uses the pseudonyms to reference his own work, support himself and his other pseudonyms, and defend himself in public discussions (a tactic known as sock puppeting). Ah the wonders of the Internet, when you can pretend to be anyone you want!
Among Eric’s many pseudonyms:
Eric P. Wynants
Dr. Brigitte Muehlegger
Robert Anton Wilson
Francois Martinet PhD
C.Wong
Bhakti Ananda Goswami
Dr. Raphael Vishanu
Brian Muehlbach
Amara Das Wilhelm
And there are doubtless dozens more. Some of these pseudonyms Eric P. Wijnants uses may be real people, but they are also names that have been borrowed and used by him on the Internet, either to post in public forums or to solicit articles from scholars and researchers.
Eric P. Wijnants’s own website (http://sociologyesoscien ce.co...) continues to be a hotbed of activity, to which Eric posts up to 20,000 words of unreferenced, often uncited, and unsigned material per day. Much of it is highly specialize and thoroughly researched (by somebody, though if Eric P. Wijnants did the research, you’d think he’d bother to mention the sources more often – but then if he was actually researching the stuff, there’s no way he would be writing 20,000 words of proofed, edited, and publishable <except for the frequent absences of references> material per day). Either he spends all day in front of a keyboard retyping everything he’s ever read in slightly different words and without a single citation or reference, or – more likely – he is copying and pasting wholesale from all over the place, leaving out the citations and references, and sticking it on his site, where it sits unsigned an unreferenced, but nonetheless implicitly as his own work.
For more evidence that he is likely cutting and pasting (and/or scanning and OCR-ing) consider the page “Historical Overview” on his site (http://soc.world-journal.net/...). The entire page is a bunch of scanned pages from some book and/or magazines(s) showing the history of the world. No, he did not master Adobe Illustrator and make all the charts himself; he scanned them and posted the images on his site. And he did not say where they came from, either. So aside from the blatant copyright violation, if anyone wanted to use them, it would be extremely difficult to find the original source so as to be able to cite it.
Consider Eric P. Wijnants’s output in the first 10 days of March, 2008: 9700 words on the beginning of the cold war, part one. 15,700 words on the beginning of the cold war, part two (between them, 260 citations to over 200 books and documents – I’ll get to that in a minute). A 1500 word commentary to a BBC article on Hitler and the occult, no references. 5500 words on Chinese Tantra (a separate citations page lists 384 sources consulted, including over 100 primary documents – in the original Chinese!). 14,257 words on the end of the cold war (60 references). 628 words on the state of Eastern Europe today (no citations, but a scan of a map, uncredited). 17,700 words on “Populations at War” with 40 citations to over 80 sources. 1900 words on Kurdish nationalism (no references).
That is a total of 66,825 words in 10 days, or about a 200 page book. The topics span at least three different academic specialties, and the references (for 10 days of work, mind you) total 744 different books and documents (over 100 of them in Chinese). Not a bad output for 10 days! At that rate you should be able to complete about 10 doctoral dissertations per year, easily!
Aside from the improbable quantity (he’s been going at close to this rate for years now; in February he posted 24 different “articles” – there are 8 so far this March), what might cause us to believe that this isn’t all Eric’s original output? Well, there are the obvious OCR errors, for one. To give an example, “From romantic hero to man of steel; such was [he evolution of Stalin's self-image.2” (taken from http://soc.world-journal.net/...). Notice the “[he”. That is an OCR error. No typist would ever make that keystroke error. The [ symbol is the left pinky finger. A “t” is the right index finger. You don’t mix those up. But to an OCR program, t can look a lot like [. Notice also how the footnotes have lost their superscript. If you typed the document in MS Word, you could transfer it to the web easily while maintaining the footnotes properly. Instead Eric uses Netscape Navigator 4.7 to create his web pages.
The well turned phrase “From romantic hero to man of steel” is enough for Amazon to locate the book (thanks to the “Search Inside the Book” feature). Eric P. Wijnants has lifted the entire chapter from Melvyn P. Leffler’s recently (September 2007) published book “For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War”. Does Leffler’s name appear anywhere on Eric P. Wijnants’ website? No.
So what are we to conclude? Eric P. Wijnants is a blatant, serial, high-volume plagiarist. Almost everything on his site comes from somewhere else, and none of it is credited to the original authors. The strange thing is that he becomes indignant when this is pointed out. And the biggest irony is that he runs around the world pretending to be an academic. Half his pseudonyms have PhD’s!
Some things I wrote in 2007
2007 was a good year, and I wrote a number of interesting product reviews.
A recent article I wrote was a list of lens bargains for the Sony Alpha (formerly Minolta Maxxum) lens mount. The article was titled Sony Alpha (Minolta Maxxum mount) lens bargains.
I also wrote a review of my main wide-angle lens, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. And predictably review was titled Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Review.
A couple years ago I wrote an article called How Ebay profits from software piracy, based on my experiences with one transaction. Those are the most recent articles on my photography blog.
Several years ago I wrote a review of the CompactDrive PSD PD7X. This is a portable hard drive casing that ran off of AAA batteries and allowed you to dump the contents of CompactFlash drive cards on to your portable hard drive in the field. In the days of 16 gig CF cards, it is not terribly useful anymore. It back when he spent $200 for a one gig card, it made a lot more sense.
I also written a review of Genuine Fractals 3.5, were I compared it to Photoshop CS bicubic interpolation, and found Photoshop to upsize better than genuine fractals. The article is titled Genuine Fractals 3.5 Review.
Before that I wrote a review of the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. I am still very pleased with the camera, and think that the 7D still takes better pictures than my Sony Alpha 100. Read my review at Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Review.
My latest article is titled Flatbed scanner comparison: The Canon CanoScan 4400F vs the CanoScan 8600F. in this article I attempt to answer the question, "What is the difference between the Canon CanoScan 4400F and the CanoScan 8600F?
Daniel
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 32
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 9:
Immediately after the split, Steiner founded the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Shortly before the outbreak of world war one he moved the fledgling organization's international headquarters to Switzerland. Under the protection of Swiss neutrality he was able to build up a permanent center in the village of Dornach. Blending theosophical wisdom with his own "occult research," Steiner continued to develop the theory and practice of Anthroposophy, along with a steadily growing circle of followers, until his death in 1925.
The first inaccuracy lies in claiming that Steiner founded the Anthroposophical Society. Marie von Sievers, Michael Bauer and Carl Unger did. (See Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie, Stuttgart 1997, page 503 ) Rudolf Steiner conscientiously refrained from breaking from the Theosophical Society or from giving his followers any indication that he wished for this to happen. The initiative to found a new society came entirely from the three mentioned above, and Steiner did not join this new society until 1923.
To the second error, I have previously quoted Steiner on his relationship to Theosophy and the Theosophical Society. Steiner was quite clear that there was no “blending” of his research with Theosophical doctrine. He claimed to speak only of what he directly knew. The closest thing to a blending was Steiner's use of the Theosophical vocabulary to describe certain aspects of supersensible experience. However, the use of similar vocabulary does not make for a common worldview. Certainly a scholar can claim that Steiner was wrong in his assertions. However, to do so a scholar would have to present a far more comprehensive argument, and be in possession of a far deeper background in both Theosophical doctrine and Steiner's Anthroposophy than Peter Staudenmaier has shown.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 31
Staudenmaier also seems quite fixated on the idea of superiority. Steiner did not ever claim the “superiority” or the European over the eastern esoteric traditions. He did claim that the European method of occult training was the only one appropriate for most modern Europeans, and gave quite specific reasons. Steiner allows that a European could take up the yoga path. However, given the demands, including a complete withdrawal from society and subsuming one’s own will to the guidance of the guru, it would be an unusual European who could do so successfully.
In Steiner's estimation, there are three paths of esoteric development: the Eastern, or Indian path, the Christian-Mystical and the Rosicrucian. Steiner professed to be working in the Rosicrucian tradition:
“The eastern way of development (also called yoga). Here an initiated human being living on the physical plane acts as a guru for another human being, who entrusts himself or herself - completely and in all details - to that guru. This method works best for those who, during esoteric development, entirely eliminate their own self and hand it over to the guru. The guru must advise students on their every action.” (Page 61)
“The Rosicrucian way of development. This path leaves the pupil at the greatest possible independence. The guru here is no longer a leader, but an adviser who gives direction for the necessary inner training. At the same time, the guru makes certain that, parallel with the esoteric training, there is a definite development of thinking - without which no esoteric training can be carried through. This is because there is something about thinking that does not apply to anything else. When we're on the physical plane, we perceive with the physical sense is only what is on that plane. Astral perceptions are valid for the astral plane; devachanic hearing is valid only in devachan. Thus each plane has its own specific form of perception. But one activity - logical thinking - goes through all worlds. Logic is the same on all three planes. Thus, on the physical plane you can learn something that his valid also for the higher planes. This is the method followed by Rosicrucian training when, on the physical plane, it gives primary attention to thinking, and for this purpose uses the means available on the physical plane. Penetrating thinking can be cultivated by studying spiritual scientific truths, or by practicing thought exercises.” (Page 62)
“The Christian way. In this Christian way can be followed with the adviser the teacher knows what has to be done and can rectify mistakes of every step. Keep in mind, however, that in Christian training the great guru is Jesus Christ himself. Hence it is essential to firmly believe in Christ's presence and his life on earth. Without this, feeling of union with him is impossible.” (Page 63)
Rudolf Steiner. First Steps in Inner Development. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1999. From a lecture titled “The Way to Inner Development”, given on September 2nd, 1906, and printed in volume 95 of the complete works.
If Staudenmaier wishes to judge the relative merits of the various methods of occult training it would be interesting to hear his criteria and conclusions.
How Waldorf Education got its name
I read an interesting book the other day: "Emil Molt and the beginnings of the Waldorf School Movement". It’s an autobiography by Emil Molt, the man responsible for the first Waldorf School. I wrote a review on my site. An interesting portion covered the story of how Waldorf Education came to be called “Waldorf”. According to Molt:
The story of the "Waldorf Astoria" goes back to John Jacob Astor. The Astor family, originally from Savoy, had settled in the south German village of Walldorf in Baden. Johann Jakob Astor was born on July 17, 1763. He emigrated to America as a young man and there, with luck and daring, made a great fortune. In the 1850s, the Astor house was the most elegant private home in New York City. Descendants of Astor later founded the famous "Waldorf-Astoria Hotel" in his memory.
Connected with the hotel was the "Waldorf-Astoria Cigar Store Company." Two of its managers, Mr Kramer and Mr Rothschild, had come to Germany around the turn of the century with the trademark rights. Originally, they produced their own brands; later, they had them made by Manoli in Berlin. They were unsuccessful, however, and eventually put their business up for sale. Müller and Marx heard of this, and, in 1905, bought the rights to the trademark.
Müller and Marx were Molt’s partners at the Waldorf Astoria Cigarette Company. It was after the war the Molt got the idea of a school for the worker’s children, and in its first year, the Waldorf School was a company school, with the teachers on the payroll of the Waldorf Astoria Cigarette Company. (A year later the school became independent). So that is how Waldorf Education got its name.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 30
What separated Steiner from the other India-oriented theosophists from the very beginning was the simple difference that while others may have followed masters, Steiner acknowledged no other authority than his own insight. As we heard above, he made this clear even before joining the Theosophical Society. Further, he demanded that his students form their own judgments about his teachings, and felt that the guru model was inappropriate for modern Europeans.
Peter Staudenmaier has glossed over the fundamental issue that caused the split between the India-oriented Theosophists and Steiner. This issue is not insignificant, and has nothing to do with racism. It is a dispute over the nature of the Christ. To present Steiner's view:
"One could talk about an opposition of the Christian-Occidental and Indian-Oriental principle only if someone wanted to set Wotan above Krishna. But the Christ has nothing to do with all this: from the beginning, He does not belong to any one people, but realizes the most beautiful principle in spiritual science: to acknowledge something without discrimination of color, race and nationality."
Rudolf Steiner. The Gospel of St. Mark. 1912. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1950. Page 36. Lecture of September 16th, 1912.
Peter Staudenmaier displays an amazing predilection for presenting aspects of Steiner's thought and biography to their exact opposite.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 29
I challenge Peter Staudenmaier, or anyone else for that matter, to find even one primary document where Rudolf Steiner denigrates Krishnamurti because of this skin color, or anyone around him who claims to have heard Steiner mention any such thing. (The only three prepositions Steiner used were “Knabe”, “Inderknaben” and “Hinduknaben” - “boy”, “Indian boy” and “Hindu boy”, none of which are remotely racist in German, either then or now.) Steiner never said a single thing against Krishnamurti himself, only against the idea that the Christ would reincarnate. Quite a few people get mileage out of claiming that “of course” Steiner couldn't bring himself to see a mere Hindu boy as in any way special, but this claim has no factual basis. Steiner would have objected to anyone claiming that they or someone else was Christ reincarnated, and said as much himself. Staudenmaier's description teeters at the brink of slander. While he does not directly claim that Steiner actually said anything about Krishnamurti's skin color (a statement that could easily be disproved), he explains Steiner's actions as obviously originating from a racist intent. As legal scholars know, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove anyone’s intent under most circumstances. The problem is compounded in a case where the person has been dead over 75 years. There is no actual evidence that Steiner's intent was based on racist feelings (among other things, it would have been completely inconsistent with his character), but this point is more difficult to demonstrate – usually written and spoken evidence is considered in determining someone's intent. There is no such evidence against Steiner.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 28
The break with the Theosophical Society came in 1913, and not because Steiner disagreed with other Theosophists, which he had done for years, and not directly because of the Krishnamurti. The break was a result of actions by the Theosophical leadership to sideline Steiner over differences of opinion concerning the nature of the Christ. The details can be tedious, but the ultimatum was delivered in India by Besant when, in an address to the Theosophical society she said: “The German General Secretary, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to shake himself sufficiently clear of that fatal influence to allow liberty of opinion within his section.” She also demanded his resignation. The claim of a Jesuit influence was completely without basis, and the final straw, not for Steiner, but for the members of the German section of the Theosophical Society. A few founded the Anthroposophical Society, which very quickly grew from the ranks of the Theosophical society. Besant did not even wait for Steiner to resign; she unilaterally transferred the chairmanship to one Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Steiner remained an independent lecturer, and not even a member of the new Anthroposophical Society, until 1923.(Steiner assumed the leadership of the General Anthroposophical Society in December, 1923) Here once again we see that the actual facts contradict Staudenmaier's version of them.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 27
On May 8th, 1911 Besant declared Krishnamurti the reincarnated Christ. [The following paragraph is based on the chapter “Die Trennung von der Theosophischen Geselschaft” (The separation from the theosophical society) in Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1997, pages 484-504]. This had been building up for some time. Since Leadbeater had “discovered” Krishnamurti, he had been groomed for an important role. Leadbeater researched the previous lives of an important individuality he called Alcyone, publishing his findings in a series of articles titled “Rents in the Veil of Time” in the English periodical Theosophist starting in April 1910. These were collected in his book The Lives of Alcyone. Going back 23,650 years before Christ, Leadbeater described Alcyone (whom he identified as Krishnamurti) and the people around him over successive incarnations. Important people in the Theosophical movement were involved in these previous lives, usually the more important the person in the present Theosophical Society, the more prominent they were in history. Leadbeater was “Sirius” and Besant was “Hercules.” Even among Theosophists his descriptions were not always taken seriously, as evidence by the limerick “In the Lives, in the Lives, I've had all sorts of husbands and wives.” A more detailed description is offered by Alice Leighton Cleather, in a letter she wrote in 1913 and reprinted as part of a book in 1923:
"The ill-omened consequences of this influence were soon to appear before the world through the affair of Alcyone and the founding of the Order of the Star in the East . . . lf a real Indian initiate, a Brahmin or otherwise, of ripe age, had come to Europe an his own responsibility or in the name of his Masters to teach his doctrines, nothing would have been more natural or interesting. . . . But it was not in this form that we beheld the new apostle from Adyar. A young Indian, aged thirteen, initiated by Mr. Leadbeater ... is proclaimed and presented to the European public as the future teacher of the new era. Krishnamurti, now called Alcyone, has no other credentials than his master's injunctions and Mrs. Besant's patronage. His thirty-two previous incarnations are related at length the early ones going back to the Atlantean period. These narrations, given as the result of Mr. Leadbeater's and Mrs. Besant's visions, are for the most part grotesquely puerile, and could convince no serious occultist. They are ostensibly designed to prove that for twenty or thirty thousand years the principal personages in the T. S. [Theosophical Society] have been preparing for the " Great Work " which is soon to be accomplished. In the course of their incarnations, which remind one of a newspaper novel, these personages are decorated with the great names of Greek mythology, and with the most brilliant stars in the firmament. During a meeting at Benares, Krishnamurti presenting certificates to his followers, received honours like a divine being, many persons present falling at his feet. He does not, however utter a word, but only makes a gesture of benediction, prompted by Mrs. Besant. In reporting this scene Mr. Leadbeater likens it to the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.
For this dumb prophet is founded the Order of the Star in the East, which the whole world is invited to join, and of which he is proclaimed the head . . . this passive young prodigy, who has not yet given the world the least proof of having any mission at all… becomes henceforth the centre and cynosure of the T. S., the symbol and sacred ark of the orthodox faith at Adyar. As to the doctrine preached by Mrs. Besant, it rests on a perpetual equivocation. She allows the English public at large, to whom she speaks of the coming Christ, to believe that he is identical with the Christ of the Gospels, whereas to her intimates she states what Mr. Leadbeater teaches, and what he openly proclaims in one of his books, The Inner Life – namely, that the Christ of the Gospels never existed, and was an invention of the monks of the second century. Such facts are difficult to characterize. I will simply say that they are saddening for all who, like myself, believed in the future of the T. S., for they can only repel clear-sighted and sincere minds…"
Cleather, Alic Leighton. H. P. Blavatsky: A Great Betrayal. Calcutta, India: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1922. Pages 12-13.
Steiner was notably absent from Leadbeater's book. While some at the time doubtless wondered, Steiner himself knew why. In June 1909 Besant had offered him the position of John the Baptist in the scheme – a role that was to have paralleled the one Besant imagined for him: the herald of the Christ. Steiner had politely declined. His response was to continue to hold lectures throughout Europe on his understanding of the Christ event, which he had long termed “The Mystery of Golgotha.” The descent of God into a human body was a one-time event, central to earth evolution. From the beginning Steiner had been clear that he would only teach what he himself perceived, and would not under any circumstances represent some party doctrine.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 26
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 8:
Steiner dedicated ten years of his life to the theosophical movement, becoming one of its best-known spokespeople and honing his supernatural skills. He broke from mainstream theosophy in 1913, taking most of the German-speaking sections with him, when Besant and her colleagues declared the young Krishnamurti, a boy they "discovered" in northern India, to be the reincarnation of Christ. Steiner was unwilling to accept a brown-skinned Hindu lad as the next "spiritual master." What had separated Steiner all along from Blavatsky, Besant, and the other India-oriented theosophists was his insistence on the superiority of European esoteric traditions.
This paragraph follows that pattern established by Peter Staudnemaier: it covers a number of events from a period, but not in any depth or with any citations, and of course, it gets the basic facts wrong. First, Steiner was not dedicated to the Theosophical movement in the manner implied, as the passages of his that I quoted earlier make abundantly clear. He lectured and wrote for ten years as General Secretary of the German branch of the Theosophical Society, but always made it clear that he would only ever represent his own knowledge, and never the party line if that in the slightest way diverged from his own insight. And he was certainly not shy about pointing out exactly where he felt party-line Theosophy went wrong.
Examples of Steiner's many critical statements on Theosophy and the Theosophical Society include:
“The Theosophical Society was first established in 1875 in New York by H.P. Blavatsky and H.S. Olcott, and had a decidedly Western nature. The publication "Isis Unveiled", in which Blavatsky revealed the large number of esoteric truths, has just such a western character. But it has to be stated regarding this publication that it frequently presents the great truths of which it speaks in a distorted or even caricatured manner. It is a similar to a visage of harmonious proportions appearing distorted in a convex mirror. The things which are said in " Isis" are true, but to how they are said is a lopsided mirror-image of the truth. .... A distortion arises because of the inappropriate way in which H.P. Blavatsky's soul has received these truths. The educated world should have seen in this fact alone the evidence for a higher source of inspiration of these truths. For no one who rendered them in such a distorted manner could have created these truths himself. .... Under the influence of this stream the Theosophical Society took on its eastern character, and the same influence was the inspiration for Sinnett’s "Esoteric Buddhism" and Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine". But both of these again became distortions of the truth. Sinnett’s work distorts the high teachings of the initiators through an extraneous and inadequate philosophical intellectualism and Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine" does the same because of her chaotic soul.
“The result was that the initiators, the eastern ones as well, withdrew their influence in increasing measure from the official Theosophical Society in the latter became an area of all kinds of occult forces which distorted the great cause. ... This was the situation when I was faced with the necessity of joining the Theosophical Society.”
Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925 . New York: Rudolf Steiner Press 1988. Pages 17-18.
The above is an excerpt from “the Barr Document” written by Steiner for Eduard Schuré in Barr, Alsace in September 1907. Steiner was the General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society at this time, and would be for another six years. Speaking of the subject in 1916, Steiner said:
"I now wish to say something about the development of our Anthroposophical Society, because errors have been circulated on the subject. For instance, it is said that the Anthroposophical society is only a kind of development out of what is called the "Theosophical Society". Although it is true that what we aim at within our Anthroposophical Society found its place for a time within the framework of the General Theosophical Society, yet our Anthroposophical Society must on no account be confused with the Theosophical Society. And in order to prevent this, I must bring forward something – apparently personal – about the gradual emergence of the Anthroposophical Society.
“It was about 15 years ago that I was invited by a small circle of people to give some lectures on spiritual science. These lectures were afterwards published in the title Mysticism The Dawn Of The Modern Age. Until then I had, I might say, endeavored as a solitary thinker to build up a view of the world which on one hand fully reckons with the great, momentous achievements of physical sciences, and on the other hand aspires to gain insight into spiritual worlds.
"I must emphasize the fact that at the time when I was invited to speak to a small circle in Germany on the subject connected with spiritual science already mentioned, I did not depend in any way upon the works of Blavatsky or Annie Besant, nor did I take them particularly into consideration. The outlook expressed by these books have little in common with my view of the world. I had at that time endeavored, purely out of what I discovered for myself, to present some points of view about the spiritual worlds. The lectures were printed; some of them very soon translated into English, and that by a distinguished member of the Theosophical Society, which at that time was particularly flourishing in England; and from this quarter I was urged to enter the Theosophical Society. At no time had I any idea, if the occasion should have presented itself in the Theosophical Society, to bring forward anything to save what was built up on the foundation of my own, independent method of research.
"And that which now forms the substance of an anthroposophical view of the world, as studied in our circle of members, is not borrowed from the Theosophical Society but was represented by me as something entirely independent which – as a result of that society's invitation – took place within it, until it was found to be heretical and was "shown to the door"; and what had thus always been there was further developed and cultivated in the now wholly independent Anthroposophical Society.
"Thus it is an entirely a erroneous conception to confuse in any way what is living within the Anthroposophical Society with what is represented by Blavatsky and Besant. It is true that Blavatsky has in her books put forward important truths concerning spiritual worlds, but mixed with so much error that only one who has accurately investigated these matters can succeed in separating what is significant from what is erroneous. Hence our Anthroposophical movement must claim to be considered wholly independent. This is not put forward from want of modesty, but merely in order to place a fact in its objectively correct light.”
Rudolf Steiner. Approaches to Anthroposophy. Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press,1992. Pages 6-7. Translated by Simon Blaxland-de Lange. Lecture of January 11 th, 1916 in Basel, GA 35.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 25
Staudenmaier's footnote does not actually have directly to do with the statements in this paragraph; it refers to a chapter called "The Occult Origins of National Socialism" in the book The Fascist Revolution: Toward a General Theory of Fascism by George Mosse. If this is as much as Staudenmaier has read on the issue of Theosophy as presented by Blavatsky (as his footnotes imply) then he is indeed woefully unprepared to discuss the subject knowledgably.
An unsubstantiated claim, and one which I would oppose on the strongest terms, is the claim that the authoritarian pattern established by Blavatsky and Besant carried over into anthroposophy. In fact, it was on the point of authoritarianism that the anthroposophists broke with the Theosophical society . Steiner described his position and the events surrounding this break in detail in several places . ( See “Die Trennung von der Theosophischen Geselschaft” [The separation from the theosophical society] in Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart : Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1997, pages 484-504.) Peter Staudenmaier appears not to have read anything on this matter beyond a small number of his favorite secondary sources, most of which are not noted for going into any depth on this or other matters.
It is further implied that Steiner adopted party-line Theosophical doctrine as the basis for his activity as the General Secretary of the German Section. Steiner himself was quite clear on his relationship to Theosophy as it was understood in the Theosophical Society:
“No one was left in uncertainty of the fact that I would bring forward in the Theosophical Society only the results of my own research through perception. For I stated this on all appropriate occasions. When, in the presence of Annie Besant, the German section of the Theosophical Society was founded in Berlin and I was chosen its General Secretary, I had to leave the foundation sessions because I had to give before a non-theosophical audience one of the lectures in which I dealt with the spiritual evolution of humanity, and to the title of which I expressly united the phrase “Eine Anthroposophie.” Annie Besant also knew that I was then giving out in lectures under this title what I had to say about the spiritual world.
"When I went to London to attend a theosophical congress, one of the leading personalities said to me that true theosophy was to be found in my book Mysticism ..., I had reason to be satisfied. For I had given only the results of my spiritual vision, and this was accepted in the Theosophical Society.
"There was now no longer any reason why I should not bring forward this spiritual knowledge in my own way before the theosophical public, which was at first the only audience that entered without restriction into a knowledge of the spirit. I subscribed to no sectarian dogmatics; I remained a man who uttered what he believed he was able to utter entirely according to what he himself experienced in the spiritual world. Prior to the founding of the section belongs a series of lectures – which I gave before Die Kommenden, entitled Von Buddha zu Christus. In these discussions I sought to show what a mighty stride the Mystery of Golgotha signifies in comparison with the Buddha event, and how the evolution of humanity, as it strives toward the Christ event, approaches its culmination. In this circle I spoke also of the nature of the mysteries. ... [The importance of Christ] was by no means taught in the Theosophical Society. In this view I was in direct opposition to the theosophical dogmatics of the time, before I was invited to work in the Theosophical Society. For this invitation followed immediately after the cycle of lectures on Christ here described.
"... Thus the thing evolved up to the time of my first attendance at a theosophical congress, in London, in the year 1902. At this congress,... it was already a foregone conclusion that a German section of the Society would be founded with myself – shortly before invited to become a member – as the general secretary. All that was interesting in what I heard [in discussions with Theosophists] stirred me deeply, but it had no influence upon the content of my own views.
Steiner, Rudolf. The Course of My Life. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1951. Pages 297-298.
If Peter Staudenmaier would like to argue to the contrary that anthroposophy has an authoritarian dogmatism inherited from Theosophy, he should support such an argument with citations to both historical accounts and primary sources that demonstrate this. Simply asserting it is insufficient. And if he would like to argue that Steiner followed Theosophical doctrine to the letter (or even in spirit) during his years as a member of the Theosophical society this would have to be demonstrated from a comparative study of the relevant primary literature (by my estimation some 80 to 100 rather dense volumes). I am not aware of anyone who has put in the time for such a study (several years by conservative estimates) who has not found substantial points of difference between =http://www.defendingsteiner.c...anthroposophy and Theosophy in precisely the area where Staudenmaier is claiming their similarity. There is simply no evidence that Staudenmaier has anywhere near the depth of understanding of Theosophical doctrine or of =http://www.defendingsteiner.c...anthroposophy necessary to successfully advance his hypothesis.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 26
Turning now to paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 8:
Steiner dedicated ten years of his life to the theosophical movement, becoming one of its best-known spokespeople and honing his supernatural skills. He broke from mainstream theosophy in 1913, taking most of the German-speaking sections with him, when Besant and her colleagues declared the young Krishnamurti, a boy they "discovered" in northern India, to be the reincarnation of Christ. Steiner was unwilling to accept a brown-skinned Hindu lad as the next "spiritual master." What had separated Steiner all along from Blavatsky, Besant, and the other India-oriented theosophists was his insistence on the superiority of European esoteric traditions.
This paragraph follows that pattern established by Peter Staudnemaier: it covers a number of events from a period, but not in any depth or with any citations, and of course, it gets the basic facts wrong. First, Steiner was not dedicated to the Theosophical movement in the manner implied, as the passages of his that I quoted earlier make abundantly clear. He lectured and wrote for ten years as General Secretary of the German branch of the Theosophical Society, but always made it clear that he would only ever represent his own knowledge, and never the party line if that in the slightest way diverged from his own insight. And he was certainly not shy about pointing out exactly where he felt party-line Theosophy went wrong.
Examples of Steiner's many critical statements on Theosophy and the Theosophical Society include:
“The Theosophical Society was first established in 1875 in New York by H.P. Blavatsky and H.S. Olcott, and had a decidedly Western nature. The publication "Isis Unveiled", in which Blavatsky revealed the large number of esoteric truths, has just such a western character. But it has to be stated regarding this publication that it frequently presents the great truths of which it speaks in a distorted or even caricatured manner. It is a similar to a visage of harmonious proportions appearing distorted in a convex mirror. The things which are said in " Isis" are true, but to how they are said is a lopsided mirror-image of the truth. .... A distortion arises because of the inappropriate way in which H.P. Blavatsky's soul has received these truths. The educated world should have seen in this fact alone the evidence for a higher source of inspiration of these truths. For no one who rendered them in such a distorted manner could have created these truths himself. .... Under the influence of this stream the Theosophical Society took on its eastern character, and the same influence was the inspiration for Sinnett’s "Esoteric Buddhism" and Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine". But both of these again became distortions of the truth. Sinnett’s work distorts the high teachings of the initiators through an extraneous and inadequate philosophical intellectualism and Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine" does the same because of her chaotic soul.
“The result was that the initiators, the eastern ones as well, withdrew their influence in increasing measure from the official Theosophical Society in the latter became an area of all kinds of occult forces which distorted the great cause. ... This was the situation when I was faced with the necessity of joining the Theosophical Society.”
Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925 . New York: Rudolf Steiner Press 1988. Pages 17-18.
The above is an excerpt from “the Barr Document” written by Steiner for Eduard Schuré in Barr, Alsace in September 1907. Steiner was the General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society at this time, and would be for another six years. Speaking of the subject in 1916, Steiner said:
"I now wish to say something about the development of our Anthroposophical Society, because errors have been circulated on the subject. For instance, it is said that the Anthroposophical society is only a kind of development out of what is called the "Theosophical Society". Although it is true that what we aim at within our Anthroposophical Society found its place for a time within the framework of the General Theosophical Society, yet our Anthroposophical Society must on no account be confused with the Theosophical Society. And in order to prevent this, I must bring forward something – apparently personal – about the gradual emergence of the Anthroposophical Society.
“It was about 15 years ago that I was invited by a small circle of people to give some lectures on spiritual science. These lectures were afterwards published in the title Mysticism The Dawn Of The Modern Age. Until then I had, I might say, endeavored as a solitary thinker to build up a view of the world which on one hand fully reckons with the great, momentous achievements of physical sciences, and on the other hand aspires to gain insight into spiritual worlds.
"I must emphasize the fact that at the time when I was invited to speak to a small circle in Germany on the subject connected with spiritual science already mentioned, I did not depend in any way upon the works of Blavatsky or Annie Besant, nor did I take them particularly into consideration. The outlook expressed by these books have little in common with my view of the world. I had at that time endeavored, purely out of what I discovered for myself, to present some points of view about the spiritual worlds. The lectures were printed; some of them very soon translated into English, and that by a distinguished member of the Theosophical Society, which at that time was particularly flourishing in England; and from this quarter I was urged to enter the Theosophical Society. At no time had I any idea, if the occasion should have presented itself in the Theosophical Society, to bring forward anything to save what was built up on the foundation of my own, independent method of research.
"And that which now forms the substance of an anthroposophical view of the world, as studied in our circle of members, is not borrowed from the Theosophical Society but was represented by me as something entirely independent which – as a result of that society's invitation – took place within it, until it was found to be heretical and was "shown to the door"; and what had thus always been there was further developed and cultivated in the now wholly independent Anthroposophical Society.
"Thus it is an entirely a erroneous conception to confuse in any way what is living within the Anthroposophical Society with what is represented by Blavatsky and Besant. It is true that Blavatsky has in her books put forward important truths concerning spiritual worlds, but mixed with so much error that only one who has accurately investigated these matters can succeed in separating what is significant from what is erroneous. Hence our Anthroposophical movement must claim to be considered wholly independent. This is not put forward from want of modesty, but merely in order to place a fact in its objectively correct light.”
Rudolf Steiner. Approaches to Anthroposophy. Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press,1992. Pages 6-7. Translated by Simon Blaxland-de Lange. Lecture of January 11 th, 1916 in Basel, GA 35.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 24
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 7:
In 1902 Steiner joined the Theosophical Society and almost immediately became General Secretary of its German section. Theosophy was a curious amalgam of esoteric precepts drawn from various traditions, above all Hinduism and Buddhism, refracted through a European occult lens. (On the connections between theosophy and the Nazis, see George Mosse, "The Occult Origins of National Socialism" in Mosse, The Fascist Revolution: Toward a General Theory of Fascism, New York 1999.) Its originator, Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891), was the inventor of the "root races" idea; she declared the extinction of indigenous peoples by European colonialism to be a matter of "karmic necessity." Theosophy is built around the purported teachings of a coterie of "spiritual masters," otherworldly beings who secretly direct human events. These teachings were, of course, interpreted and presented by Blavatsky and her successor Annie Besant (1847-1933) to their theosophist followers, thus establishing the authoritarian pattern that was later carried over to anthroposophy.
Blavatsky did indeed originate the term "Root Race". And she did declare that indigenous peoples are dying out. However, Peter Staudenmaier has misunderstood (or never read) the explanation for how this is to be accomplished. Contrary to what Staudenmaier would have you believe, Blavatsky did not declare that those indigenous people who were alive ought to die for karmic reasons. Rather, Blavatsky, accepting the scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility, declared that this sterility was due to the fact that souls no longer wished to be born into these races. See Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna. The Secret Doctrine. 1888. Theosophical University Press. Volume 2, Part 3, Chapter 7, page 780. 30 Apr. 2004 < http://www.theosociety.org/pa... >.
"The dying out of the Hawaiians, for instance, is one of the most mysterious problems of the day. Ethnology will sooner or later have to recognize with Occultists that the true solution has to be sought for in a comprehension of the workings of Karma. As Lefevre remarks, "the time is drawing near when there will remain nothing but three great human types" (before the Sixth Root-Race dawns), the white (Aryan, Fifth Root-Race), the yellow, and the African negro -- with their crossings (Atlanto-European divisions). Redskins, Eskimos, Papuans, Australians, Polynesians, etc., etc. -- all are dying out. Those who realize that every Root-Race runs through a gamut of seven sub-races with seven branchlets, etc., will understand the "why." The tide-wave of incarnating EGOS has rolled past them to harvest experience in more developed and less senile stocks; and their extinction is hence a Karmic necessity."
See also my article on Root Races at http://www.defendingsteiner.com/misconceptions/r-race .php" title="http://www.defendingsteiner.com/misconceptions/r-race .php" target="_blank"http://www.defendingsteiner.c...
The dying-out process Blavatsky predicted would take another thousand years. The karmic necessity that Blavatsky talked about was that souls wishing to be born were choosing other races for karmic reasons, and not that indigenous peoples currently alive ought to die. Staudenmaier has treated Blavatsky with the same lack of scholarly care and accuracy that he brings to this study of Steiner.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 23
Further, only one example of Steiner's flip-flopping is given, an apparent reversal on the topic of Christianity. This question has been written on at some length by a number of people, though you wouldn't know it from this piece*, and Steiner himself commented on it in his autobiography . Writing in The Course of My Life (New York 1951, page 274) he said:
“Individual assertions regarding Christianity which I wrote or uttered in lectures at this time appear to be contrary to the expositions I gave later. In this connection the following must be noted. At that time, when I used the word “Christianity,̶ 1; I had in mind the “beyond” teaching which is operative in the Christian creeds. The whole content of religious experience refers to a world of spirit which is not attainable by man in the unfolding of his spiritual powers. What religion has to say, what it has to give as moral precepts, is derived from revelations that come to man from without. Against this my view of spirit opposed itself, desiring to experience the world of spirit just as much as the sense-world in what is perceptible in man and in nature. Against this likewise was my ethical individualism opposed, desiring to have the moral life proceed, not from without by way of precepts obeyed, but out of the unfolding of the human soul and spirit, wherein lives the divine. What then occurred in my soul in viewing Christianity was a severe test for me. The time between my departure from the Weimar task and the production of my book Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache is occupied by this test. Such tests are the opposition provided by destiny (Karma) which one's spiritual evolution has to overcome.”
Asserting that Steiner "changed his mind on many topics" without any supporting evidence is an obvious attempt to portray Steiner as unstable, vacillating, and unreliable. Such a picture is completely at odds with virtually every depiction of the man by his contemporaries and biographers. Staudenmaier is obviously not afraid of going against consensus opinion on Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, but it would help his case if the actual source material even remotely supported his position.
* See, among others the chapter “War Rudolf Steiner in den Jahren vor 1900 Atheist (Was Rudolf Steiner an atheist in the years before 1900)” in Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner und Ernst Haeckel, Stuttgart 1965 and Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie, Stuttgart 1997, pages 443-454. A nice summary is given by Henry Barnes in his book A Life for the Spirit, page 67:
“Rudolf Steiner had been accused earlier of being Anti-Christian. It was subsequently said that his statements around the turn of the century were inconsistent with what he wrote later. He deals with this criticism in one of the shortest chapters of his biography. There he points out that it is the concept relegating Christianity to the “beyond” that he opposed. For him the view of revelation that comes to the human being from without – from a reality that we may believe in but cannot know – was at odds with his awareness of a world of spirit that could be experienced and known directly through an act of free cognition.”
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 22
It is stated that "Steiner changed his mind on many topics in the course of his career." This accusation is hardly new, and Steiner repeatedly addressed it during his lifetime. Writing in, An Outline of Occult Science (Hudson 1972, p. xxxii - Preface to the First edition, translation by Maud and Henry B. Monges, and revised by Lisa D. Monges) Rudolf Steiner said:
“ Many kinds of possible criticism could still be cited. There might be critics who have read the earlier writings of the author, for example, Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century, or perhaps the brochure on Haeckel and his Opponents. Some such critic might say, 'It is incomprehensible how one and the same man can write these books and then, besides the already published book Theosophy also write this present book. How is it possible that someone can defend Haeckel and then turn around and discredit what results from Haekel's research as healthy 'monism'? It might be comprehensible had the author of this Occult Science combated Haeckel with 'fire and sword,' but, that he has defended him, indeed, has even dedicated Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century to him, is the most monstrous thing imaginable. Haeckel would have unmistakenly declined this dedication had he been conscious of the fact that the dedicator might some day write such stuff as this Occult Science with its exposition of a more than crude dualism.” - The author of this book, however, is of the opinion that while it is possible to understand Haeckel very well, it is nevertheless, not necessary to believe that he is only to be understood by one who considers nonsensical everything that is not derived from Haeckel's own concepts and hypotheses. Furthermore, he is of the opinion that it is possible to come to an understanding of Haeckel only by entering upon what he has achieved for science and not by combating him with 'fire and sword.' Least of all does the author believe that Haeckel's opponents are right, against whom, for example in his brochure Haeckel and His Opponents he has defended the great philosopher. Indeed, if the writer of this brochure goes far beyond Haeckel's hypotheses and places the spiritual point of view of the world alongside Haeckel's merely naturalistic one, his opinion need not therefore coincide with the opinion of the latter's opponents. If the facts are looked at correctly, it will be discovered that the author's present day writings are in complete accord with his earlier ones.”
If Peter Staudenmaier feels that he can demonstrate Rudolf Steiner's statements to be untrue, I eagerly await such an article. However, to do so Staudenmaier would need to actually read whole books by Rudolf Steiner, and there is little evidence that he has done this.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 21
Staudenmaier's obvious contempt for his subject is quite evident in his calling Steiner's various activities before age 36 "dabble[ing] in a number of unusual causes.” Steiner's seven meticulous volumes of Goethe's scientific writings completed while officially in the employ of the Goethe Archives were universally praised by the scholars of his day. On leaving the archives, he was praised with the following words: “His work, which combined critical acumen with actual achievement, has gained the commendation of all those best qualified to judge.” (Cited in Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, London 2000, pages 70-71.) That Steiner's groundbreaking work on epistemology, both in his book Truth and Science (expanded from his PhD thesis) and A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's Worldview certainly goes well beyond “dabbling” is evident to anyone who has actually read them. Likewise his book on Nietzsche was praised and criticized for its content, but no one leveled the accusation of dilettantism. For a discussion of the reception of Steiner's book Friedrich Nietzsche, Ein Kämpfer Gegen sein Zeit see Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie, Stuttgart 1997 page 254. “In the press there appeared positive and negative reviews in large numbers. The book rather quickly required another printing.”)
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 20
Steiner consistently maintained that his intellectual development was a gradual evolution. Steiner's view that his intellectual development represented a gradual evolution is demonstrated in the following:
"Anyone who has found my writings and lectures may gather all this from them; and I would not especially mention this matter were it not repeatedly said in error that I have departed from all that I wrote and said formerly and turned to the views represented in the works of Blavatsky and Besant. Whoever carefully studies, for example, my Theosophy, will find that everything contained in it is developed in accordance with and as a continuation of the direction of modern thought described above; you will find that the matters dealt with are presented in accordance with certain presuppositions contained in Goethe's conceptions of the world, and that only in certain places is mentioned that ideas which I had arrived at (etheric body, sentient body, etc.) are also to be found in the literature which I which is called Theosophical. I know that these explanations shall not be able to do away with certain attacks that are constantly made against me, for in many cases these attacks are not made in order to arrive at the actual facts of the matter but for in some entirely different reason. But what can be done in the face of ever recurring inaccuracies? Nothing can be done but to reiterate the truth!"
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 31. Translated by Simon Blaxland-de Lange. Lecture of January 11th, 1916 in Basel (GA 35).
It was at age 40 that Rudolf Steiner by his own account decided to go public with his spiritual insights. In The Course of My Life (New York 1951, page 297) Steiner writes:
“The decision to give public expression to the esoteric from my own inner experience impelled me to write for the Magazine for August 28, 1899, on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Goethe's birth, an article on Goethe's fairy-tale of The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily, under the title Goethes Geheime Offenbarung (Goethe's Secret Revelation). This article was, of course, only slightly esoteric. But I could not expect more of my public than I there gave. In my own mind the content of the fairy-tale lived as something wholly esoteric, and it was out of an esoteric mood that the article was written.”
Steiner goes on to describe how through a couple named Brockdorff and a circle of their friends he found people interested in Theosophy to whom he could speak of the esoteric knowledge that he had developed. It is of little wonder that, if Staudenmaier is unable to be accurate in the minor details of dates and years, his has such trouble with the far more difficult task of understanding Steiner's worldview and presenting it accurately.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 19
Among the 95 works Steiner published during his time in Weimar was a book on Nietzsche, which Staudenmaier makes a great deal of later in this article. This period comprises about a quarter of Steiner’s autobiography that Staudenmaier will make a big deal of in a follow-up piece. (See Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York, 1951. Chapters X to XXIII - chapters 10 through 23 of 38 total) deal with this period – pages 119 to 249 out of 358.) These were arguably very formative intellectual years, and would have taken only two words to include. Staudenmaier has repeatedly claimed that he is a true scholar and expert on anthroposophy (though he has backed off these claims recently). If he had read Steiner's autobiography before putting pen to paper for this “fair and balanced” (Staudenmaier's own words) study, he would also find that his next statement above factually incorrect: Steiner claims "he was able to see the spirit world” from early childhood, and not from age 36 as claimed above (though the phrase “and communicate with celestial beings" is a typical Staudenmaier slant and not Steiner's actual wording). This Steiner mentions very early in his autobiography . (Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York 1951, page 12. Speaking of himself as an 8 year old: “For me the reality of the spiritual world was as certain as that of the physical.”)
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 18
In Staudenmaier's single-paragraph overview of Steiner's life before 1900 we are missing two words: “and Weimar.” Steiner's years in Vienna and Berlin are mentioned, but the seven years in Weimar are neglected. Apparently they don't fit the thesis, as Berlin and Vienna can be easily shown to be a hotbed of German nationalism and other discredited theories; however, provincial Weimar is somewhat difficult. Up to age 29 Steiner lived in or near Vienna, and at age 36 moved to Berlin. However, from age 29 to 36 Rudolf Steiner worked in Weimar at the editing Goethe's scientific papers, as well as finishing his doctorate and publishing a total of 95 titles.
Steiner moved to Weimar in the autumn of 1890 and left for Berlin in early 1897. For a very concise overview of Steiner's activity during this time see Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, London 2000, pages 39 to 71. The summary of Steiner's written work from this period is on page 65. In addition to the many articles and the volumes of Goethe's scientific writings, Steiner wrote his doctoral thesis, published an expanded version as Truth and Science, wrote an epistemology, a book on Nietzsche and the book he considered to the end of his life to be his most important work: his Philosophie der Freiheit. Whether these books are inconsistent with Steiner's later “occult” work will be considered later in this piece. For a more in depth treatment of the period, see Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 192-272.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 17
Who was Rudolf Steiner?
Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder. Born in 1861, Steiner grew up in a provincial Austrian town, the son of a mid-level civil servant. His intellectually formative years were spent in Vienna, capital of the aging Habsburg [sic]empire, and in Berlin. By all accounts an intense personality and a prolific writer and lecturer, Steiner dabbled in a number of unusual causes. At the age of 36, he reports, he underwent a profound spiritual transformation, after which he was able to see the spirit world and communicate with celestial beings. These ostensible supernatural powers are the origin of most anthroposophist beliefs and rituals. Steiner changed his mind on many topics in the course of his career; his early hostility toward Christianity, for example, gave way to a neo-christian version of spiritualism codified in anthroposophy. But interest in mysticism, occult legends and the esoteric was a constant throughout his life.
To the statement “Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder” I would like to point out that while the phrase attempts to impute that anthroposophists are quasi-religious by virtue of the fact that they generally have a reverential attitude toward their founder, it does not follow logically. That any group that has a reverential attitude towards its founder is not also thereby quasi-religious is evident when considering the attitude of many Americans towards the founders of their country. While often in many ways reverential, it does not make those Americans a quasi-religious group. And why does Mr. Staudenmaier employ the phrase “quasi-religious&qu ot;? Are anthroposophists not religious enough for him? If Staudenmaier feels that anthroposophy is a religion, with Steiner as its prophet (or even God) it would be more honest to come out and say so.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 15
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 14
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 13
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 5: In light of this broad public exposure, it is perhaps surprising that the ideological underpinnings of anthroposophy are not better known. Anthroposophists themselves, however, view their highly esoteric doctrine as an "occult science" suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite. The very name "anthroposophy" suggests to many outsiders a humanist orientation. But anthroposophy is in fact a deeply anti-humanist worldview, which is why humanists like Ernst Bloch opposed it from the beginning.PS2 Its rejection of reason in favor of mystical experience, its subordination of human action to supernatural forces, and its thoroughly hierarchical model of spiritual development all mark anthroposophy as inimical to humanist values.
So let me summarize this absurd and illogical paragraph: Anthroposophists are doing a lot of work that is getting positive publicity in the world, but their evil ideology is somehow overlooked. Further, this evil ideology, this "highly esoteric doctrine" they consider "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" (note the classic leftist tactic of decrying elitism). And even their name is misleading, suggesting humanism when in fact, because one Ernst Bloch "opposed it from the beginning," it must not be. And finally, because Peter Staudenmaier has now labeled it anti-reason, pro mystical experiential, subordinating of human action to supernatural forces, and hierarchical (without having offered any examples or even citations of primary of secondary sources to support these allegations) it must be "inimical to humanist values." Or the even shorter version: Ernst Bloch didn't like it, I called it names, and you must consider it evil. This type of writing seems more reminiscent of Pravda under Stalin than serious historical scholarship. (Pravda was the state-run party newspaper of the U.S.S.R. Under Stalin it published raving denunciations of those targeted by the state for elimination. Their supposed crimes were described in lurid detail. Mostly these crimes were fabricated to create the illusion of justice, though few people in or outside the country believed these accusations, either at the time or since.)
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 12
Peter Staudenmaier's writes in Paragraph 4:
Organized anthroposophist groups are often best known through their far-flung network of public institutions. The most popular of these is probably the Waldorf school movement, with several hundred branches worldwide, followed by the biodynamic agriculture movement, which is especially active in Germany and the United States. Other well-known anthroposophist projects include Weleda cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and the Demeter brand of health food products. The new age Findhorn community in Scotland also has a strong anthroposophist component. Anthroposophists played an important role in the formation of the German Greens, and Germany's current Interior Minister, Otto Schily, one of the most prominent founders of the Greens, is an anthroposophist.
This paragraph attempts to establish that Anthroposophy is a movement that is, by implication, centralized, organized, and everywhere. "Organized groups... [have a] far-flung network of public institutions." Next the Waldorf School movement is mentioned. One would gather from this that a network of Waldorf Schools is an organized public institution of some unmentioned anthroposophist group. Actually, most Waldorf schools are independent and self-governing (many of the European Waldorf schools even have the word "Free" in their name to indicate this). A Waldorf School, like most anthroposophical initiatives, is a grassroots organization, usually founded by a group of parents, and in every legal and moral way independent of any outside hierarchical control. In fact, every component of the "far-flung network of public institutions" mentioned above is legally independent of all the others. This is true all over the world, and not just in the US. Just about every Waldorf School is a legally independent nonprofit institution. Exceptions include the few US charter schools based on Waldorf methods.
Many of these alleged dangerous anthroposophical initiatives do exactly the same thing that Peter Staudenmaier also spends his time at: they are organized grass-roots social initiatives. But rather than having Karl Marx as their ideological inspirer, they have Rudolf Steiner, which seems to bother our author considerably.
By naming all these initiatives Staudenmaier inadvertently confers quite a bit of praise on the accomplishments of various anthroposophists, though doubtless it was not his intention. It is also an attempt to link all these initiatives. Are the very real accomplishments of the German Green Party now somehow worthless if one of its founders happens to be an anthroposophist and a few other misguided anthroposophists happen to have been Nazis?
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 11
Next, he goes on to claim that while individuals might have done good things, other members of that group have done and continue to do bad things. What these bad things are is not actually mentioned. There are no actual examples. The implication is, "Disregard the individual. If you see the label 'Anthroposophist' or 'Anthroposophy' you know you are dealing with bad people". This kind of thinking is actually much closer to prejudice and racism than anything found in Steiner. Indeed it is the root of most all bigotry.
As I have stated before: If a few people can be shown to harbor fascist sympathies, it does not follow that everyone with a similar background must therefore also harbor the same fascist sympathies. Anthroposophy is not a monolithic movement where every individual subscribes to a fixed and simple credo. It is a worldwide movement of individuals with a wide variety of thoughts and opinions, united primary in a common interest in the work of Rudolf Steiner. The role this interest plays in a person's life may vary considerably, as do their other interests.
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism X
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 =http://www.chomsky.info/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 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/articl es/Shahak.htm" title="http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articl es/Shahak.htm" target="_blank"http://hem.passagen.se/thebee...
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism IX
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 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.