Steiner on Semitism and Antisemitism
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 11:40 am
Subject: Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
A couple weeks ago I noted that Rudolf Steiner
had endorsed Richard Wagner's antisemitic writings. I cited Steiner's
book Die okkulten Wahrheiten alter Mythen und Sagen (GA 92) pp.
138-139. For some reason, both Daniel and Andrea surmised that
this reference was actually about Steiner's supposed fondness
for Wagner's music, a topic I did not address. Below is the passage
in question, from Steiner's lecture in Berlin on May 19, 1905,
part of a series of lectures on "Richard Wagner in the Light
of Spiritual Science". I think this passage is especially
interesting in view of the recent claims on this list that Steiner's
racial doctrines could not possibly have included a racist strand
because of his emphasis on the "I" and on the development
of the soul. Here Steiner employs the very same faulty logic
to argue that Wagner, one of the most infamous antisemitic authors
of the nineteenth century, could not possibly have been an antisemite.
Peter
"The feeling that a new
impulse was needed also lead Wagner to his remarks about the
influence of Jewry on contemporary culture. Wagner was not an
antisemite in the unreasonable and spiteful sense that one sometimes
experiences today, but he felt that Jewry had played out its
role, that the semitic influences on our culture must die out
and that something new needed to take their place. Thus his call
for renewal. This is related to how he conceived of our present
race. He said to himself: We must distinguish between racial
evolution and soul evolution. This distinction is necessary if
one wants to comprehend evolution as such. All of us were once
incarnated in the Atlantean race. But whereas the souls evolved
further and rose upward, the race fell into decadence. Every
advance is linked to a decline. For every one who improves himself
there is another who sinks lower. There is a difference between
the soul in its racial body and the racial body itself. The more
a person becomes similar to his race, the more he loves that
which is temporal, transitory, and tied to the attributes of
his race, the more he belongs to the decline of the race. The
more he frees himself, the more he raises himself out of the
attributes of his race, the more his soul has the opportunity
to incarnate higher. A spirit like Wagner, who distinguishes
between soul development and racial development, cannot possibly
be an antisemite. He knows that it is not the souls that have
played themselves out, but rather the races have played out their
tasks in the great cosmic evolution. That is what Wagner expresses
again and again in his writings when he discusses "semitism".
Wagner senses a downfall, a racial decline, and the need for
souls to climb higher."
Rudolf Steiner, Die okkulten Wahrheiten alter
Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Peter S quoted Rudolf Steiner:
The more a person becomes
similar to his race, the more he loves that which is temporal,
transitory, and tied to the attributes of his race, the more
he belongs to the decline of the race. The more he frees himself,
the more he raises himself out of the attributes of his race,
the more his soul has the opportunity to incarnate higher.
I told you Steiner's lectures were self-explanatory.
The more a person forgets about race and frees himself from everything
racial, the better he evolves. Something to think about. Obsession
with this topic can lead to severe retardation :)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
Peter shares a Dr. Steiner quote:
"The feeling that
a new impulse was needed also lead Wagner to his remarks about
the influence of Jewry on contemporary culture. Wagner was not
an antisemite in the unreasonable and spiteful sense that one
sometimes experiences today, but he felt that Jewry had played
out its role, that the semitic influences on our culture must
die out and that something new needed to take their place. Thus
his call for renewal. This is related to how he conceived of
our present race. He said to himself: We must distinguish between
racial evolution and soul evolution. This distinction is necessary
if one wants to comprehend evolution as such. All of us were
once incarnated in the Atlantean race. But whereas the souls
evolved further and rose upward, the race fell into decadence.
Every advance is linked to a decline. For every one who improves
himself there is another who sinks lower. There is a difference
between the soul in its racial body and the racial body itself.
The more a person becomes similar to his race, the more he loves
that which is temporal, transitory, and tied to the attributes
of his race, the more he belongs to the decline of the race.
The more he frees himself, the more he raises himself out of
the attributes of his race, the more his soul has the opportunity
to incarnate higher. A spirit like Wagner, who distinguishes
between soul development and racial development, cannot possibly
be an antisemite. He knows that it is not the souls that have
played themselves out, but rather the races have played out their
tasks in the great cosmic evolution. That is what Wagner expresses
again and again in his writings when he discusses "semitism".
Wagner senses a downfall, a racial decline, and the need for
souls to climb higher."
Rudolf Steiner, Die okkulten Wahrheiten
alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139.
You just do not get it Peter. You just do
not and the more you post to show your point the more we become
aware of your complete ignorance on this topic in regards to
Dr. Steiners work.
You have convinced me that indeed you truly
believe your explanation of a thing. You believe you are correct
and the rest of us don't want to see it. You may have propaganda
like ways of trying to prove your point and sometimes there is
a fine line between truth and lying but on the whole I do think
you think what you are reading above is racist. I actually do
not believe you are lying rather you are unable to grasp the
spiritual teachings of Dr. Steiners work. If he was to say one
group was better than another and so forth you may have a case.
But, Dr. Steiner spoke on all cultures and not only one or two.
He gave outlines to his understandings of the universe and its
workings. You can not understand and it is truly beyond anyone
here to bring this any further as your mind is made up as is
Dianas it seems. Okay.
I do wish however that you would respond to
the latest post by Mr. Detelf. And I do wish you would do it
in good faith even if... well, please respond as I would really
like to see this come to a conclusion. He truly brought it back
to the needle.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
Peter Staudenmaier illustrated that:
A spirit like Wagner, who
distinguishes between soul development and racial development,
cannot possibly be an antisemite. He knows that it is not the
souls that have played themselves out, but rather the races have
played out their tasks in the great cosmic evolution. That is
what Wagner expresses again and again in his writings when he
discusses "semitism". Wagner senses a downfall, a racial
decline, and the need for souls to climb higher."
Rudolf Steiner, Die okkulten Wahrheiten
alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139.
Bradford comments:
We have previously discussed Wagner about
and around 2071 in that area from this list. I have duly noted
that Wagner was an unconscious Initiate but as flawed as he was,
attempted in his Art a Michael Impulse. The above sitings reveal
the 1879 New Blood of the Parsifal mystery that would indicate,
as Parsifal's Initiation in 869, was the flower of something
new in the cultural life of humanity. Previously Wagner/Merlin
had worked under Old Star knowledge to merge various incarnation
streams into the Arthurian and further Magna Carta development
that would serve as the foundation for Freedom and the I AM.
It has been further indicated that Wagner
more richly raw and associated with the Grail; and later Tolkien
under the next wave of the 1999/2003 Christ pattern impulse,
brought a further Consciousness Soul Imagination in new Wagnerian
clothing. "Lord of the Rings" and Wagner's work are
inner imaginations of a Celtic and British origin. Wagner was
destined to offer his imaginations for the idealism that was
supposed to have arisen with a Michael like Flavor out of the
German Cognition of I AM school. Steiner's Karma lectures reveal
the inner streams that Wagner was holding in his unconsciousness.
But Nietzsche, Wagner and industrial strength Nazi ethnic murder
attempted to attack the very foundations of the Race that produced
the Christ. Wagner's mighty impulse was spun in the opposite
direction of the celebration of the I AM.
[long url]
"Wagner, who wanted to
prepare the soil for a new mental impulse by its artistic work,
was surely the central shape under the "homeless souls".
In the year 1851, when he worked on the draft ' ring of the Nibelungen
', he hoped still that South Germany could become center of a
new Mysterienkultur:
"at the Rheine I break
then a theatre open, and invite to large dramatic celebrations:
after one year preparation I specify my whole work then in the
course of four days. With him I give humans to the revolution
then the meaning of this revolution to recognize after its noblest
sense. This public will understand me; the current cannot do
it."[ 1 ]
These "homeless souls"
with their often tragic fates lived in the expectation of something
large one, which could not become on earth reality at that time...
At the beginning of of 1833 drove the 20jaehrige (year old) Richard
wagner from peppering castle to Bamberg; it heard its fate it
of by nine months the older (nine months older than Wagner) Kaspar
Hauser, on peculiar way deeply moved (Kaspar was murdered in
the December of the same yearly.)
It later even imagined itself
"the child of Europe" on this journey to have seen.
Something of the shape Kaspars flowed anyhow into wagners conception
of the parentsless Parsifal, "pure gates", searching
for the nut/mother.
The fate led wagner 1857 to
Karlsruhe, where the 45jaehrige (the 45 year old Kaspar Hauser
would have been the one to meet Wagner) Kaspar could have received
it as a Grand Duke. Now however it was Grand Duchess Luise of
Prussia, who required to to its works. The plan was discussed,
' Tristan and Isolde ' in Karlsruhe, "at the Rheine"
to specify. Here also wagners fruitful co-operation began with
the extraordinary tenor Ludwig Schnorr of Carolsfeld. But the
fate remained unfulfilled. Wagner unsatisfied left the city 1862,
by two years later in Ludwig II., the cousin of Kasparto find
its largest sponsor."
Bradford concludes;
Here is the core of the Euro Tragedy. 'Child
of Europe' and 'Son of Man'. Wagner would have met the Grand
Duke Kaspar Hauser in the flesh. Europe would have had a whole
different feeling and the philosphy of the I Am along with the
artisitic work of Wagner would have led the way onwards to the
Michael School. The I AM and the deep roots to the Consciousness
Soul would have been seen through what ancient Merlin had shuttled
over into his Art."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
The more a person forgets about race and frees himself from
everything racial, the better he evolves.
Yes, that is what Steiner says. He also says that people who
fail to free themselves from everything racial do not evolve
further, and therefore incarnate in lower racial forms, such
as Chinese and Jews. That's the racist part.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
At 18:25 06.04.2004, PS wrote:
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
The more a person forgets about race and
frees himself from everything racial, the better he evolves.
Yes, that is what Steiner says. He also
says that people who fail to free themselves from everything
racial do not evolve further, and therefore incarnate in lower
racial forms, such as Chinese and Jews. That's the racist part.
That's nonsense. You quote Steiner on Wagner
as "evidence" of the only song you know, and Steiner
actually repudiates the racist mentality we find in Nazism (where
race is of paramount importance), you say that Jews and Chinese
think like Nazis according to Steiner, by refusing to elevate
themselves above the racial. In this manner, you constantly paint
yourself into a corner, trying to dig through the brick wall
behind you.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:11 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
tarjei to Peter:
you say that Jews and Chinese think like
Nazis according to Steiner, by refusing to elevate themselves
above the racial.
(I'm fairly sure Peter didn't say that, but
never mind.)
What would "elevating" oneself "above
the racial" consist of? This is the crux of the differing
thinking going on here between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists.
It seems that in anthroposophy elevating oneself above the racial
means, although you accept as a given that your race has certain
spiritual traits, you realize that, because you reincarnate and
can be a different race next time, you yourself, as an individual
(an "I Am"), are "above" those racial traits.
Those who don't understand reincarnation are stuck with those
racial traits and are actually even causing the race itself to
decline. Bizarre!!
"Elevating oneself above the racial,"
to me, would mean no longer even believing the junk about so-called
racial spiritual traits. Changing your attitude about race, in
other words, rather than what amounts to basically trying to
be better than other people of your race, like overcoming a handicap.
You gotta free your mind instead . . .
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
I wrote:
You quote Steiner on Wagner as "evidence"
of the only song you know, and Steiner actually repudiates the
racist mentality we find in Nazism (where race is of paramount
importance), you say that Jews and Chinese think like Nazis according
to Steiner, by refusing to elevate themselves above the racial.
To spell it out: The most decadent souls in
the first half of the 20th century who identified most strongly
with race incarnated not among Jews or Chinese, but among Germans
and Japanese. The Swastika became the emblem for these souls
who sank more deeply into the sewer of racial ideals than any
others known to history. The rise of the Nazis was Ahriman's
rebellion against the Michaelic directive to help humanity outgrow
everything racial. Ahriman's next move is to call this anti-racist
movement, a racist movement. And when in an effort to accomplish
this, an intellectual clown who loves ping-pong enters the stage
to play with words like "philo-Semitism" and "anti-Semitism"
like a juggler to the point of total meaninglessness, it is clear
that Ahriman is losing this battle.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
Tarjei Straume wrote:
The rise of the Nazis was Ahriman's rebellion
against the Michaelic directive to help humanity outgrow everything
racial. Ahriman's next move is to call this anti-racist movement,
a racist movement. And when in an effort to accomplish this,
an intellectual clown who loves ping-pong enters the stage to
play with words like "philo-Semitism" and "anti-Semitism"
like a juggler to the point of total meaninglessness, it is clear
that Ahriman is losing this battle.
Bradford kisses the sky;
Now, my friends, that is the greatest summary
of history that you are likely to encounter. That is what Spiritual
Thinking and I AM cognition offers to dead history. A history
of living beings in a real struggle for true Consciousness.
Gripping onto failed, unconscious, blood,
tribe and racism, were the mark of Hitler and company. Peter
just don't go there. You are neither an expert, nor do you understand
history. The Angels frown on such things, at least the kind of
Angel I am talking about. Don't get stuck in failed ideologies
that you pin your double to. But, you have lots of time to run
head on into the catastrophe of your thinking, in the mean time
The Education of Little Soul, Peter Staudenmaier can continue
with all your wonderfully typical responses.
They are so, so, so 19th century. C'mon Peter,
you can do better, catch up to the rest of us.. I have a POD
with your name on it... Sleep Peter, Sleep, your getting sleepy.
(Quick put the pod in his biodynamic garden next to the carrots.)
Sleep Peter, Sleep!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
I wrote:
[Steiner] says
that people who fail to free themselves from everything racial
do not evolve further, and therefore incarnate in lower racial
forms, such as Chinese and Jews. That's the racist part.
and Tarjei replied:
That's nonsense.
Here's what Rudolf Steiner had to say on the matter:
"Everyone who works in
this way prepares the ground for the human bodies of the future,
for the bodies that souls will later need. There is a word that
beautifully expresses this work toward the future, which we will
understand when we clarify the difference between soul development
and racial development. All of you were once Atlanteans, and
these Atlantean bodies looked very different, as I have already
described. The same soul that was once in an Atlantean body somewhere
is now in your body. But not all bodies have been prepared, in
the way yours have been, by a small number of colonists who long
ago migrated from the West to the East. Those who remained behind,
who bound themselves up with their race, they degenerated, while
the advanced ones founded new civilizations. The last stragglers
on the way to the east, the Mongols, still retain something of
the culture of the Atlanteans. In the same way, the bodies of
those people who do not develop themselves in a progressive fashion
will continue into the next era and will constitute the Chinese
of the future. There will once again be decadent peoples. After
all, the souls that inhabit Chinese bodies are those that will
once again have to incarnate in such races, because they had
too strong an attraction to that race. The souls that are today
within you will later incarnate in bodies that come from people
who work in the way I have indicated, and who beget the bodies
of the future, just as the first colonists from Atlantis once
did. And those who cling to the ordinary, who do not want to
join with the movement toward the future, they will become fused
with their race. There are people who want to stick to the familiar,
who want nothing to do with progress; they refuse to listen to
those who lead the way beyond the race to newer and newer forms
of humanity. The myths have preserved this intention in a wonderful
manner. The best way they could portray this is by pointing to
one of the greatest ones, who spoke the words: “Whosoever
does not leave father and mother, wife and child, brother and
sister, cannot be my disciple”; and by depicting, in contrast,
the tragedy of the person who says, I want nothing to do with
such a leader, and rejects him. How could one express this more
clearly than in the image of the person who rejects the leader,
and who is incapable of advancing! That is the legend of Ahasver,
the Eternal Jew, who sat there and pushed away the greatest leader,
Christ Jesus, who wanted nothing to do with evolution, and who
therefore must remain in his race, must always reappear in his
race. These are myths that have been given to humankind for its
eternal memory, so that humankind knows what it is dealing with."
(Steiner, Menschheitsentwickelung und Christus-Erkenntnis pp.
186-187)
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on semitism
and antisemitism
At 19:11 06.04.2004, Diana wrote:
What would "elevating" oneself
"above the racial" consist of?
Putting down your swastikas for starters.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 12:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
At 03:58 07.04.2004, Peter S wrote:
I wrote:
[Steiner]
says that people who fail to free
themselves from everything racial do not evolve further, and
therefore incarnate in lower racial forms, such as Chinese and
Jews. That's the racist part.
and Tarjei replied:
That's nonsense.
Here's what Rudolf Steiner had to say on
the matter:
What Steiner says about the matter makes sense.
What you say about what Steiner says is nonsense. Steiner is
talking about how souls who reject the spiritual sink into the
racial and become decadent in the future:
[Steiner quoted by PS]
Whosoever does not leave
father and mother, wife and child, brother and sister, cannot
be my disciple”; and by depicting, in contrast, the tragedy
of the person who says, I want nothing to do with such a leader,
and rejects him. How could one express this more clearly than
in the image of the person who rejects the leader, and who is
incapable of advancing! That is the legend of Ahasver, the Eternal
Jew, who sat there and pushed away the greatest leader, Christ
Jesus, who wanted nothing to do with evolution, and who therefore
must remain in his race, must always reappear in his race.
In other words, those who refuse to believe
in progressive spiritual evolution will sink into decadent identification
with a race and thus form a decadent future race. And this warning
is embedded in a Jewish legend.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hi again Tarjei, you wrote:
Steiner is talking about how souls who
reject the spiritual sink into the racial and become decadent
in the future:
Yep. Saying that souls who reject spiritual advancement therefore
incarnate in certain less advanced races is racist.
In other words, those who refuse to believe
in progressive spiritual evolution will sink into decadent identification
with a race and thus form a decadent future race.
Yep. Saying that some races are decadent while others are highly
evolved is racist.
And this warning is embedded in a Jewish legend.
The myth of Ahasver is not a Jewish legend, Tarjei. It is a legend
about Jews invented by non-Jews. I recommend you read up on it.
A good place to start is George Anderson's 1965 book The Legend
of the Wandering Jew, as well as the 1986 collection edited by
Galit Hasan-Rokem and Alan Dundes, The Wandering Jew: Essays
in the Interpretation of a Christian Legend.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 2:10 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
The myth of Ahasver is not a Jewish legend,
Tarjei. It is a legend about Jews invented by non-Jews. I recommend
you read up on it. A good place to start is George Anderson's
1965 book The Legend of the Wandering Jew, as well as the 1986
collection edited by Galit Hasan-Rokem and Alan Dundes, The Wandering
Jew: Essays in the Interpretation of a Christian Legend.
Bradford;
Here Tarjei, read up on it.
"Steiner geht nicht weiter
auf Ahasver oder irgendwelche Konnotationen dieser Gestalt ein,
die im zeitgenössichen antisemitischen Diskurs möglicherweise
eine Rolle spielten. Er gibt dieser Gestalt eine völlig
neuartige, allmenschliche Deutung, durch die er sie aus jedem
antijudaistischen Kontext herauslöst. Steiner hätte
ebenso gut die Gestalt des Fliegenden Holländers anführen
können, die einen vergleichbaren symbolischen Gehalt besitzt.
Er spricht von Ahasver nicht
als dem „ewigen Juden", sondern als von einer symbolischen,
mythischen Figur, deren Bedeutungsgehalt in einem präzisen
Sinn er auslegt. Er ist der symbolische Ausdruck eines seelischen
Verhaltens, das in jeder einzelnen Menschenseele liegt, unabhängig
von ihrer etwaigen religiösen oder ethnischen Zugehörigkeit.
Eine rekonstruktive, sinnerschließende
Hermeneutik wird sich darum bemühen, den Gesamtzusammenhang
zu erfassen, in dem die betreffenden Äußerungen Steiners
stehen. Sie bilden einen erläuternden Exkurs im thematischen
Kontext einer Erörterung über die sogenannten Elementarwesen,
Wesen, die von der abendländischen Tradition als Gnome,
Sylphen, Undinen und Salamander bezeichnet werden. Steiner entwickelt
ein komplexes gedankliches Modell, um diese Elementarwesen in
die gegliederte Struktur des Kosmos einzuordnen, ihre Herkunft
und ihr zukünftiges Schicksal zu beschreiben.
So wie die gegenwärtigen
Elementarwesen aus „Gruppenseelen" von Tieren hervorgegangen
sind, werden in der künftigen Evolution aus der Menschheit
Elementarwesen hervorgehen. Der Mensch ist als geistiges Wesen
ausgespannt zwischen seinen verschiedenen Leibern (physischer
Leib, Ätherleib, Astralleib), die das Ergebnis eines vergangenen
Evolutionsprozesses sind und einer künftigen Existenzform,
in der das Ich, die von den Schöpfermächten geschaffenen
Leiber zu seinem freien geistigen Eigentum umgewandelt haben
wird.
Das Ich steht gegenwärtig
vor der Aufgabe, den Astralleib in ein solches geistiges Eigentum,
in das Geistselbst umzuformen. Menschliche Vervollkommnung bedeutet
in diesem Zusammenhang, Triebe, Begierden und Leidenschaften
zu veredeln und sie in Willensstärke, Enthusiasmus und selbstlose
Tatkraft umzuwandeln.
Steiner versucht, die Frage
zu beantworten, wo der jeweils höhere Grad an Vollkommenheit
eigentlich herkommt. Er ist nicht Ergebnis eines vom Menschen
und seiner Verantwortlichkeit unabhängigen Prozesses, sondern
liegt in der Verantworung des Einzelnen. Die sittliche Höherentwicklung
lässt sich nur in einer Reihe von Inkarnationen erreichen,
durch die sich der Mensch als geistiges Wesen hindurchbewegt.
Er nimmt die Früchte der vorangegangenen Inkarnation in
die folgende mit. Er gestaltet seine folgende Inkarnation, ihre
Form, ihre Fähigkeiten und ihr Schicksal mit.
Die Wirkungen seiner Handlungen
in der Außenwelt kommen als Schicksal zu ihm zurück;
was er sich durch das vergangene Leben selbst einprägte,
metamorphosiert sich in seine Fähigkeiten und Begabungen.
Er ist also für die Gestaltung seines Schicksals und seiner
„inneren Organisation" mitverantwortlich. Die menschliche
Vervollkommnung besteht darin, dass der Einzelne immer mehr mit
dem göttlichen Grundwesen der Liebe verschmilzt, das seit
der Zeitenwende in den Tiefen der Menschheit wirkt, um diese
in die Gestalt einer neuen Schöpfung überzuführen.
Diese neue Schöpfung
ist die aus dem Auferstandenen wiedergeborene Menschheit. Je
mehr der Mensch von der göttlichen Liebe in sich aufnimmt,
um so mehr vermag er diese Liebe auch in seine Umgebung auszustrahlen
und ihr eine menschliche, solidarische, freiheitliche Form zu
geben. Vervollkommnung besteht letztlich darin, dass sich der
Mensch immer mehr seinem Erdenvorbild angleicht (theosis) und
zum Heiler all dessen wird, was als Folge der paulinischen „katabole"
den Status der Schöpfung geprägt hat."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
At 18:42 07.04.2004, PS wrote:
Yep. Saying that souls who reject spiritual
advancement therefore incarnate in certain less advanced races
is racist.
Yep. Saying that some races are decadent
while others are highly evolved is racist.
We're getting an idea about your definitions
of "racism". We'll have to give up on most of your
other definitions. There is obviously nothing to be done about
your twisted misunderstandings of "highly evolved"
and "decadent" and so forth.
The myth of Ahasver is not a Jewish legend,
Tarjei. It is a legend about Jews invented by non-Jews.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter
how many legends you read or how much you learn about their literary
origins if they don't tell you anything. A myth or a legend contains
a spiritual truth. Your latest claim is that you do not
consider spiritual things to be nonsense, so perhaps you're confused,
I don't know. The point is that sinking into the racial element
by rejecting Christ is tantamount to sinking into racism. Racism
arises from clinging to the racial instead of outgrowing it.
The reason why the Jewish context has been especially interesting
here, also in Shakespeare, is that the very salvation from the
racial came from the Jews, to the Jew first and then to the gentile
(i.e. all non-Jews) also, as the Jewish Pharisee Paul put it.
This salvation from the racial through Christ
is also explained by Steiner in the 9th lecture of the cycle
"The Gospel of St. John And Its Relation to the Other Gospels"
(GA 112):
http://www.uncletaz.com/steinchrmar.html
"For this purpose, He
had to turn to those who, owing to their mixed blood, no longer
clung to this old belief: to the Galileans. That is where His
mission had to commence. Even though the old state of consciousness
was gradually on the wane, still He found in Galilee a medley
of peoples that stood at the beginning of the era in which blood
became mixed. From all quarters tribes assembled here that had
previously been governed solely by the forces of the old blood
ties. They were on the point of finding the transition."
(................................................)
"Such were the people
to whom Christ turned, people who had just arrived at the point
of understanding this, people who, having broken away from the
blood ties by intermarriage, needed to find the strong force
- not in consanguinity, but in the individual soul, the force
that can lead man gradually to express the spiritual in the physical."
(................................................)
"It was in Galilee that
the ancient blood ties were severed, that mutually alien bloods
came to mingle. Now, Christ's task was intimately connected with
this mixing of blood. So, we are here dealing with a union having
the object of creating progeny among people who are no longer
related by blood."
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
A myth or a legend contains a spiritual truth.
Lots of myths contain spiritual truth. But some myths are essentially
devoid of truth, spiritual or otherwise. The Aryan myth is one
example. The myth of Ahasver is another. I urge you to consult
the books I recommended.
The point is that sinking into the racial element by rejecting
Christ is tantamount to sinking into racism.
That might be, but so what? The notion that those who sink into
the racial element therefore appear in certain races, in lower
racial forms, is itself racist.
Racism arises from clinging to the racial instead of outgrowing
it.
Racism also arises from saying that Chinese and Jews cling to
the racial instead of outgrowing it.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
The more a person forgets about race and
frees himself from everything racial, the better he evolves.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, that is what Steiner says. He also
says that people who fail to free themselves from everything
racial do not evolve further, and therefore incarnate in lower
racial forms, such as Chinese and Jews. That's the racist part.
Daniel:
Please. Just where does he say exactly that?
I love how Peter Staudenmaier makes the huge, general claims
with no sources.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
There is only one slight problem here. These
words are not Rudolf Steiner. True, they are printed in GA 92,
but if you read the title page, it makes clear that these are
listener's notes of the lectures, and not a stenographic reproduction.
This particular lecture is reconstructed from the notes of two
participants: Walter Vegelahn and Eugenie von Bredow (this is
stated on page 181). It was first put into coherent form and
published in the 1930's, almost 30 years after the fact. From
these notes, what Steiner might have said was reconstructed and
put into a coherent form, edited for this edition by Helmuth
von Wartburg at the Steiner Archive, and only published in 1999.
What Steiner's actual, carefully-formulated exact words on the
subject we can only guess. He obviously spoke about the topic
of Wagner's racial views. Whether actually uttered the words
"Wagner... cannot possibly be an anti-Semite" simply
cannot be known. Certainly at least one of his listeners came
away with the impression that he said something to this effect
when they later sat down to write their notes, and then much
later when the lecture was reconstructed the sentence was written.
But we cannot know how much the issue is contaminated with the
personality of either Walter or Eugenie. Nor can we correlate
this to any other statements of Steiner's on the same theme,
as this is the only place the issue is mentioned. Further I must
not that even as these words stand, it is hard to call them an
endorsement of Wagner's anti-Semitic statements. They are a description
of Wagner's views and an explanation of their origin, not praise
thereof.
Peter Staudenmaier appears not to have actually read the book
that he is relying on to make his statement. If he had read the
whole book, he would not go running around claiming these to
be Steiner's actual words. He has thus demonstrated an incredible
carelessness with historical sources for someone claiming to
be working as a historian, and shown once again why he is not
qualified to call himself a Steiner scholar. There is really
no excuse for such sloppiness.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 2:40 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and antisemitism
A couple weeks ago I noted that Rudolf
Steiner had endorsed Richard Wagner's antisemitic writings. I
cited Steiner's book Die okkulten Wahrheiten alter Mythen und
Sagen (GA 92) pp. 138-139. For some reason, both Daniel and Andrea
surmised that this reference was actually about Steiner's supposed
fondness for Wagner's music, a topic I did not address. Below
is the passage in question, from Steiner's lecture in Berlin
on May 19, 1905, part of a series of lectures on "Richard
Wagner in the Light of Spiritual Science". I think this
passage is especially interesting in view of the recent claims
on this list that Steiner's racial doctrines could not possibly
have included a racist strand because of his emphasis on the
"I" and on the development of the soul. Here Steiner
employs the very same faulty logic to argue that Wagner, one
of the most infamous antisemitic authors of the nineteenth century,
could not possibly have been an antisemite.
Peter
"The feeling that
a new impulse was needed also lead Wagner to his remarks about
the influence of Jewry on contemporary culture. Wagner was not
an antisemite in the unreasonable and spiteful sense that one
sometimes experiences today, but he felt that Jewry had played
out its role, that the semitic influences on our culture must
die out and that something new needed to take their place. Thus
his call for renewal. This is related to how he conceived of
our present race. He said to himself: We must distinguish between
racial evolution and soul evolution. This distinction is necessary
if one wants to comprehend evolution as such. All of us were
once incarnated in the Atlantean race. But whereas the souls
evolved further and rose upward, the race fell into decadence.
Every advance is linked to a decline. For every one who improves
himself there is another who sinks lower. There is a difference
between the soul in its racial body and the racial body itself.
The more a person becomes similar to his race, the more he loves
that which is temporal, transitory, and tied to the attributes
of his race, the more he belongs to the decline of the race.
The more he frees himself, the more he raises himself out of
the attributes of his race, the more his soul has the opportunity
to incarnate higher. A spirit like Wagner, who distinguishes
between soul development and racial development, cannot possibly
be an antisemite. He knows that it is not the souls that have
played themselves out, but rather the races have played out their
tasks in the great cosmic evolution. That is what Wagner expresses
again and again in his writings when he discusses "semitism".
Wagner senses a downfall, a racial decline, and the need for
souls to climb higher."
Rudolf Steiner, Die okkulten Wahrheiten
alter Mythen und Sagen pp. 138-139.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hello Daniel,
I think your post below is a picture-perfect example of why you
and I have such difficulties discussing historical issues. You
understandably don't like it when my responses are snide and
condescending, and in cases like this one, I don't see how any
reply I might make could not be one or both of those things.
Virtually everything you say below is wrong, and many of your
claims are genuinely dumb, in my view. I get the sense that you
are an earnest person who is very interested in history, and
in a lot of ways that keeps me from being even more snide toward
you than you often deserve; one of my primary goals is to make
history a subject that all people can engage with, regardless
of whether they're historians themselves. But there are times,
quite a few of them in your case, where it actually does make
a difference. I think you simply don't know what you're talking
about on questions of sourcing, the relation between spoken and
written testimony, what constitutes corroborating evidence, what
it means for one author to endorse another author's views, and
so forth. In light of all this, maybe I should simply ask for
some guidance from you: do you prefer that I condescend in such
instances, or do you prefer that I drop it and 'run away from
the argument', in your terms? I'm afraid I probably don't have
it in me to come up with a third option, though I'm still open
to suggestions. Thanks for your thoughts,
Peter
There is only one slight problem here.
These words are not Rudolf Steiner. True, they are printed in
GA 92, but if you read the title page, it makes clear that these
are listener's notes of the lectures, and not a stenographic
reproduction. This particular lecture is reconstructed from the
notes of two participants: Walter Vegelahn and Eugenie von Bredow
(this is stated on page 181). It was first put into coherent
form and published in the 1930's, almost 30 years after the fact.
From these notes, what Steiner might have said was reconstructed
and put into a coherent form, edited for this edition by Helmuth
von Wartburg at the Steiner Archive, and only published in 1999.
What Steiner's actual, carefully-formulated exact words on the
subject we can only guess. He obviously spoke about the topic
of Wagner's racial views. Whether actually uttered the words
"Wagner... cannot possibly be an anti-Semite" simply
cannot be known. Certainly at least one of his listeners came
away with the impression that he said something to this effect
when they later sat down to write their notes, and then much
later when the lecture was reconstructed the sentence was written.
But we cannot know how much the issue is contaminated with the
personality of either Walter or Eugenie. Nor can we correlate
this to any other statements of Steiner's on the same theme,
as this is the only place the issue is mentioned. Further I must
not that even as these words stand, it is hard to call them an
endorsement of Wagner's anti-Semitic statements. They are a description
of Wagner's views and an explanation of their origin, not praise
thereof.
Peter Staudenmaier appears not to have actually read the book
that he is relying on to make his statement. If he had read the
whole book, he would not go running around claiming these to
be Steiner's actual words. He has thus demonstrated an incredible
carelessness with historical sources for someone claiming to
be working as a historian, and shown once again why he is not
qualified to call himself a Steiner scholar. There is really
no excuse for such sloppiness.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
A myth or a legend contains a spiritual
truth.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Lots of myths contain spiritual truth.
But some myths are essentially devoid of truth, spiritual or
otherwise. The Aryan myth is one example. The myth of Ahasver
is another. I urge you to consult the books I recommended.
Daniel:
What is truth? (And why is Peter Staudenmaier
so sure that he possess it?)
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Peter,
The below is a picture-perfect example of
why you have such a difficult time passing yourself for a historian.
I have pointed out to you a specific and important issue with
a source that you are relying on to "prove" your point.
Any serious historian knows the difference between an exact recording
of the exact words of a historical figure and a secondary statement
of what that figure might have said. I am trying to point out
to you that the words you have quoted have been reconstructed
by three different people decades after they were spoken. Rough
notes were worked into a draft that is stylistically similar
to the way Steiner spoke. All three people involved were at pains
to point out that these words only approximate what Steiner might
have said. Remember, they were working DECADES after the fact.
All of this is stated in the book itself. But you treat it exactly
the same as the later lectures that really are stenographic recordings
of Steiner's exact words. When I point this out to you, you fail
to see any relavance. This is because you are not a historian.
I understand that your primary goal is not to be a real historian
or to behave in a manner that behooves a serious historian, but
rather to make exciting reading for a popular audience. I'm sorry
that I am causing you so much difficulty by pointing out that
you are confusing and misrepresenting your sources. I am terribly
sorry that my standards for accuracy make your crusade difficult.
And I'm sorry that I can't really follow your argument below.
Supposedly I don't know anything about "sourcing".
Sorry Peter, it is you who is being careless with your sources.
You have dismissed my point without even acknowledging it, and
ramble on about how hard it is not to be snide. Just try to pay
closer attention to your sources.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on semitism and
antisemitism
Hello Daniel,
I think your post below is a picture-perfect example of why you
and I have such difficulties discussing historical issues. You
understandably don't like it when my responses are snide and
condescending, and in cases like this one, I don't see how any
reply I might make could not be one or both of those things.
Virtually everything you say below is wrong, and many of your
claims are genuinely dumb, in my view. I get the sense that you
are an earnest person who is very interested in history, and
in a lot of ways that keeps me from being even more snide toward
you than you often deserve; one of my primary goals is to make
history a subject that all people can engage with, regardless
of whether they're historians themselves. But there are times,
quite a few of them in your case, where it actually does make
a difference. I think you simply don't know what you're talking
about on questions of sourcing, the relation between spoken and
written testimony, what constitutes corroborating evidence, what
it means for one author to endorse another author's views, and
so forth. In light of all this, maybe I should simply ask for
some guidance from you: do you prefer that I condescend in such
instances, or do you prefer that I drop it and 'run away from
the argument', in your terms? I'm afraid I probably don't have
it in me to come up with a third option, though I'm still open
to suggestions. Thanks for your thoughts,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
