The Pamphlet
Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed
racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial
theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible
with their own racist worldviews.
Christine (February 24th, 2004):
WHO?????
Peter Staudenmaier (February 25th, 2004):
For starters, there's the 1999 pamphlet "Rudolph Steiner
& the Mystique of Blood and Soil: The Volkisch Views of
the Founder of anthroposophy" from New Zealand; you can
find extensive excerpts from it at the waldorf critics list
archive, in a message from Dan Dugan on August 11, 2002, subject
heading "racist pamphlet from NZ neo-nazi". (The
pamphlet also contains a fair bit of material on Steiner's
views on Jews.)
Tarjei Straume (February 25th 2004):
Some sources! Steiner didn't have any voelkisch views. Goodrick-Clarke
doesn't support that notion either. Your sources are of the
same ilk as the fascist right-wing pamphlets that circulated
against Steiner in the 1920's and long after his death. They
are propagansists with the same agenda you have. What happened
to your alleged scholarship all of a sudden?
Peter Staudenmaier (February 25th, 2004):
Yes, the New Zealand pamphlet is similar to the stuff you
posted last month, but the orientation is reversed -- the
pamphlet praises Steiner, it doesn't condemn him.
"They are propagansists with the same agenda you have.
What happened to your alleged scholarship all of a sudden?"
Far-right gunk like that is what my scholarship focuses on,
for better or worse. Their agenda is obviously the contrary
of mine; I'm a critic of Steiner, and these folks are admirers
of Steiner.
Tarjei Straume (February 26th 2004):
Steiner's "admirerers" called him a megalomaniac
Zionist Jew with a political agenda as an agent of Moscow,
a threat to Christendom and an enemy of true patriots?
Bryan Miller (February 26th, 2004):
With all due respect, Mr. Staudenmaier. If I understand your
logic, I could put together a group of freaks and write a
pamphlet praising your communist stands and racist tendencies
and place it on the net. Then Anthroposophers all over the
world would be able to quote it and make references to it
to prove the above allegations. This New Zealand Pamphlet
is irrelevant and you know it. I'm sure you have better cards
to pull off your sleve.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
No, I don't think you have understood my logic. In the course
of my discussion with Tarjei, he and I argued over whether
it is possible to use terms like "racist" in descriptive
ways (at least that's what I think we were arguing over).
At one point in that discussion I remarked that there are
a number of self-proclaimed racists who appreciate and promote
Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these
theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews. Christine
then responded with evident incredulity, and I offered the
New Zealand pamphlet as an example. The pamphlet cannot serve
to "prove" any "allegations" other than
my simple claim that some racists like and promote Steiner's
work, specifically his racial and ethnic theories.
Bryan:
"This New Zealand Pamphlet is irrelevant and you know
it."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Irrelevant to what? It is certainly not irrelevant to the
question of whether latter-day racists sometimes find aspects
of Steiner's work appealing. It is irrelevant to countless
other questions, such as what roles did Steiner's racial and
ethnic theories actually play within their original historical
context. I think we could productively discuss that issue.
What do you say?
Christine Natale (February 28th, 2004):
Well, Mr. Staudenmeier,
I have been researching the author of the above pamphlet (who
you couldn't or wouldn't even name in your response to my
question.)
1. You have cited ONE author, not "a number of self-proclaimed
racists"
2. The author's name is Kerry Bolton. He is not only a self-proclaimed
Neo-Nazi of a terribly vocal and vociferous kind. He has quite
a number of articles posted all over the web, mostly on Satanist
websites. Mr. Kerry Bolton is also a self-proclaimed Satanist.
Not one of the articles that I have read so far by Mr. Bolton
references or names Rudolf Steiner in any way shape or form
UNTIL
3. The pamphlet above, which I have not yet found in its entirety.
But I did find the review below and in it, a very interesting
phenomenon: You said above, "...they see these theories
as compatible with their own racist worldviews."
If this booklet quotes from Biehl & Staudenmeier, then
it came out AFTER your article, not before - you can't use
it as an example of work from which your theories arise or
a source which independently supports your theories. You can
say that Mr. Bolton likes your theories and lends his support
to them, but not that his work contains any research of his
own which supports your
suppositions.
ANTHROPOSOPHY TOMORROW ALERT!!! ROSE NOIR = BLACK ROSE!!
(My brackets & bold below for emphasis)
***********************
http://www.rosenoire.org/reviews/bolton-rudolph.php
Rudolph Steiner
& the Mystique of Blood and Soil
The Volkisch Views of the Founder of anthroposophy
By Kerry Bolton
Reviewed by Troy Southgate
Rudolf Steiner & The Mystique of Blood & Soil: The
Volkisch Views of the Founder of anthroposophy by Kerry Bolton.
Available from Renaissance Press, P.O. Box 1627, Paraparaumu
Beach, New Zealand. Paper cover, 16pp. Price $NZ20 inc. postage.
HAVING studied H.P. Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine to a certain
extent, as well as the development and significance of the
Theosophical Society, I for one was particularly pleased to
receive a booklet on Steiner. I had, for some time, rather
dismissively regarded this individual as being little more
than a guru of the liberal New Age Movement. It now appears
that Steiner not only had much in common with Blavatsky's
own pronouncements concerning the root races of
mankind but also took things one step further by openly alluding
to the inherent differences between them.
Kerry Bolton unearths Steiner's links to the philosophical
elite and men like Goethe, Herder, Haeckel and Nietzsche,
following the biological thread of racialism through to the
very beginnings of Ariosophy and Franz von Liebenfels' New
Templars. Steiner's thoughts on Race and the unique qualities
of the Aryan psyche are explored in depth, with the author
quoting at some length from works such as The Destinies of
Individuals and of Nations [1915], Materialism and the Task
of Athroposophy [1921], Spiritual Science As a Foundation
for Social Forms [1920] and many others. Steiner himself is
shown to have worked alongside Austrian nationalists promoting
folkish unity; to have emphasised the Nordic Race as the perfect
expression of mankind and the one bearing the most potential
for the ongoing process of biological evolution; to have developed
a planetary system alluding to the innate qualities of each
race; and to have warned against racial miscegenation and
the loss of Aryan Man's spiritual potential.
[This of course is purely Staudenmaier's
claim. No one reading these books themselves would come to
this view - it is necessary to encounter Staudenmaier's twist
on them first. In fact, hundreds of thousands of people have
read the same books without finding anything remotely related
to racist Aryan superiority in them. Only a reader relying
exclusively on Staudenmaier would come to this.]
[The Third Reich, however, denounced Steiner's teachings],
although it was probably wary of his growing influence. The
author points out that, at the same time, many Nazi luminaries
- among them Rudolf Hess and those in the NSDAP's ecological
wing such as Siefert, Ludovici, Haase and Walther Darre himself
- began to warm to his ideas, particularly as the Anthroposophists
have always been committed to organic farming techniques.
[Finally, just to re-emphasise the effect that Steiner's work
has had on racial nationalism and the concept of Blood and
Soil, Bolton quotes from Biehl & Staudenmaier's Ecofascism:
Lessons From the German Experience, which speaks of anthroposophy
thus: "This ideology mixes bizarre racialist spiritual
theory (which somewhat unsurprisingly concludes that European
whites are at the hierarchical scale of humanity) with concepts
such as 'biodynamic farming', a form of organic agriculture
which tries to foster a more organic relationship between
cultivator and soil."]
This booklet is very well researched and essential if one
is to understand the broad significance of our racial and
spiritual heritage.
This is the extent of the knowable at present: there is the
Self, and there is the Other. Between both terms lies the
continuum which constitutes the playground and battleground
of Life. And on these fields we plant our black roses...
is an irregularly-published intellectual and cultural journal
devoted to Anarchy (the preservation of the Anarch [or Sovereign
Individual] in all aspects of life and the possibility of
multi-level realities), Occulture (the appreciation and understanding
of the Esoteric nature of Life and Culture), and Metapolitics
(a rejection of trivial party politics and an interest in
global aims, as well as a political belief in grand plans
and projects with an anti-Humanist streak). Our aim is to
explore key figures such as Ernst Juenger, Michael Bakunin,
Julius Evola, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Jean Parvulesco,
Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleister Crowley, Otto Strasser, Miguel
Serrano, Ernst Niekisch, Jean-Francois Thiriart, R.A. Schwaller
de Lubitz, Sergei Nechayev, Savitri Devi,
Austin Osman Spare, Richard Walther Darre, Alexander Dugin,
Karl Haushofer, Arthur Machen, Rene Guenon, Percy Bysshe Shelley,
Francis Parker Yockey, H.P.
Lovecraft, and Friederich Hielscher.
Peter Staudenmaier (February 29th, 2004):
"You have cited ONE author, not "a number of self-proclaimed
racists""
Yes, that's how examples work. Would you like more examples?
"The author's name is Kerry Bolton."
I think that is very likely true, but the pamphlet (I have
a copy) does not list an author.
"I did find the review below"
Yes, that review is by Troy Southgate. I posted the very same
thing to the waldorf critics list on May 16, 2002.
"If this booklet quotes from Biehl & Staudenmeier,
then it came out AFTER your article, not before"
The book I co-authored with Janet Biehl was published in 1995.
My first article on anthroposophy was published in 2000.
[The book includes everything
in the pamphlet.]
"[The Third Reich, however, denounced Steiner's teachings]"
The Nazis also denounced ariosophy. Do you conclude that ariosophy
therefore had nothing in common ideologically with Nazism?
Christine Natale (March 2nd, 2004):
> "You have cited ONE author, not "a number of
self-proclaimed racists""
> Yes, that's how examples work. Would you like more examples?
Yes, please!! (Christine)
> "The author's name is Kerry Bolton."
> I think that is very likely true, but the pamphlet (I
have a copy) does not
> list an author.
How did you get the copy? Did you buy it from an internet
source? I can't find it uploaded anywhere.
Did you upload the whole article on WC? If not, would you
please either post it or forward it to me personally? Thanks!
> The book I co-authored with Janet Biehl was published
in 1995. My first
> article on anthroposophy was published in 2000.
Thank you for the info. Does the pamphlet you are referring
to have the date of publication on it? It is puzzling that
it doesn't have a name on it. What is the exact title of the
pamphlet you have? Is it the same title as the one reviewed
by Troy Southgate?
> The Nazis also denounced ariosophy. Do you conclude that
ariosophy therefore
> had nothing in common ideologically with Nazism?
I have no conclusions about what ariosophy had in "common
ideologically" with Nazism. I am trying to establish
what Anthroposophy did or did not have in "common ideologically"
with Nazism. Perhaps the other references you give me by other
"self-proclaimed Nazis" will help with this. Thanks.
Frank Thomas Smith (March 2nd, 2004):
>The Nazis also denounced ariodsophy. Do you conclude that
ariosophy therefore had nothing in >common ideologically
with Nazism?
* False syllogisms abound: The Nazis denounced Steiner's teachings;
the Nazis denounced ariosophy; therefore Steiners teachings
and ariosophy are similar.
Peter Staudenmaier (March 2nd, 2004):
> "False syllogisms abound: The Nazis denounced Steiner's
teachings; the Nazis denounced >ariosophy; therefore Steiners
teachings and ariosophy are similar."
That would indeed be an obviously false syllogism. Since nobody
here has advanced this argument, or anything like it, I don't
see what it has to do with our discussion.
[Which misses what Frank was
getting at, that Peter himself had offered a similar (but
different) false syllogism to Christine.]
Frank Thomas Smith (March 2nd, 2004):
Hi, Peter,
It has everything to do with the discussion. It referred (ironically,
admitted) to your previous statement, which you conveniently
snipped.
[A common tactic employed by
Peter Staudenmaier: snipping the statements of his interlocutors
so short as to be unintelligible. This makes him look more
cogent in his own statements, but it is a cheap trick.]
Peter Staudenmaier (March 2nd, 2004):
In that case, you misunderstood my "previous statement".
Here is what I wrote to Christine:
"The Nazis also denounced ariosophy. Do you conclude
that ariosophy therefore had nothing in common ideologically
with Nazism?"
As you can see, there is no syllogism here, and the only statement
is a simple factual claim.
I said nothing about any substantive similarities between
anthroposophy and ariosophy; instead I asked Christine a question,
one which seemed quite reasonable in the context of our discussion.
Questions, you'll recall, are different from statements, and
they do not normally figure prominently in syllogisms of any
sort. The issue of similarities in content between anthroposophy
and ariosophy is a very interesting one, but it makes little
sense to approach that issue by looking at Nazi denunciations
of either the one or the other.
Peter Staudenmaier (March 2nd, 2004):
"Yes, please!!"
Okay, here are more examples of contemporary racists who have
endorsed or promoted Steiner's racial doctrines: From the
1980's, a small ariosophical group calling itself Die Armanenschaft,
which drew significantly on Steiner's teachings (see Eduard
Gugenberger and Roman Schweidlenka, Mutter Erde - Magie und
Politik, Vienna 1987, p. 245). From the 1980's and 1990's,
a similar outfit going by the name Armanen-Orden (motto: "Aryans
of all lands, unite!"), which advertises and sells Steiner's
works on race (see Franziska Hundseder, Wotans Jünger:
Neuheidnische Gruppen zwischen Esoterik und Rechtsradikalismus,
Munich 1998, pp. 126-129). From the 1990's there's Dieter
Rüggeberg, one of the more infamous far-right conspiracy
theorists in Germany, who relies heavily on selected works
by Steiner and also advertises and sells them. Not to mention
friendly folks like Andreas Ferch, a protege of Werner Georg
Haverbeck.
"How did you get the copy? Did you buy it from an internet
source?"
Dan Dugan sent me a photocopy of the pamphlet, which he bought
online.
"would you please either post it or forward it to me
personally?"
I'd be happy to mail you a copy. You can give me your address
offlist (I'm at pstauden@yahoo.de).
"Does the pamphlet you are referring to have the date
of publication on it?"
Yes, the copyright page says "1999 Renaissance Press".
"What is the exact title of the pamphlet you have?"
Rudolf Steiner & The Mystique of Blood & Soil: The
Volkisch Views of the Founder of Anthroposophy.
[This almost sounds like it could
have been written by Peter Staudenmaier!]
"I have no conclusions about what ariosophy had in "common
ideologically" with Nazism. I am trying to establish
what Anthroposophy did or did not have in "common ideologically
with Nazism. Perhaps the other references you give me by other
"self-proclaimed Nazis" will help with this."
They shouldn't help with this. If they do, then I think you're
approaching this backwards. To determine what anthroposophy
might have had in common ideologically with Nazism, it makes
more sense to look directly at anthroposophical doctrine and
at Nazi ideology, rather than taking a detour through later
commentaries on the two. Texts like the New Zealand pamphlet
are not reliable sources on the matter. All they show is that
some latter-day racists appreciate Steiner's racial doctrines,
which is why I mentioned that fact in the midst of my discussion
with Tarjei; if terms like "racism" were nothing
more than a moral cudgel, it would be difficult to explain
pamphlets like this one.
Dottie Zold (March 2nd, 2004):
So once again we have you trying to blame Steiner for how
others have perceived his work. Do you percieve any of the
listmates or any of the wc mates you have been in discussion
with over the years take his work as in the manner above?
If not what do you attribute this too? Do you want to blame
Dr. Steiner for these twisted perceptions?
And Steiner students would be the first to say how whacked
your perception is of his works as well as those above you
have stated show your studies to be on the right path. You
seem to be holding some pretty ugly company in the way you
discern a thing. I wonder what is up with that? I mean your
interpretations seem to be similar to those you mention above.
That's quite interesting.
[In response,
Branford posted some insights to on Character
Assassination that I have put on a separate page.]
Peter Staudenmaier (March 2nd, 2004):
No, that is not my argument. It makes no sense to blame a
long-dead author for what other people do with his work many
years later. I've explained this to you several times. Is
there anything confusing about it?
[What is confusing is the fact
that Peter Staudenmaier repeatedly uses the example of what
people make of Steiner as evidence of what Peter Staudenmaier
thinks Steiner was. This very thread is a perfect example
of it. When called on it, Peter Staudenmaier quickly rejects
such a thing in principle. This is typical of his hypocrisy.]
Peter Staudenmaier (March 2nd, 2004):
|
