agreement and
disagreement 3
agreement and disagreement 4
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Peter,
I hope the following is the type of comment you were looking
for when you joined the list.
You wrote:
In the writings and lectures that I consider
tendentially antisemitic, Steiner did not espouse the kind of
racial antisemitism that was becoming increasingly prominent
during his era; instead his stance remained emphatically assimilationist
throughout his life. I do think, however, that his mature views
on Jews can only be understood in conjunction with his broader
racial doctrines. In Steiner's opinion, the best response to
what was then known as the 'Jewish question' was for "Jewry
as a people" to disappear by blending into other peoples.
He viewed this disappearance of Jewishness as the solution to
aggressively antisemitic agitation and hatred, as well as to
the ostensibly closed and anachronistic nature of Jews themselves.
I don't think that Steiner's "tendentially antisemitic"
lectures were primarily concerned with "fixing" the
problem of aggressively antisemitic agitation and hatred (thought
that was certainly a secondary goal). While Steiner of course
frequently spoke out against hatred of all types as well as agitation
in general, his pro-assimilationist views were simply an extension
of his general philosophy, and completely consistent with his
views on race and nationality. Any and all group ties that have
a basis in heredity Steiner felt were harmful in the then-present,
and he predicted that they would become even more harmful in
the future (our present and future). There have been a number
of quotes posted here that speak to this. That the individuals
overcoming of heredity influences would also of consequence eliminate
"Jewishness" as it existed in his time was merely a
side effect of his philosophy of individual autonomy. On the
few occasions when he was asked about Jews (and these were really
only a few occasions over decades, or a couple of dozen pages
out of 89,000) this was the background out of which he answered.
Of course, in as much as any assimilationist view is "tendentially
antisemitic" this applies to Steiner as well. But Steiner
did not have a separate approach for Germans and Jews; his warnings
and efforts applied to both in equal measure, as well as all
other nationalities and all races. That Steiner was trying to
prevent the type of racial and national chauvenism that animated
the Third Reich is testified to by the Nazis themselves in their
systematic denunciations of Anthroposophy and Steiner himself
and their unambiguous efforts to destroy the Anthroposophical
Society.
In addition to understanding the historical aspects of Austrian
and German anti-Semitism during Steiner's lifetime and beyond,
it is necessary to have a comprehensive view of Steiner and a
thorough understanding of his philosophical foundations in order
to come to this type of overview. Picking out a score of isolated
quotes from 300 volumes of Steiner's work and selecting a few
counter-examples from the history of the Third Reich (from the
inconsequential Agricultural Ministry, of all places) is not
sufficient to understand the full historical context. If you
are serious about reaching an honest understanding of Steiner
and his work (even an extraordinarily narrow selection of his
work) it is not possible to avoid coming to terms with Steiner's
central philosophy.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi Daniel, thanks for an informative and interesting
reply. You wrote:
While Steiner of course frequently spoke out against hatred
of all types as well as agitation in general, his pro-assimilationist
views were simply an extension of his general philosophy, and
completely consistent with his views on race and nationality.
I agree with the "consistent" part, though not with
the "simply" part. Steiner singled out Jews as his
favorite example of group-soulness and national insularity. They
evidently played a special role in his broader thinking about
race and ethnicity.
Of course, in as much as any assimilationist view is "tendentially
antisemitic" this applies to Steiner as well.
It is not the case that any assimilationist view is tendentially
antisemitic. The kind of assimilation that mainstream German
and Austrian Jews strove for during Steiner's lifetime was not
tendentially antisemitic. Steiner's version of assimilation differed
fundamentally from their version. His version, when combined
with the foolish claim that Jews are closed and insular and tied
to the past, played right into a number of the crucial antisemitic
prejudices of the time.
But Steiner did not have a separate approach for Germans and
Jews; his warnings and efforts applied to both in equal measure,
as well as all other nationalities and all races.
I disagree. Where are Steiner's statements that the existence
of Germans as such is a mistake of world history? Where are Steiner's
statements that the German people ought to disappear? For that
matter, if your reading were correct, what could Steiner possibly
have meant when he said that Jews should dissolve into the other
peoples? In other words: Why did Steiner focus on Jews as the
ones who need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples?
That Steiner was trying to prevent the type of racial and
national chauvenism that animated the Third Reich is testified
to by the Nazis themselves in their systematic denunciations
of Anthroposophy and Steiner himself and their unambiguous efforts
to destroy the Anthroposophical Society.
I think that's a non sequitur. The Nazis denounced and disbanded
all sorts of aggressively racist and nationalist groups, from
the ariosophists to the Ludendorffers. This hardly means that
these groups were opposed to racial and national chauvinism.
In addition to understanding the historical aspects of Austrian
and German anti-Semitism during Steiner's lifetime and beyond,
it is necessary to have a comprehensive view of Steiner and a
thorough understanding of his philosophical foundations in order
to come to this type of overview.
I think what you and I really disagree about on this score is
what counts as comprehensive and thorough. It seems to me that
a genuinely comprehensive view of anthroposophy in the sense
relevant here would include the work of people like Heise and
Thieben, for example, and would only tangentially include Steiner's
work on architecture or eurythmy, if at all. Those latter phenomena
do not impinge upon his philosophical foundations, in my view.
Picking out a score of isolated quotes from 300 volumes of
Steiner's work and selecting a few counter-examples from the
history of the Third Reich (from the inconsequential Agricultural
Ministry, of all places)
A quick aside: I think you'd do well to re-think that characterization.
The Agriculture Ministry had the fourth largest budget of all
the myriad Nazi ministries even well into the war. Darre was
a very prominent Nazi leader.
is not sufficient to understand the full historical context.
If you are serious about reaching an honest understanding of
Steiner and his work (even an extraordinarily narrow selection
of his work) it is not possible to avoid coming to terms with
Steiner's central philosophy.
I don't think I've avoided that. I think you and I simply have
disparate analyses of his central philosophy on several key points.
I think that his theory of racial evolution toward the Universal
Human was a very important component of his central philosophy,
for example.
Thanks for another good discussion,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi Daniel, thanks for an informative and interesting
reply. You wrote:
While Steiner of course frequently spoke
out against hatred of all types as well as agitation in general,
his pro-assimilationist views were simply an extension of his
general philosophy, and completely consistent with his views
on race and nationality.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I agree with the "consistent"
part, though not with the "simply" part. Steiner singled
out Jews as his favorite example of group-soulness and national
insularity. They evidently played a special role in his broader
thinking about race and ethnicity.
Daniel:
Steiner singled out Jews as his favorite example
of group-soulness and national insularity only in the few quotes
you have pulled out. This is simply not representative of his
approach to the issue of group-soulness and national insularity
in general; he was strongly and in principle agains all forms
of group-soulness and national insularity, and mostly talked
in general on the theme. You have found the few places where,
because he was specifically asked, he talked about Jews in particular.
Jews most certainly did not constitute anything like his favorite
example to be trotted out whenever the theme arose. His spoke
about Jews and Jewishness very infrequently.
Daniel wrote:
Of course, in as much as any assimilationist
view is "tendentially antisemitic" this applies to
Steiner as well.
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is not the case that any assimilationist
view is tendentially antisemitic. The kind of assimilation that
mainstream German and Austrian Jews strove for during Steiner's
lifetime was not tendentially antisemitic. Steiner's version
of assimilation differed fundamentally from their version. His
version, when combined with the foolish claim that Jews are closed
and insular and tied to the past, played right into a number
of the crucial antisemitic prejudices of the time.
Daniel:
I don't think you have understood Steiner
very well, even as you have pulled out quotes that ought in principle
to help you in this. I just posted a translation of a quote that
you shortened severely. I find nothing in Steiner's statement
to preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their religious
practices and assimilating precicely as they desired (and as
you claim Steiner was against).
Daniel wrote:
But Steiner did not have a separate approach
for Germans and Jews; his warnings and efforts applied to both
in equal measure, as well as all other nationalities and all
races.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree. Where are Steiner's statements
that the existence of Germans as such is a mistake of world history?
Where are Steiner's statements that the German people ought to
disappear? For that matter, if your reading were correct, what
could Steiner possibly have meant when he said that Jews should
dissolve into the other peoples? In other words: Why did Steiner
focus on Jews as the ones who need to disappear by blending in
with the other peoples?
Daniel:
How, if Steiner talked repeatedly on how ALL
forms of nationalism are harmful, does this somehow NOT apply
to Germans? How, if Steiner talked repeatedly about how ALL forms
of nationalism should be replaced with a universally human cosmopolitanism,
does this somehow NOT apply to Germans? Steiner did not focus
on Jews as the ones who need to disappear by blending in with
the other peoples. He mentioned it on a few occasions when directly
asked. He repeatedly spoke on the general theme without prompting.
Daniel wrote:
That Steiner was trying to prevent the
type of racial and national chauvenism that animated the Third
Reich is testified to by the Nazis themselves in their systematic
denunciations of Anthroposophy and Steiner himself and their
unambiguous efforts to destroy the Anthroposophical Society.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that's a non sequitur. The Nazis
denounced and disbanded all sorts of aggressively racist and
nationalist groups, from the ariosophists to the Ludendorffers.
This hardly means that these groups were opposed to racial and
national chauvinism.
Daniel:
Granted, the mere fact that the Nazi's banned
Anthroposophy does not say anything about the content of Anthroposophy.
But if you actually read their careful justification for the
ban, you will notice that they had a very accurate understanding
of Anthroposophy, and were very specific about why they were
banning it. It is these denunciations that demonstrate that Steiner
was trying to prevent the type of racial and national chauvenism
that animated the Third Reich. I can point you to the relevant
documents, if you are not familiar with them.
Daniel wrote:
In addition to understanding the historical
aspects of Austrian and German anti-Semitism during Steiner's
lifetime and beyond, it is necessary to have a comprehensive
view of Steiner and a thorough understanding of his philosophical
foundations in order to come to this type of overview.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think what you and I really disagree
about on this score is what counts as comprehensive and thorough.
It seems to me that a genuinely comprehensive view of anthroposophy
in the sense relevant here would include the work of people like
Heise and Thieben, for example, and would only tangentially include
Steiner's work on architecture or eurythmy, if at all. Those
latter phenomena do not impinge upon his philosophical foundations,
in my view.
Daniel:
Granted, every last thought of Steiner's is
takes us too far afield. You could restrict yourself to his main
themes, for example, just the things he mentioned more than twenty
times, to set a rather arbitrary threshold.
Daniel wrote:
Picking out a score of isolated quotes
from 300 volumes of Steiner's work and selecting a few counter-examples
from the history of the Third Reich (from the inconsequential
Agricultural Ministry, of all places)
Peter Staudenmaier:
A quick aside: I think you'd do well to
re-think that characterization. The Agriculture Ministry had
the fourth largest budget of all the myriad Nazi ministries even
well into the war. Darre was a very prominent Nazi leader.
Daniel:
Granted, the budged of the Agriculture Ministry
may have been large. But just how much influence did it have?
Darre may have been prominent, given his position, but how much
influence did he have? Gordon Craig's "Germany 1866-1956"
devotes just over a page (out of 800) to agriculture in the Third
Reich, and does not mention alternative techniques at all. Walther
Darré gets a simple name check
"As [Hjalmar] Schlacht
has written, Darré was more a philosopher than a practical
administrator; he took seriously the rhetoric about the mystique
of the soil that had been the stock-in-trade of party orators
in rural parts before 1933...” (page 609)
Most historians of the era find the whole
issue of agriculture in the Third Reich almost irrelevant.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
HI Daniel, you wrote:
Steiner singled out Jews as his favorite
example of group-soulness and national insularity only in the
few quotes you have pulled out.
Don't be silly. We haven't even begun to discuss
all the texts where Steiner singles out the Jews as the primary
embodiment of group-soulness. Take a look at The Universal Human,
for example ("I have often pointed out that consciousness
of this group-soulness existed preeminently among the ancient
Hebrews." p. 10); or check out Das Hereinwirken geistiger
Wesenheiten in den Menschen pp. 100-101 or 191-192.
This is simply not representative of his
approach to the issue of group-soulness and national insularity
in general; he was strongly and in principle agains all forms
of group-soulness and national insularity, and mostly talked
in general on the theme.
Yes, and when he gave examples he usually
pointed to the Jews. I have found one passage where he mentions
group-soulness among the ancient German tribes. Do you know of
any others?
You have found the few places where, because
he was specifically asked, he talked about Jews in particular.
He was not specifically asked about Jews in
any of the instances we've examined other than the 1924 lecture.
What are you talking about?
Jews most certainly did not constitute
anything like his favorite example to be trotted out whenever
the theme arose.
Can you substantiate that claim? What do you
think his favorite examples were, and where does he discuss them?
I just posted a translation of a quote
that you shortened severely.
I did not shorten the quote. In fact I provided
a sentence and a half more of the preceding text than you did.
You can easily verify this for yourself by simply reading my
initial post to this list, which you can find here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/2117
I find nothing in Steiner's statement to
preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their religious practices
and assimilating precicely as they desired (and as you claim
Steiner was against).
Assimilationist Jews did not want Jewry as
a people to cease to exist. Rudolf Steiner did want Jewry as
a people to cease to exist. Are you having some sort of trouble
grasping the distinction?
How, if Steiner talked repeatedly on how
ALL forms of nationalism are harmful, does this somehow NOT apply
to Germans?
Your'e not answering the question. If you
believe that Steiner denounced German national insularity and
ethnic particularism in the same way as, or as frequently as,
he denounced Jewish nationalism and ethnic particularism, then
please tell me where you have found such passages in his published
works.
Steiner did not focus on Jews as the ones
who need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples.
You could easily demonstrate that claim by
giving a counterexample. Show me where Steiner says that Germans
need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples.
But if you actually read their careful
justification for the ban, you will notice that they had a very
accurate understanding of Anthroposophy, and were very specific
about why they were banning it.
I disagree that Heydrich's understanding of
anthroposophy was accurate.
It is these denunciations that demonstrate
that Steiner was trying to prevent the type of racial and national
chauvenism that animated the Third Reich.
That's the very same non sequitur you just
made and then corrected. How could such denunciations by Nazi
officials demonstrate anything about what Steiner was trying
to do?
Granted, every last thought of Steiner's
is takes us too far afield. You could restrict yourself to his
main themes, for example, just the things he mentioned more than
twenty times, to set a rather arbitrary threshold.
He mentioned Jews a lot more than twenty times.
He mentioned race much, much more often.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
HI Daniel, you wrote:
Steiner singled out Jews as his favorite
example of group-soulness and national insularity only in the
few quotes you have pulled out.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Don't be silly. We haven't even begun to
discuss all the texts where Steiner singles out the Jews as the
primary embodiment of group-soulness. Take a look at The Universal
Human, for example ("I have often pointed out that consciousness
of this group-soulness existed preeminently among the ancient
Hebrews." p. 10); or check out Das Hereinwirken geistiger
Wesenheiten in den Menschen pp. 100-101 or 191-192.
Daniel:
Peter, I must urge you to cease the sillyness.
Steiner talked about the harm of racism and nationalism in about
80% of his lectures from 1914 to 1920 (that is probably between
2000 and 3000 times). It was one of his main themes during and
after World War I. Against this, the dozen or so statements on
Jews is proportionally small indeed.
Basic Math (You indicated previously that it would be no disprespect
to point out your self-professed ignorance of Calculus; I hope
you won't mind if I go over some even more foundational concepts
just in case):
Proportion refers to the relationship of a part to the whole.
It is not possible to calculate the proportion from the part
alone.
If you state that, against over 2000 statements on the harm of
racism and nationalims, two additional examples will make a significant
difference in the overall proportion, that is silly indeed.
Daniel wrote:
This is simply not representative of his
approach to the issue of group-soulness and national insularity
in general; he was strongly and in principle agains all forms
of group-soulness and national insularity, and mostly talked
in general on the theme.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, and when he gave examples he usually
pointed to the Jews. I have found one passage where he mentions
group-soulness among the ancient German tribes. Do you know of
any others?
Daniel:
I'll start to look, if you like. I should
point out that of course all the examples that you have found
so far refer to the Jews; you are looking for all statements
about the Jews, and those are the ones you are familiar with.
Systematically surveying over 100 volumes for other examples
without the aid of an index will take some time.
Daniel wrote:
You have found the few places where, because
he was specifically asked, he talked about Jews in particular.
Peter Staudenmaier:
He was not specifically asked about Jews
in any of the instances we've examined other than the 1924 lecture.
What are you talking about?
Daniel:
Steiner was known in general to usually only
talk on subjects for which he had recieved some sort of request
(for example, privately before the start of the lecture). This
is the type of general background information to the study of
Steiner that you seem to lack - the historical context, if you
will. In fact, major Steiner scholars have identified just a
few themes that Steiner appears to have spoken of without any
request. Just because it is not in a question and answer session
does not mean that it was not in response to a question.
Daniel wrote:
Jews most certainly did not constitute
anything like his favorite example to be trotted out whenever
the theme arose.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Can you substantiate that claim? What do
you think his favorite examples were, and where does he discuss
them?
Daniel:
I'll work on it. It might take some time,
but I'll get you an answer. I have already stated that Steiner
most often spoke in general on this theme, without any examples.
As his listeners were mostly German, it would not be at all unreasonable
to imagine that he meant them.
Daniel wrote:
I just posted a translation of a quote
that you shortened severely.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I did not shorten the quote.
Daniel:
You are right. Sorry about that.
Daniel wrote:
I find nothing in Steiner's statement to
preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their religious practices
and assimilating precicely as they desired (and as you claim
Steiner was against).
Peter Staudenmaier:
Assimilationist Jews did not want Jewry
as a people to cease to exist. Rudolf Steiner did want Jewry
as a people to cease to exist. Are you having some sort of trouble
grasping the distinction?
Daniel:
And I repeat:
I find nothing in Steiner's
statement to preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their
religious practices and assimilating precicely as they desired
(and as you claim Steiner was against).
Perhaps there are different ways of understanding
what the phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem
to imagine that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews.
I tend to think that Steiner wanted Jews not to be recognizable
as Jews by any external or cultural cues, so that you could not
tell whether a person was or was not a Jew merely by talking
to them in a cafe. I don't think he was intent on abolishing
all religious practices, religion being an area that he felt
to be the responsibility of the free individual. This type of
assimilation appears to me to be the goal of a large number of
liberal Jews during that time period, and something that has
been achieved to a large degree in the US today.
In approaching this paragraph, the subtleties of the German word
"Volk" should be observed. I read the statement of
Steiner's to indicate that he wanted the "Folk" element
of Jewishness to cease being a point of self-identification.
As I have pointed out, Steiner wanted the "Folk" element
of German-ness to disappear as well; he wanted the "Folk"
element of every nationality and ethnic group to disappear. Steiner
most emphatically did not want the individual Jews to cease to
exist. This can be confusing by rendering the German word "Folk"
as "people" as I'm sure you realize with your excellent
command of German.
Daniel wrote:
How, if Steiner talked repeatedly on how
ALL forms of nationalism are harmful, does this somehow NOT apply
to Germans?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Your'e not answering the question. If you
believe that Steiner denounced German national insularity and
ethnic particularism in the same way as, or as frequently as,
he denounced Jewish nationalism and ethnic particularism, then
please tell me where you have found such passages in his published
works.
Daniel:
Peter, you are simply not following me, so
I'll repeat: "How, if Steiner talked repeatedly on how ALL
forms of nationalism are harmful, does this somehow NOT apply
to Germans?"
Or put in the positive, by speaking to a German audience about
how all forms or nationalism based on ethnic self-identification
are harmful, he WAS directly telling the Germans that thier nationalism
and ethnic particularism was harmful. And if you haven't come
across such passages, you have not read much Steiner.
Daniel wrote:
Steiner did not focus on Jews as the ones
who need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples.
Peter Staudenmaier:
You could easily demonstrate that claim
by giving a counterexample. Show me where Steiner says that Germans
need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples.
Daniel:
Steiner's views have been summed up quite
nicely by the Nazi's: Steiner's Anthroposophy stood for an international
cosmopolitanism over and against German ethnic particularism.
I can point you to the relavant documents, if you are not already
aware of them. Your obtuseness on this issue is puzzling for
someone of you intellect. Understanding this does not require
finding a passage with the exact same formulation and a different
object. I thought you were a historian. Figuring these types
of things out is the basic work of a historian.
Daniel wrote:
But if you actually read their careful
justification for the ban, you will notice that they had a very
accurate understanding of Anthroposophy, and were very specific
about why they were banning it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree that Heydrich's understanding
of anthroposophy was accurate.
Daniel:
Perhaps, but Hauer was quite a bit more knowledgeable.
Daniel wrote:
It is these denunciations that demonstrate
that Steiner was trying to prevent the type of racial and national
chauvenism that animated the Third Reich.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's the very same non sequitur you just
made and then corrected. How could such denunciations by Nazi
officials demonstrate anything about what Steiner was trying
to do?
Daniel:
I have a little more intelligence than to
repeat something that I already said if I thought you had successfully
understood it once. Your continued insistence on the supposed
non-sequitur shows that you didn't carefully read what I wrote.
Here it is again (try to understand it before dismissing it):
Granted, the mere fact
that the Nazi's banned Anthroposophy does not say anything about
the content of Anthroposophy. But if you actually read their
careful justification for the ban, you will notice that they
had a very accurate understanding of Anthroposophy, and were
very specific about why they were banning it. It is these denunciations
that demonstrate that Steiner was trying to prevent the type
of racial and national chauvenism that animated the Third Reich.
I can point you to the relevant documents, if you are not familiar
with them.
Got that? Or do I need to reformulate it?
Daniel wrote:
Granted, every last thought of Steiner's
is takes us too far afield. You could restrict yourself to his
main themes, for example, just the things he mentioned more than
twenty times, to set a rather arbitrary threshold.
Peter Staudenmaier:
He mentioned Jews a lot more than twenty
times. He mentioned race much, much more often.
Daniel:
Ok. Great. Now what else did he mention a
lot more than 20 times? You seem to have a one-track mind for
race and Jews. Try broadening your horizons. It is necessary
as a historian.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel writes:
Steiner talked about the harm of racism
and nationalism in about 80% of his lectures from 1914 to 1920
(that is probably between 2000 and 3000 times). It was one of
his main themes during and after World War I.
The 80% figure is goofy, but yes, Steiner
frequently condemned French nationalism, British nationalism,
Slavic nationalism, and so forth. If you have passages where
he condemns German nationalism, go ahead and share them.
If you state that, against over 2000 statements
on the harm of racism and nationalims, two additional examples
will make a significant difference in the overall proportion,
that is silly indeed.
You're comparing the wrong two figures. The
question was, how many times did Steiner single out specific
ethnic groups as emblematic of insularity and particularism.
There are lots of cases where he does this with Jews. You haven't
provided any examples where he does so with any other ethnic
group. How come?
Just because it is not in a question and answer session does
not mean that it was not in response to a question.
You think anthroposophists came to him and asked him to expound
on Jewishness as the epitome of ethnic insularity and particularism?
But you don't think there was significant antisemitism among
these anthroposophists??
Perhaps there are different ways of understanding what the
phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem to imagine
that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews.
Indeed. No Jewish people means no Jews.
I tend to think that Steiner wanted Jews not to be recognizable
as Jews by any external or cultural cues, so that you could not
tell whether a person was or was not a Jew merely by talking
to them in a cafe.
Do you mean that people could tell this in the first place?
This type of assimilation appears to me to be the goal of
a large number of liberal Jews during that time period
No, no, no. Go back to Tal's book, will you? "German Jewry
understood emancipation in a sense contrary to that in which
the Christians understood it, namely, not as the removal of barriers
that had hitherto prevented Jews from completely assimilating
to their environment, but rather as an incentive to continue
to cultivate Jewish uniqueness." (Tal, Christians and Jews
in Germany p. 58) The question of continued Jewish identity and
existence was precisely what divided liberal Jews from so many
of their gentile interlocutors. Steiner's stance was essentially
the same one that other non-Jews aimed squarely at liberal Jews.
The argument went like this, in Tal's words: "Moreover,
the continued existence of Jews in modern times as a separate
and singular people in defiance of all reason was preposterous
and irritating and not conducive to the growth of brotherly love.
This argument was directed not against Orthodox Judaism or Zionist
nationalism but against modern Liberal Judaism, the religion
of the majority of the German Jews." (Tal p. 293)
As I have pointed out, Steiner wanted the "Folk"
element of German-ness to disappear as well
Where does he say this?
Steiner's Anthroposophy stood for an international cosmopolitanism
over and against German ethnic particularism.
Funny how anthroposophists at the time denied this, huh?
Perhaps, but Hauer was quite a bit more knowledgeable.
I think you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking
about. By that time Hauer was a marginal crank obsessed with
his own invented pseudo-religion and with a bizarre grudge against
anthroposophy. Consequently he wasn't taken seriously by the
Nazi leadership, in stark contrast to, say, Schellenberg.
You seem to have a one-track mind for race and Jews."
Yes, that's the focus of my current research. You might try it
sometime.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel writes:
Steiner talked about the harm of racism
and nationalism in about 80% of his lectures from 1914 to 1920
(that is probably between 2000 and 3000 times). It was one of
his main themes during and after World War I.
Peter Staudenmaier:
The 80% figure is goofy, but yes, Steiner
frequently condemned French nationalism, British nationalism,
Slavic nationalism, and so forth. If you have passages where
he condemns German nationalism, go ahead and share them.
Daniel:
Your studied obtuseness defies imagination.
Shall I repeat it again? Steiner most often spoke in general
on this theme, without any examples. As his listeners were mostly
German, he was talking to them and about them, and that is how
they took it. Whenever Steiner spoke in general on the subject
to Germans, it was understood that it was his listeners to whom
he was refering. Just a little bit of historical research will
make this clear.
Daniel wrote:
If you state that, against over 2000 statements
on the harm of racism and nationalims, two additional examples
will make a significant difference in the overall proportion,
that is silly indeed.
Peter Staudenmaier:
You're comparing the wrong two figures.
The question was, how many times did Steiner single out specific
ethnic groups as emblematic of insularity and particularism.
There are lots of cases where he does this with Jews. You haven't
provided any examples where he does so with any other ethnic
group. How come?
Daniel:
Read above. Also, it take time to dig this
stuff up. Give me a couple of weeks and I can write you a paper
on the subject. And don't think it is because such examples don't
exist (I remember reading them, and know roughly where) it just
takes time to pull them all together.
Daniel wrote:
Just because it is not in a question and
answer session does not mean that it was not in response to a
question.
Peter Staudenmaier:
You think anthroposophists came to him
and asked him to expound on Jewishness as the epitome of ethnic
insularity and particularism? But you don't think there was significant
antisemitism among these anthroposophists??
Daniel:
As is typical of you, you can only imagine
the worst. The question might often have been as simple as the
one in the 1924 lecture. You are trying to twist the issue, but
it is a rather sad attempt.
Daniel wrote:
Perhaps there are different ways of understanding
what the phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem
to imagine that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. No Jewish people means no Jews.
Daniel:
Peter, are you talking with me or just posturing?
What do you think I wrote in my original? Did you read it for
content, or just hit "reply" and ignore the entire
statement?
Daniel wrote:
I tend to think that Steiner wanted Jews
not to be recognizable as Jews by any external or cultural cues,
so that you could not tell whether a person was or was not a
Jew merely by talking to them in a cafe.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Do you mean that people could tell this
in the first place?
Daniel:
Um, what do you think, Peter? You are the
self-professed expert on the Jewish experience.
Daniel wrote:
As I have pointed out, Steiner wanted the
"Folk" element of German-ness to disappear as well
Peter Staudenmaier:
Where does he say this?
Daniel:
In the quote you posted. Did you read it,
or just copy and paste? I then wrote about the possible problems
with the translation of the workd "volk". Did you read
that, or just hit "reply"? Are we having a conversation,
or are you wasting my time?
Repeat:
In approaching this paragraph,
the subtleties of the German word "Volk" should be
observed. I read the statement of Steiner's to indicate that
he wanted the "Folk" element of Jewishness to cease
being a point of self-identification. As I have pointed out,
Steiner wanted the "Folk" element of German-ness to
disappear as well; he wanted the "Folk" element of
every nationality and ethnic group to disappear. Steiner most
emphatically did not want the individual Jews to cease to exist.
This can be confusing by rendering the German word "Folk"
as "people" as I'm sure you realize with your excellent
command of German.
Do you have anything to say on the subject?
Daniel wrote:
Steiner's Anthroposophy stood for an international
cosmopolitanism over and against German ethnic particularism.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Funny how anthroposophists at the time
denied this, huh?
Daniel:
With their life on the line, I don't think
it is in the least bit funny. I wonder how strongly you would
stand by your beliefs if faced with death, or even just a "friendly"
visit from the local SS.
Really, Peter, try using a little historical imagination.
And of course, the number who guilty of such denial are in extraordinarily
small minority. But I forgot, you have no sense for proportion.
Daniel wrote:
Perhaps, but Hauer was quite a bit more
knowledgeable.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you don't have the faintest idea
what you're talking about. By that time Hauer was a marginal
crank obsessed with his own invented pseudo-religion and with
a bizarre grudge against anthroposophy. Consequently he wasn't
taken seriously by the Nazi leadership, in stark contrast to,
say, Schellenberg.
Daniel:
Peter, despite starting off with the vaguely
insulting "I think you don't have the faintest idea what
you're talking about" you go on to establish my point! Hauer,
who was also a marginal crank obsessed with his own invented
pseudo-religion and with a bizarre grudge against anthroposophy,
was for this very reason knowledgeable on the subject, unlike
Heydrich. You are arguing my point back at me.
Daniel wrote:
You seem to have a one-track mind for race
and Jews.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, that's the focus of my current research.
You might try it sometime.
Daniel:
I thought your current research was Steiner's
view on race and Jews? If that is the case, then you will need
to understand more than race and Jews to be a historian on the
subject. As I stated elsewhere, polemical writing makes no demands
of actual knowledge as a prerequisite.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel writes:
Steiner most often spoke in general on
this theme, without any examples.
Yup. You and I were talking about those cases
in which he did use examples, remember?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. No Jewish people means no Jews.
Daniel:
Peter, are you talking with me or just
posturing? What do you think I wrote in my original? Did you
read it for content, or just hit "reply" and ignore
the entire statement?
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I wrote above? Do you
think that no Jewish people means no Jews, or don't you?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:29 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel writes:
Steiner most often spoke in general on
this theme, without any examples.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yup. You and I were talking about those
cases in which he did use examples, remember?
Daniel:
Peter, are you trying to talk with me or are
you just wasting my time? Please tell me what my point was, one,
two and three posts ago, so I know that you are actually listening.
Otherwise I will cease wasting my time repeating myself. If you
are capable of this, I will continue the conversation.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. No Jewish people means no Jews.
Daniel:
Peter, are you talking with me or just
posturing? What do you think I wrote in my original? Did you
read it for content, or just hit "reply" and ignore
the entire statement?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what
I wrote above? Do you think that no Jewish people means no Jews,
or don't you?
Daniel:
No. I am asking you if you read my posts two
and three exchanges ago. Did you? What was my point back then?
Did you read it before responding? Did you? I will not repeat
myself more than three times. Try picking up where you left off.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:29 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel:
Perhaps there are different ways of understanding
what the phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem
to imagine that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews.
Peter:
Indeed. No Jewish people means no Jews.
I really wanted to limit my participation in these discussions
to comic interludes, but this statement by Peter is too much.
I can hardly believe he wrote it. If he really believes this
- and I think he does - then I see no point in any further argument.
He's lost even the tiny shred of credibility he had before that.
That guy Tal, whom he quoted below, is much closer to what is
meant: "...the continued existence of Jews in modern times
as a separate and singular people..." Steiner never said,
intimated, nor could possibly have meant, "no Jews".
Catholics, Protestants, etc. are not separate and singular peoples.
In the U.S. and most western countries today the Jews are not
either. Not having lived in Europe in the 19th and early 20th
century, I don't know if they were there and then. In fact, Steiner
could have been mistaken. But that's not the point. The point
is that saying he meant "no Jews", implies they should
be eliminated a la "final solution". Steiner wrote
somewhere that if the Jews insisted on having a Jewish state
(Zionism), anti-Semitism would only grow worse. (Don't ask me
for source, it's from memory, probably in Gesamelte Aufsätze.)
So by urging assimilation - wrongly or rightly - he wanted to
protect them, or have them protect themselves - the opposite
of anti-Semitism. Now we have the state of Israel, which I used
to visit on business and with which, until recently, I have had
great sympathy. Who knows how the terrible situation there will
end, and how much it has to do with the fact that it is a Jewish
state, something which Steiner called reactionary?
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:59 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Frank on Peter:
The point is that saying he meant "no
Jews", implies they should be eliminated a la "final
solution".
Hi Frank
This is what bothers me most about Staudenmaeir
and how I believe he weasels in and out of this particular point.
But he is well aware of where he is leading his audience and
Diana and all the rest can decide to believe him but his words
speak to this exact point in my understanding.
Dottie
Steiner wrote somewhere that if the Jews
insisted on having a Jewish state (Zionism), anti-Semitism would
only grow worse. (Don't ask me for source, it's from memory,
probably in Gesamelte Aufsätze.) So by urging assimilation
- wrongly or rightly - he wanted to protect them, or have them
protect themselves - the opposite of anti-Semitism. Now we have
the state of Israel, which I used to visit on business and with
which, until recently, I have had great sympathy. Who knows how
the terrible situation there will end, and how much it has to
do with the fact that it is a Jewish state, something which Steiner
called reactionary?
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:16 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Frank writes:
The point is that saying he meant "no Jews", implies
they should be eliminated a la "final solution".
No, that is not at all what Steiner wanted. He wanted the same
sort of "solution" that other assimilationist antisemites
wanted, namely, for Jews to quit being Jewish.
Steiner wrote somewhere that if the Jews insisted on having
a Jewish state (Zionism), anti-Semitism would only grow worse.
Yes, he did indeed say that. At the time he said this (1897)
Zionism was a tiny movement, radically unrepresentative of Jewry
as a whole. In the very same article Steiner also said that the
Zionists were a greater danger than the antisemites, whom he
characterized as "harmless", and he further said that
widespread concern over antisemitism was due to "Jewish
hypersensitivity".
So by urging assimilation - wrongly or rightly - he wanted
to protect them, or have them protect themselves - the opposite
of anti-Semitism.
That is not the opposite of antisemitism. Lots of assimilationist
antisemites supported the kind of assimilation Steiner preached.
Assimilationsist Jews forcefully rejected the kind of assimilation
that Steiner preached.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:27 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Peter:
No, that is not at all what Steiner wanted.
He wanted the same sort of "solution" that other assimilationist
antisemites wanted, namely, for Jews to quit being Jewish.
Peter, what does 'quit being Jewish' mean
in your understanding?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
I asked Daniel:
Do you think that no Jewish people means
no Jews, or don't you?
And Daniel replied:
No.
Okay, so you don't agree that no Jewish people means no Jews.
Could you (or Frank) explain how there can be Jews if Jewry as
such has disappeared and the Jewish people has dissolved and
ceased to exist?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:31 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Dottie writes:
Peter, what does 'quit being Jewish' mean in your understanding?
To stop identifying themselves as Jews, and to stop being identifiable
to others as Jews, by blending in to the other peoples, that
is, by becoming simply Germans, French, Danes, and so forth.
What Steiner rejected was the possibility of being simultaneously
German and Jewish. This combination of Germanness and Jewishness
is precisely what assimilationist Jews defended.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Peter:
To stop identifying themselves as Jews,
and to stop being identifiable to others as Jews, by blending
in to the other peoples, that is, by becoming simply Germans,
French, Danes, and so forth.
So, how do you personally identify a Jewish
person, Peter? And what is it in your opinion that identifies
a person as Jewish?
Peter:
What Steiner rejected was the possibility
of being simultaneously German and Jewish.
Dottie
Well that seems like an assbackward explanation
Peter. Seriously. You might want to rethink that point you have
written above. What it looks like from here is that if he didn't
want them to be German Jews what did he want from them in your
opinion? I know its tough but once again you are back at an assinine
explanation as he wanted them to disappear: ie: final solution.
Make a decision Peter get off the fence it's about that time.
And I don't think he wanted anything other
than peace for them and the world and that can be seen in his
thoughts regarding his whole take on blood and nationality issues
brought forther here and in his works regarding the world.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Peter Staudenmaier:
I asked Daniel:
Do you think that no Jewish people means
no Jews, or don't you?
And Daniel replied:
No.
Okay, so you don't agree that no Jewish
people means no Jews. Could you (or Frank) explain how there
can be Jews if Jewry as such has disappeared and the Jewish people
has dissolved and ceased to exist?
Daniel:
I did? I really said that? (Just like Steiner
talked about "root races" in GA 121, I suppose). Peter,
you seem to have an extraordinarily difficult time with subtleties.
For the third (and hopefully final) time, here is my thought.
Try reading it.
Daniel wrote:
And I repeat:
I find nothing in Steiner's
statement to preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their
religious practices and assimilating precicely as they desired
(and as you claim Steiner was against).
Perhaps there are different ways of understanding
what the phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem
to imagine that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews.
I tend to think that Steiner wanted Jews not to be recognizable
as Jews by any external or cultural cues, so that you could not
tell whether a person was or was not a Jew merely by talking
to them in a cafe. I don't think he was intent on abolishing
all religious practices, religion being an area that he felt
to be the responsibility of the free individual. This type of
assimilation appears to me to be the goal of a large number of
liberal Jews during that time period, and something that has
been achieved to a large degree in the US today.
In approaching this paragraph, the subtleties of the German word
"Volk" should be observed. I read the statement of
Steiner's to indicate that he wanted the "Folk" element
of Jewishness to cease being a point of self-identification.
As I have pointed out, Steiner wanted the "Folk" element
of German-ness to disappear as well; he wanted the "Folk"
element of every nationality and ethnic group to disappear. Steiner
most emphatically did not want the individual Jews to cease to
exist. This can be confusing by rendering the German word "Folk"
as "people" as I'm sure you realize with your excellent
command of German.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:57 pm
Subject: Small Note on Assimilation in the US [WAS: agreement
and disagreement]
Daniel wrote:
And I repeat:
I find nothing in Steiner's
statement to preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their
religious practices and assimilating precicely as they desired
(and as you claim Steiner was against).
Perhaps there are different ways of understanding
what the phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem
to imagine that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews.
I tend to think that Steiner wanted Jews not to be recognizable
as Jews by any external or cultural cues, so that you could not
tell whether a person was or was not a Jew merely by talking
to them in a cafe. I don't think he was intent on abolishing
all religious practices, religion being an area that he felt
to be the responsibility of the free individual. This type of
assimilation appears to me to be the goal of a large number of
liberal Jews during that time period, and something that has
been achieved to a large degree in the US today.
I can testify to this. Although raised Lutheran,
I am frequently mistaken for a Jewish woman on the strength of
my last name alone. I once dated a fellow in college who didn't
have the heart to tell his father that I was not "a nice
Jewish girl." (His father's comment on hearing my name,
"At last, a nice Jewish girl!!") Of course, this same
fellow used to crack that the worst part of visiting his much
more orthodox relatives in NYC was that they wouldn't allow him
to put any swiss cheese on his ham sandwiches.
Of course, he also allowed as to how some
of his Jewish neighbors down in Baton Rouge, where he grew up
in the late 60's - 70's, used have crosses burned on their lawns
by the local KKK. (I hear tell they also burned crosses on the
lawns of Catholic families in other parts of the south.... sort
of equal opportunity bigots, the Klan.) So how assimilated you
get to be might depend on where you live....
Musing on why assimilation has to be a bad
thing....
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:07 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Small Note on Assimilation
in the US [WAS: agreement and disagreement]
Jo Ann wrote:
Musing on why assimilation has to be a
bad thing....
In order to resolve this racist thing once
and for all, I urge all to read http://southerncrossreview.org/16/knockonwood.htm
for a primer on Italian (Sicilian), wasp-American
and Afro-American conflict-harmony-conflict-resolution (of sorts)
is accomplished.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:19 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Dottie writes:
What it looks like from here is that if he didn't want them
to be German Jews what did he want from them in your opinion?
Germans.
I know its tough but once again you are back at an assinine
explanation as he wanted them to disappear: ie: final solution.
That isn't what final solution means. Final solution means physically
annihilating every person designated as Jewish according to ostensibly
racial criteria. Steiner did not want anything like this. He
wanted Jews to stop being Jewish. He wanted the Jewish people
to cease to exist by dissolving into the other peoples, not by
murder.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:56 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Dottie writes:
Peter, what does 'quit being Jewish' mean
in your understanding?
To stop identifying themselves as Jews,
and to stop being identifiable to others as Jews, by blending
in to the other peoples, that is, by becoming simply Germans,
French, Danes, and so forth. What Steiner rejected was the possibility
of being simultaneously German and Jewish. This combination of
Germanness and Jewishness is precisely what assimilationist Jews
defended.
Peter
Ridiculous. German Jews were already German.
What Steiner wanted was for Jews not to consider themselves a
separate "Volk" - as the Germans, French, Armenians,
Kurds, Serbs, etc. considered themselves to be. If they were
a separate Volk, they would necessarily need a separate nation-state,
as, fe, the Basques terrorists want now and all those nationalities
of the Balkans wanted, which led to immeasurable suffering.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:43 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Frank writes:
German Jews were already German. What Steiner wanted was for
Jews not to consider themselves a separate "Volk" -
as the Germans, French, Armenians, Kurds, Serbs, etc. considered
themselves to be. If they were a separate Volk, they would necessarily
need a separate nation-state, as, fe, the Basques terrorists
want now and all those nationalities of the Balkans wanted, which
led to immeasurable suffering.
That makes no sense, Frank. The vast majority of German Jews
during Steiner's lifetime quite explicitly rejected the idea
of a separate nation-state. This stance therefore obviously had
nothing to do with "Jewry as such" or with "Jewry
as a people". How exactly did you manage to miss that rather
simple fact?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:28 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Peter:
He wanted Jews to stop being Jewish. He
wanted the Jewish people tocease to exist by dissolving into
the other peoples, not by murder.
Peter, Dr. Steiner was speaking on how things
in the world would be better for all peoples if we moved away
from blood and national ties. That wars and such would be non
existant if we found a way to love our neighbor like we love
ourselves, that we are all truly one big family. Is that such
a terrible thing Peter? What is wrong with speaking on these
things in your mind? It is part of Arch Angel Michaels task in
that we are boundaryless in our hearts, minds, nations and worlds.
Is to want, for the world, this kind of brotherhood a bad thing
Peter, something to be skeptical of?
It seems you got rootrace on the brain and
will not let go. I think the students have shown you to be way
off base in your understandings. Just by the way you handle all
other subjects, especially including your interpretations of
a thing, that boggle the mind, your work is suspect. It's the
OJ Simpson debate with 'everyone is wrong but me'.
Do you take issue that your work is considered
polemic? Is that a dirty word for a wanna be historian? I can
see no way around the way you write and debate a thing that your
work is anything other than high polemics. I am sure you could
run with the best of them in this particular format.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:05 pm
Subject: Define Antisemitism please
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5119
Washington - An Arab-American
organization is demanding that the Merriam Webster company drop
references to "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy
for the opponents of Israel" from its definition of anti-semitism.
The American-Arab Anti Discrimination
Committee, the leading Arab civil rights organization, yesterday
sent a letter to Merriam Webster demanding that the changes be
made to the "Third New International Dictionary - Unabridged."
The Arab group asked that Merriam Webster publicly repudiate
the definition, send errata sheets to correct the dictionaries
in libraries and rephrase the definition in future editions.
The current entry on anti-semitism
reads as follows: "1) hostility toward Jews as a religious
or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political
or economic discrimination (2) opposition to Zionism (3) sympathy
for the opponents of Israel."
In correspondence with Dan
Walsh, a Maryland graphics artist who has recently launched a
public campaign to differentiate between anti-semitism and expressions
of opposition to Israel, Merriam Webster stated that the latter
part of the definition is a "relic" and "will
most probably disappear from the next edition of the International"
dictionary. The publication house refused, however, to issue
a public clarification or a correction.
The Arab group's communications
director, Hussein Ibish, wrote a letter to Merriam Webster's
senior editor Steve Perrault, arguing that the dictionary "conflates
the first sense of the definition with two spurious ones, thereby
diminishing and even trivializing the very concept of anti-Semitism...
Smears and impugns the motives of all those who support the human
and political rights of Palestinians, undermines the efforts
of Arab and Jewish groups working for Middle East peace and stigmatizes
legitimate political opinions and activities."
Perrault said that the letter
was passed along to the president of Merriam Webster. A spokesman
for the company, Arthur Bicknell, told the Forward March 4 that
a new edition of the dictionary, with an updated entry, is expected
by the end of this decade. He said that sending errata sheets
to libraries as a temporary fix is beyond the capacity of a small
publishing house such as Merriam Webster.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Hi Dottie, thanks for your post. You wrote:
Peter, Dr. Steiner was speaking on how things in the world
would be better for all peoples if we moved away from blood and
national ties.
Yes, exactly. We agree about that (though I think we disagree
about what its significance is, but that's another story). From
my perspective, the problem is that Steiner portrayed Jews as
especially representative of blood and national ties. This claim
was not only untrue, it was an important component of the antisemitic
discourse of Steiner's era. Steiner thereby contributed to this
very damaging false belief about Jews.
That wars and such would be non existant if we found a way
to love our neighbor like we love ourselves, that we are all
truly one big family.
Yes, that's great. But Jews had virtually nothing to do with
starting World War I, and they did not pose an obstacle to humankind
becoming one big family.
What is wrong with speaking on these things in your mind?
Nothing. What was wrong with Steiner's statements, in my view,
was his specific claims about Jews.
Is to want, for the world, this kind of brotherhood a bad
thing Peter, something to be skeptical of?
No, not at all. But if somebody makes Jews out to be a stumbling
block to this sort of brotherhood, then it's a good idea to be
skeptical.
It seems you got rootrace on the brain
and will not let go.
That's true, I'm afraid. In fact it's getting in the way of my
other research. But I think it's an important topic so I feel
I ought to keep at it until I've reached an adequate account
of it.
I think the students have shown you to be way off base in
your understandings.
Compared to their own understandings, sure. But that's to be
expected. I'm not an anthroposophist, I'm a critic of anthroposophy.
I don't look at Steiner's work as a source of timeless spiritual
truths, I look at it as a historical phenomenon.
It's the OJ Simpson debate with 'everyone is wrong but me'.
I do not think that everyone is wrong but me. I'm wrong all the
time. I'm wrong about anthroposophy as often as I'm wrong about
anything else. Being wrong is very different, to my mind, from
lying, distortion, forgery, and so forth.
Do you take issue that your work is considered
polemic?
No, of course not. Much of my work on anthroposophy is indeed
polemical. I have a very high regard for polemic. I think it
is a very honorable tradition.
Is that a dirty word for a wanna be historian?
No, it isn't. Lots and lots of historians employ polemic. Debates
between historians are very frequently polemical. That's a good
thing, in my view, not a bad thing.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:28 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Peter:
From my perspective, the problem is that
Steiner portrayed Jews as especially representative of blood
and national ties.
Peter, what do you think a practicing Jew
will tell you about the above? You come off as a cat with zero
common sense. Seriously.
And what national ties was Dr Steiner speaking
of in regards to the Jews being a 'nation' in your opinion?
Peter:
This claim was not only untrue, it was
an important component of the antisemitic discourse of Steiner's
era. Steiner thereby contributed to this very damaging false
belief about Jews.
Again, Peter, you are missing the point completely.
But I don't think one can continue to have these conversations
with you as they make absolutely no sense. Truly. Steiner was
speaking on all nations and all cultures and the need for a brotherhood
of men. To speak on this issue and have it be seen as you are
telling it makes no sense to anyone except you and a few others
with a leftist/atheistic/hate/racist agenda who pervert the good
works of a great man. You want to keep company with that hellish
group by all means Peter. And by saying atheistic I am not speaking
of regular atheist who just don't believe, I am speaking of the
kind like you, Dan Dugan and your friend Mr. Zegers who feel
the need to blow air in the straws all day long.
Peter:
Yes, that's great. But Jews had virtually
nothing to do with starting World War I, and they did not pose
an obstacle to humankind becoming one big family.
Peter, WE ALL had a part in that war. Every
last single one of us and yes that includes the Jews as they
are as well just like the rest of us. And you are further perpetuating
misunderstandings of the real demonic behind such an atrocity
by taking the stance you are on Anthroposophy. You play right
into the hands of a Hitler and his regime by continueing this
farce you have going on here.
Hitler had nothing to do with real spiritual
research and Tarjei hit it right on the head with his post. You
unfortunately are continuing this ugly way of reading that Tarjei
showed in his post of Hitler. Seriously. By mixing up ARIOSOPHY
and Anthroposophy you have made a grave error in judgement.
But you know what just came to mind: One of
my elderly ladies, blessed be She who just passed a few months
back used to say 'Dottie be glad to take the offense of your
fellow man, for if it was not you who would be offended it would
be someone else. And you are more capable of handling it than
others'. And this thought runs parallel to what Dr. Steiner said
Jesus felt when he encountered a group of students, don't recall
their exact name right now, who thought it was rather wise of
them to build a wall that would keep Ahrimanic forces out of
their communities. Steiner said that Jesus was affronted by the
fact that these same demons that were kept away from a community
that could well handle them was then misplaced unto the very
people that couldn't.
Peter:
What was wrong with Steiner's statements,
in my view, was his specific claims about Jews.
Peter, he spoke on the whole world seen and
unseen. He gave his thoughts on Jews just as he gave them on
everything. And what your mind fails to understand is that his
cosomology is the same as their most ancient unwritten teachings
of the Kabbala. He layed to them the greatest gift of mankind:
Christ. You are completely mistaken in your understandings as
anyone who can discern a thing will see.
Peter:
No, not at all. But if somebody makes Jews
out to be a stumbling block to this sort of brotherhood, then
it's a good idea to be skeptical.
Dottie
There is no stumbling block to the world Peter.
The Jews may have their own inherent stumbling blocks as every
culture does, so what. To speak on them in the context of speaking
on the brotherhood of man is not a bad thing Peter. What don't
you get about this?
Peter:
That's true, I'm afraid. In fact it's getting
in the way of my other research. But I think it's an important
topic so I feel I ought to keep at it until I've reached an adequate
account of it.
Dottie
Peter, if you could only understand what you
are reading you would have no problem seeing what the others
here have been trying to share with you. Alas, that seems not
to be on the horizon and so we will just have to keep dealing
with your non understanding of a man with brotherhood of man
on his mind and written in his heart. Your'e barking up the wrong
tree. Hitler did what he did because he was a twisted monster
in the realm of human life and had nothing at all to do with
any real spiritual understandings. For if he had only one iota
he would never had done what he had. Even just one iota of spritual
understanding, just one he did not have. It was just a twisted
mangled idiotic understanding of something he could not come
to understand. He made it physical in the same way you try to
make Dr. Steiners words comprehensible from an intellect only
stance. It does not work this way Peter. It is the lacking of
'ears to hear and eyes to see' that stands in the way of those
intent on making this physical reality the All. The spirit is
lacking in this understanding and at some point it seems one
has completely cut oneself off to any higher learning.
Dottie:
I think the students have shown you to
be way off base in your understandings.
Peter:
Compared to their own understandings, sure.
Peter, you just do not get it do you? You
have shown yourself to have a great lack of spiritual understandings
and that is and was your choice. You have come up with your own
world view and it is diametricaly opposed to that which Dr. Steiner
came to share with the world. Do you really think one can not
see past your misunderstandings? We can Peter.
Steiner is not here and you do not want to
hear what his students understandings are unless they compare
positively to yours. They do not because you work from a different
mind set than they. And that is why you can not see the same
root base for spiritual understandings that weave in and out
of Judaism and Anthroposophy.
Peter:
But that's to be expected. I'm not an anthroposophist,
I'm a critic of anthroposophy. I don't look at Steiner's work
as a source of timeless spiritua
Nor do you have to Peter. You just have to
have common sense. Common sense that is just looking for the
truth of a thing. Take all things into consideration and come
up with your own conclusion. But unfortunately for you, you have
only taken what you want to consider and have thrown the rest
of the information away. Well okay, but a Historian that does
not make Peter. And if you are so wanting this I think you should
reexaming your priorities in coming to an understanding and wanting
to share it with the world.
It's funny because deep inside me I know you
are better than this. And I think lots of people on this list
think this as well. As can be testified by most on this list,
the fact that you are an atheist or a communist leaning person
with a little 'c', whatever that means, has no real bearing of
how we view you as a brother rather it is your insistant way
of deciphering a thing that knocks everyone out and causes doubts
as to your honesty, integrity and ability to want to understand
what others are saying.
Dottie:
It's the OJ Simpson debate with 'everyone
is wrong but me'.
Peter:
I do not think that everyone is wrong but
me.
Dottie
Yes you do. It reminds me of Fonzie's inabilitly
to say the word 'LOVE' on Happy Days.
Peter:
I'm wrong all the time. I'm wrong about
anthroposophy as often as I'm wrong about anything else. Being
wrong is very different, to my mind, from lying, distortion,
forgery, and so forth.
Again Peter, you may not feel the love on
this list but it is there. I see how my brothers and sisters
keep speaking with you and trying to share their understandings
and you just keep pushing them away as if they are idiots are
something. Well I have to say I for one am no longer shocked
by the depth of the great minds I encounter in Anthroposophy.
It truly is a testament to their teacher that he was able to
impact great intellects to their hearts in the manner I have
seen on this list. These are great men and women here who really
keep bringing themselves to something that seems as if it keeps
snaking from one explanation to another to avoid being WRONG.
And I for one keep going back and forth unfortunatley,
which is a great test for me and I am SO aware of your role in
my vacilating, its the good cop bad cop routine you have going
on that keeps throwing me for a loop. It would be much easier
if I could just say he is a lying no good son of a gun but I
know that we are connected and I am learning alot from you and
this experience.
Peter:
No, of course not. Much of my work on anthroposophy
is indeed polemical. I have a very high regard for polemic. I
think it is a very honorable tradition.
Peter, why why why would someone want to engage
in this form of writing? What is it that appeals to you about
this? Where is the center. You can still be a legend and bigger
than the stars themselves if you take all parts that make the
whole. YOu can be just as powerful writing history as you can
writing polemic. But the difference is you will have respect
not just of those who agree with you but those who don't as well.
For they will see a man who has come to different conclusions
but in an honorable manner.
You have a great ego Peter. And I think that
is beautiful. You also have a great heart and a great mind. Use
it for something that has integrity Peter. Polemic in as far
as I have been able to see does not. It doesn't matter how great
the argument if only half of it is shown. It is a lie whether
you yourself are lying is irrelevant to a certain extent. Yet,
knowing you are only telling half of the story makes you complicit
in the lie.
Peter:
No, it isn't. Lots and lots of historians
employ polemic. Debates between historians are very frequently
polemical. That's a good thing, in my view, not a bad thing.
I don't think of it as a bad thing rather
a sad thing. And I would not be able to trust a historian, or
anyone else who employed this method of writing or speaking.
It's knowing in advance that you are telling only what 'you'
understand' and not neccessarily the truth of the whole picture.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Peter:
Yes, that's great. But Jews had virtually
nothing to do with starting World War I, and they did not pose
an obstacle to humankind becoming one big family.
And according to my Rabbi it was a G-d thing.
And the Jews definitely had a part in this. Have you ever spoken
to a Rabbi about this particular subject? I realize everyday
thinking people would be astounded to what the Rabbis say on
this subject. It takes nothing away from the horror, rather,
what I understand it is their accountability to God. Are you
aware of this?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:57 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Hi Dottie, you wrote:
Peter, what do you think a practicing Jew will tell you about
the above?
That very much depends on which practicing Jew you ask. Are you
trying to say that you believe that Jews are especially
representative of blood and national ties? Or are you simply
trying to say that you don't think that Steiner believed this?
Again, Peter, you are missing the point completely.
Okay, what do you think the point is?
Peter, WE ALL had a part in that war.
Neither you nor I was alive in 1914. Did you mean a previous
incarnation?
Every last single one of us and yes that includes the Jews
as they are as well just like the rest of us.
Well, except that the Jews didn't have a state or a military,
unlike the Germans, the French, the Russians, and so forth.
Hitler had nothing to do with real spiritual research
So what? When you're trying to make sense of historical figures,
your job is not to choose between "real" and "fake"
versions of spirituality, your job is to pay attention to what
the figures did and said.
Peter, he spoke on the whole world seen and unseen. He gave
his thoughts on Jews just as he gave them on everything.
Sure. Some of the thoughts that he gave on Jews were antisemitic,
in my view.
He layed to them the greatest gift of mankind: Christ.
Yes, quite so.
To speak on them in the context of speaking on the brotherhood
of man is not a bad thing Peter.
I think it is a bad thing if someone says that the existence
of Jewry as such is a mistake of world history and that the best
thing would be for Jewry as a people to cease to exist.
Steiner is not here and you do not want to hear what his students
understandings are unless they compare positively to yours.
No, quite the contrary. I pay very close attention to the racist
statements of Steiner's students, particularly the first generation.
Take all things into consideration and come up with your own
conclusion. But unfortunately for you, you have only taken what
you want to consider and have thrown the rest of the information
away.
I think those two sentences point to the same thing. Why do you
think they are opposites? When you take all things into consideration,
you find that some of those things are accurate and worth holding
onto, while other things are inaccurate and can be thrown away.
Again Peter, you may not feel the love
on this list but it is there.
Thanks, but no thanks. I didn't come here for love, I came here
to talk about Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines.
Peter, why why why would someone want to engage in this form
of writing?
Because it's a good way to figure out which ideas make sense
and which don't.
And I would not be able to trust a historian
That's exactly right, you shouldn't ever simply trust what another
person says about historical matters, regardless of their writing
style.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:30 am
Subject: The Essene Gates (was: agreement and disagreement)
At 19:28 13.03.2004, Dottie wrote:
But you know what just came to mind: One
of my elderly ladies, blessed be She who just passed a few months
back used to say 'Dottie be glad to take the offense of your
fellow man, for if it was not you who would be offended it would
be someone else. And you are more capable of handling it than
others'. And this thought runs parallel to what Dr. Steiner said
Jesus felt when he encountered a group of students, don't recall
their exact name right now, who thought it was rather wise of
them to build a wall that would keep Ahrimanic forces out of
their communities. Steiner said that Jesus was affronted by the
fact that these same demons that were kept away from a community
that could well handle them was then misplaced unto the very
people that couldn't.
Jesus had a lot of contact with the Essenes,
a Jewish sect that stayed pure by observing certain rules of
ethics, hygiene, and asceticism. RS spoke about this in "The
Fifth Gospel":
For some time already, Jesus
of Nazareth had witnessed a atrange spectacle when he came to
places where gates had been made for the Essenes - gates without
images or pictures. Jesus of Nazareth could never pass through
these gates without sorrow. He saw the bare gates, but he perceived
spirit-forms around them; at either side of the gates there always
appeared to him the Beings we know in our studies under the names
of Ahriman and Lucifer. And gradually the vision, the impression
had been confirmed in his soul that the aversion of the Essenes
for pictures on their gates must have something to do with the
evocation of spiritual Beings; that pictures on the gates were,
in reality, images of Lucifer and Ahriman. Jesus of Nazareth
had often been aware of this.
Anyone who experiences such
things will not find it good to brood upon them unduly;
they are too overwhelming. One very soon feels also that human
thoughts cannot fathom their depths, that human thoughts are
not capable of approaching them. But the impressions not only
engrave themselves deeply into the soul - they become part of
the soul's very life. One feels bound up as it were with the
part of the soul in which such experiences have been gathered
- bound up with the experiences themselves, and one carries them
on through life.
So it was that Jesus of Nazareth
carried on with him through life the two pictures of Ahriman
and Lucifer he had seen at the gates of the Essenes. To begin
with, the only effect of this was to make him realise that a
mystery prevailed between these spiritual Beings and the Essenes.
Moreover, since these experiences had come to Jesus of Nazareth,
mutual understanding with the Essenes was not as easy as it had
been before. For there was something in his soul of which he
could say no word ti the Essenes - something seemed lacking as
they conversed together. His experience at the Essene gates always
stood in the way. One day, after a memorable conversation on
lofty spiritual matters, Jesus of Nazareth was passing out through
the gate of the main Essene building when there came before him
the figures he recognised as Lucifer and Ahriman. He saw Lucifer
and Ahriman fleeing away from the gate of the monastery. And
the question sank into his soul, not as if he himself were asking
it, but as if it were being forced into his soul with deep elemental
power: Whither are these Beings fleeing, whither are Lucifer
and Ahriman fleeing? For he knew that the very sanctity of the
Essene monastery was responsible for their flight; but the question:
Whither are they fleeing? - ingrained itself into his very soul,
and never left him. As he went about during the following weeks,
it was with him every hour, nay every minute. Whither are Lucifer
and Ahriman fleeing? This was the question that burnt like fire
in his soul when after that deep conversation he had gone through
the main gate of the Essene building.
- "The Fifth Gospel" [Aus der Akasha-Forschung.
Das Fünfte Evangelium - GA 148], Lecture Four, Oslo, 5th
October, 1913
I also recommend a book by Christian Ginsburg:
"The Essenes, Their History and Doctrines / The Kabbalah,
Its Doctrines, Development and Literature."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Dottie:
Peter, what do you think a practicing Jew
will tell you about the above?
Peter:
Are you trying to say that you believe
that Jews are especially representative of blood and national
ties? Or are you simply trying to say that you don't think that
Steiner believed this?
Dottie:
What the hell is that supposed to mean Staudenmaier?
Whew. Did you even read what I wrote?
Have you or have you not asked a 'practicing
Jew', meaning one who goes to the Synagogue and hearkens unto
the Rabbincal way of understanding the question you sought an
answer to?
Peter:
Okay, what do you think the point is?
Dottie:
Oh, okay, got no time to play tiddly winks
with you Peter.
Dottie:
Peter, WE ALL had a part in that war.
Peter:
Neither you nor I was alive in 1914. Did
you mean a previous incarnation?
Dottie:
Mankind Peter. Mankind of which we are a part.
Peter:
Well, except that the Jews didn't have
a state or a military, unlike the Germans, the French, the Russians,
and so forth.
Dottie:
Nice of you to cut my sentence to such an
extent that one including me does not even know what has just
been said. You are absolutely incredible, as in no credibility
when you play silly games like this. No wonder Daniel has been
holding your feet to the coals.
Dottie:
Hitler had nothing to do with real spiritual
research
Peter:
So what? When you're trying to make sense
of historical figures, your job is not to choose between "real"
and "fake" versions of spirituality, your job is to
pay attention to what the figures did and said.
Dottie:
God, I so love you Peter. Well, here is where
you make your crucial mistake: not to make sense of what is real
and what is fake. And you would have no idea of knowing because
you did not care to cultivate the spiritual aspect within you.
So it is all fake and we are all wrong. And this is why you can
not see the fundemental difference between ARIOSOPHY and Anthroposophy.
And so, we are back at stage one where we
discussed the idea of someone listening to a speaker and then
twisting the interpretations to meet his own twisted mentality.
Who does one blame. Well if your a polemic writer you have no
care as to who is to blame it only depends on what side of the
line you fall on, to hell with the rest.
Dottie:
Peter, he spoke on the whole world seen
and unseen. He gave his thoughts on Jews just as he gave them
on everything.
Peter
Sure. Some of the thoughts that he gave
on Jews were antisemitic, in my view.
Dottie:
It doesn't mean you have to believe in what
he spoke Peter but it does mean that this is a statement of fact:
Dr. Steiner shared on the relation of spirit and earthly relation
to one another.
And Peter, you are welcome to hold the view
you have that Dr. Steiner was antisemitic and that does not make
you right. And if one takes in the rest of the story you have
neglected to share in trying to prove your point, because then
you would be shown to have no point, they will easily see your
mistake by his words on brotherhood and all cultures of the world.
You want to keep seperating the Jews from
the brotherhood discussion for some reason and I will have to
ask why is that? Do you hold that the Jews are a separate brotherhood
of man? I don't and I know Dr. Steiner did not just by the works
he left to the world.
Dottie:
He layed to them the greatest gift of mankind:
Christ.
Peter:
Yes, quite so.
Dottie
Is that a problem for you Peter? Whether you
believe in Christ is irrelevant to the discussion. What is not
irrelevant is the idea that Christ in the mind of millions of
people was the Messiah. Jews continue to wait for the Messiah.
But they are both hearkening onto the same spiritual revelation.
What don't you get about this?
Dottie"
To speak on them in the context of speaking
on the brotherhood of man is not a bad thing Peter.
Peter:
I think it is a bad thing if someone says
that the existence of Jewry as such is a mistake of world history
and that the best thing would be for Jewry as a people to cease
to exist.
Dottie
Oops. You say he said that Jewry is a mistake
of world history yet you agree that he holds the Christ event
as the greatest thing offered to mankind and the offerer was
the Jewish line? How do you reconcile this broken line of understanding
within yourself regarding this point?
And again, Jewry as a people is about the
brotherhood of mankind including the Jews as all people are included
in this. It seems because people are looking for this hopefull
happening you think it a bad thing to aspire to as a people of
the earth. Why is that? And to you this makes a man antisemitic?
Semantic drivel. You keep the Jews separate for some reason again
I ask you why is that?
Peter:
No, quite the contrary. I pay very close
attention to the racist statements of Steiner's students, particularly
the first generation.
Dottie:
You are so full of shit. You put together
a handful of regular everday people and call this the first generation
of racists. You are so full of shit.
Dottie:
Take all things into consideration and
come up with your own conclusion. But unfortunately for you,
you have only taken what you want to consider and have thrown
the rest of the information away.
Peter:
I think those two sentences point to the
same thing.
Dottie
You think your work shows that you took all
things into consideration? You are definitely deluding yourself.
Your work and the process of a polemical study speaks to the
averse.
Dottie:
Again Peter, you may not feel the love
on this list but it is there.
Peter:
Thanks, but no thanks. I didn't come here
for love, I came here to talk about Steiner's racial and ethnic
doctrines.
Dottie
I didn't say you did. Its' just something
people who hearken unto Christ are called to find within themselves.
We are asked to go out in the world to those who do not love
us and love them. But not in a mechanical way rather it would
have to be something we found within ourselves we were able to
do.
So, you are loved. Take that:) the big L word...Fonzie
in the house well whatta ya know.
And it is always funny what a mind thinks
it came for and thinks its doing. It almost is always the opposite.
We would never take ourselves to the place where it hurts and
yet that is the place where learning is the most available. Parents
will try to protect their children to the end but it doesn't
matter the kids are gonna fall down and skin their knees and
then learn from it. It happens like this through our whole lives.
Just because we now know not to put our hands on the lit stove
does not mean life has nothing more to teach us. Life teaches
us everyday if we are so willing to look. My thoughts.
Dottie:
Peter, why why why would someone want to
engage in this form of writing?
Peter:
Because it's a good way to figure out which
ideas make sense and which don't.
Dottie
Bullshit. Polemical writing is a good way
to always be right. Again you have an issue with the W word:
WRONG. And in such a downfall as this, which can be changed any
time one is willing to really look inside to see what horse is
riding on your back and cracking the whip, you lose your credibility
with other great minds like those on this list for starters.
Dottie:
And I would not be able to trust a historian
Peter:
That's exactly right, you shouldn't ever
simply trust what another person says about historical matters,
regardless of their writing style.
Dottie:
Wrong. And thanks for cutting out once again
the thing that I said to make sense. But I am sure it is as Diana
says and you are just trying to save bandwith, LOL.
You have to take into consideration if it
is a one sided story, which normally one can tell if they know
anything of the subject they are reading on. Polemic and History
are two opposing ideas in my mind. Its the reference work Peter,
and the interpreting unto the truth of the matter versus ones
ego that has decided it is right and will pursue the same line
of thinking against all logic.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:39 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Hey, Sophia, please place this over the Portal
of Anthroposophy Tomorow under: "Man, know thyself"
[Dottie:]
Again Peter, you may not feel the love
on this list but it is there.
[PS:]
Thanks, but no thanks. I didn't come here
for love, I came here to talk about Steiner's racial and ethnic
doctrines.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:49 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
PS wrote:
Frank writes:
The point is that saying he meant "no
Jews", implies they should be eliminated a la "final
solution".
No, that is not at all what Steiner wanted.
He wanted the same sort of "solution" that other assimilationist
antisemites wanted, namely, for Jews to quit being Jewish.
When you say that Steiner meant "no Jews" you are making
a direct connection with the Nazis whose solution for "no
Jews" was the gas chambers. Therefore I suggest you be a
lot more careful with the way you express yourself. Furthermore,
your expression "that other assimilationist antisemites
wanted" is very explicit in meaning that Steiner was an
anti-Semite. I will not use your Hal-like answer: "This
is here we disagree", but rather say that you are deliberately
either trying to provoke, or to convince others by dialectic
distortion, or you simply have a screw loose. I also suggest
that to call a German assimilationist of those times anti-semitic
is an oxymoron. A true assimilationist was one who welcomed the
Jews into the community, wanted them as neighbors. Do you know
what an anti-Semite is? Ask me. I lived in Germany for ten years,
after the 2nd War of course, when there were practically no Jews
left, but close enough to i