Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 28

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

The break with the Theosophical Society came in 1913, and not because Steiner disagreed with other Theosophists, which he had done for years, and not directly because of the Krishnamurti. The break was a result of actions by the Theosophical leadership to sideline Steiner over differences of opinion concerning the nature of the Christ. The details can be tedious, but the ultimatum was delivered in India by Besant when, in an address to the Theosophical society she said: “The German General Secretary, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to shake himself sufficiently clear of that fatal influence to allow liberty of opinion within his section.” She also demanded his resignation. The claim of a Jesuit influence was completely without basis, and the final straw, not for Steiner, but for the members of the German section of the Theosophical Society. A few founded the Anthroposophical Society, which very quickly grew from the ranks of the Theosophical society. Besant did not even wait for Steiner to resign; she unilaterally transferred the chairmanship to one Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Steiner remained an independent lecturer, and not even a member of the new Anthroposophical Society, until 1923.(Steiner assumed the leadership of the General Anthroposophical Society in December, 1923) Here once again we see that the actual facts contradict Staudenmaier's version of them.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Daniel Hindes published on July 22, 2005 4:36 AM.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 27 was the previous entry in this blog.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 29 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.