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 subtlties of the German word "Volk" should be observed. I read the statemet 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 obssessed 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 obssessed 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 elswhere, polemical writing makes no demands of actual knowledge as a prerequisite.

Daniel Hindes