A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

 

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:45 am
Subject: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

A couple of sketches about "antisemitism".

First sketch. Let's have a glance at the words (messages, bills, broadcasts ) by which the Nazi chiefs where used to communicate their aims while they were "performing" the Shoah .

Well, we note a language deeply involved in Darwinistic's world of thoughts and use of appropriate standards ("struggle for life", for instance) .

That's a demonstration of a powerful materialistic background and we all know Who is the Inspirer.

Is it strange that we find deeply rooted social-darwinistic issues in today's steps of world tragedies ?

Sign of the times....

Second sketch.

Steiner warned against any kind of nationalistic impulse, including Zionistic one.

He was absolutely right. The birth of Israel's State has been, the way it went, a terrible political mistake source of the strongest problems for world's peace in post WWII history.. Moreover we see today the tragic and fearful linkage between rightwing Zionism and the US military-industrial complex (Tell me: who killed the Kennedies and who performed 9/11 ?)

The right balanced way it should have been the birth of a federal Palestine's Republic where Arabs, Jews and Christians should have had the same rights.

That's the way they are striving for some Israel's goodwill people:

www.civilsociety.co.il

Andrea

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:14 am
Subject: Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hi Andrea, thanks for your sketches.

I agree with you that many varieties of Nazi antisemitism had a 'materialist' cast in the sense you seem to mean, and were heavily indebted to Darwinist notions. But Nazi antisemitism was very different from the kinds of antisemitism that predominated during most of Rudolf Steiner's life. One of the chief stumbling blocks in trying to get historical perspective on the development of antisemitism is the temptation to view the entire phenomenon through the lens of the holocaust. That won't help us understand where antisemitism came from and why it played such a prominent role in German culture before 1933.

You also wrote:

The right balanced way it should have been the birth of a federal Palestine's Republic where Arabs, Jews and Christians should have had the same rights.

Sounds great to me. I don't see what this has to do with the history of Austrian and German philosemitism and antisemitism from 1880 to 1925, which to my mind is the proper context for assessing Steiner's views on Jews. I think that history is what our discussion ought to focus on.

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:26 pm
Subject: Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote;

Sounds great to me. I don't see what this has to do with the history of Austrian and German philosemitism and antisemitism from 1880 to 1925, which to my mind is the proper context for assessing Steiner's views on Jews. I think that history is what our discussion ought to focus on.

Peter Staudenmaier

Bradford comments;

Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter...here we are down stream from the pollution. We are down stream in time. We look back at atrocities. It is a fact that Leo Strauss is looked at out of the Weimar Ark that loaded themselves out and became nice Greek Platonist and educators for not only Saul Bellow by Wolfowitz and current Neocons. What we are seeing is everything to do with the history of Austrian and German philosemitism.

It is nice to side step the hot topic of the current time frame where somehow Steiner and Anthroposophy should have been reviewed at the Nuremberg trials. So I don't think you can side step either the 1880's biography of Hitler and for my level of thinking the 1880's biography of J. Edgar Hoover. Sterilization was begun in the U.S. and handed over to the Germans. Carving out your own niche of expertise by bringing Steiner into the picture as contributor to Racism is like me trying to blame Leo Strauss for the current Bush presidency.

It is all pooling in current waters of interest. You can't so easily dismiss your motive here.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hi Bradford,

as usual, I'm having some difficulty figuring out what you're trying to say here. It seems to me that Steiner's views on Zionism are certainly relevant to a discussion of his attitudes toward Jews, and I would be glad to address that topic, but since Steiner died in 1925, he had nothing to say about the state of Israel or about the plight of Palestinians. Thus I don't see how those issues could tell us anything about Steiner's views. I also have no idea what all this might have to do with my 'motive'; perhaps you could explain what you think my motive is? Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:24 pm
Subject: Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

as usual, I'm having some difficulty figuring out what you're trying to say here. It seems to me that Steiner's views on Zionism are certainly relevant to a discussion of his attitudes toward Jews, and I would be glad to address that topic, but since Steiner died in 1925, he had nothing to say about the state of Israel or about the plight of Palestinians. Thus I don't see how those issues could tell us anything about Steiner's views. I also have no idea what all this might have to do with my 'motive'; perhaps you could explain what you think my motive is? Thanks,

Bradford comments;

Time and history have not paused so that we can divide our growth and development as a culture and as individual educators and researchers from the flow of the past ideas of Plato, Aristotle, the Church, Steiner, Wagner or the various examples of history that are used by Ascheim and Mosse.

We are all caught in the flow of time and understanding which causes us to try to understand the various apects of conflict and moral error that swirl around in the world and our own lives in the time we live in. We are all left with a legacy of very difficult historical ethics to digest and sort out. We all have to be amateur historians in a sense.

So my understanding of your point of view and the clarity of the motives you carry places you in the category of moral relativism and not of course moral nihilism. You are still sitting on a fence and hoping to get away with it.

Moral relativism is category that has been adopted by clear thinking intellectuals when it comes to measuring, researching or reviewing the causes and conflicts of social and political thinking. This allows the researcher to imagine that they are being objective. Subjective opinions and issues inside the researcher have been conveniently excluded as an acceptable way to distance oneself from being viewed as being connected with any set of opinions and leaving all options open.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/morality.html

"Before presenting the arguments, some terminological clarifications are in order. First of all, what is being discussed here is second-order ethics, or meta-ethics. This means that whether certain acts are moral or immoral is not a topic here; rather, the issue is how ethical views can be explained and classified - i.e., the nature of ethics.

Ethical views, or first-order ethics, are statements of a general nature - which means that they are thought to supervene similarly on all relevantly similar sets of natural properties - involving the concepts right or wrong. This property of first-order ethics is shared by both objective and subjective meta-ethical views, although the objectivists think this supervenience to be an independent, constant feature of existence, whereas the subjectivists only think it to be a human construction.

Second, by objective morality is meant a moral view which claims that there exists a morality which is external to human beings. Much like the existence of a law of gravity, there is a moral law which exists independently of any conscious being. Hence, morality is not a human fabrication - it merely awaits to be detected.

In contrast, subjective morality denotes the view that moral views are nothing but human opinions, the origin of which is biological, social, and psychological. Without conscious beings, there would be no such thing as morality. Furthermore, on the subjective view, it is not possible to deem a moral opinion "true" or "false" - since such assessments require some objective standard against which to assess. However, advocates of objective and subjective morality agree on the following issue: that meta-ethical statements can be true or false.

Third, it is important to distinguish subjective morality from moral relativism, which claims that moral views differ between different contexts or cultures, and from moral nihilism, which states that there is no morality or that morality does not matter. One possible implication of moral relativism, which is quite often wrongly inferred as being contained in the general class of subjective meta- ethics, is the view that moral statements can only be considered applicable in the context in which they are uttered.

Fourth, most often atheists advance the idea that morality is subjective, whilst theists cling to its being objective. These positions are contingent, in that it is logically possible for atheists to think ethics objective and that it is logically possible for theists to believe that the deity or deities in question did not devise a moral law."

Bradford concludes:

My problem with moral relativism is that it seems to imagine that what is represented, with subjective leanings, can be stated as objective research facts severed from the history we all share.

The colorings and leanings of the subjective nature of ones interest and opinions constantly slant each and every individual educator in various directions. There are no human beings who stand as educated humans without various colorings, opinions and leanings leaking out of the personality. The personality and ones actions deeds, thoughts and opinions are not iron maidens.

It may be rewarding to imagine that we are acting with no ulterior motives, but in every example from Creationism to Evolutionism to patriotic sentiments, to racial bias and religious connections we are immersed in our own motives and our subjective interests. So below the surface of our consciousness our subjective human standpoint is always apparent. Our opinions and bias shine through everything we cloth and dress up as results and directions of our joy, bliss and interests. To some people this means they cannot hide. Nothing is really hidden.

We may imagine that we are acting with a 'Fair and Balanced' thought, but what might be happening is that our own private struggle with belief spills over into every thing we are attempting to intellectualize and challenge, all the way to God ITSElf. I agree with you Peter, Nietzsche hated hypocrisy and he set himself up for a real meeting with proving that a certain form of God should be dead. The hypocrisy of God should be cleansed from the face of the earth.

The soul is even more hard pressed if the soul is seeking hard evidence that their opinion about the total relative moral nature and subjective nature of ethics and integrated moral flow in the heart of every human must always be hidden from view. Motives to challenge the beliefs of ones own soul and the immediate brillance and vitality of ones own intellect reveals the very questions one poses to others and slants the direction of ones own inner strivings and tendencies. If denial, racism and antisemitism means making a name for oneself in a particular field of objective research, it is clear to any astute observer that the soul who is intent at looking outwardly, will not admit that it is also an inner subjective question.

In Spiritual Development the very first issue anyone takes up is that what bothers me outwardly is really connected to me inwardly. We learn to not point fingers out but to first examine why my vital interests tend to seek this direction from my soul outwards. What do I want to prove to myself? These are always the first issues of self knowledge in any path of development.

We can even deny that anyone is perfect except WE ourselves and we can deny anyone who claims to know God just because we have such bitter issues with the very pain we seek to annhilate. It is at this point when maturity and humanism begins to be aware of itself and its own ulterior motives in every single connection it makes in life. Everything about us is revealed and subjectivity is a real hard pill to swallow. Especially when Intellectual research excuses personal vendettas as objective interests and allows one to sound like one knows what one is talking about with fellow souls who hold the same opinion and reward you with their company.

To be rewarded by ones own unconscious capaciites and carry the pride of being a thinker in ones own right allows one the sense of subjective aloofness. This also sets the groundwork for hardened denial and building an impenetrable wall around that which one thinks is safe neutral intellect. A person of that strength of character puts up a pretty good fight against allowing any doubt to cross the self created barrier of their inner certainty. That inner certainty and unstated inner war always spills out and is seen in all its nakedness by everyone. Sincerity is sometimes considered sloppy weakness and it takes the edge off all the armor that one builds up so that is naturally to be avoided.

However the path of knowledge, the mature understanding of oneself, allows one to break down ones own barriers and hidden defenses and say quietly to oneself, I am a liar, I am in denial and I hate all that Faith has presented to me. Belief systems, as belief systems are filled with unbalanced people and support hypocrisy.

Immanual Kant begins to look better and better but the fatal flaw here is the Saulian Pride of self. Saul had every reason to be proud of his anger against these total simpletons, the Christians. Now the only way to shatter the impenetrable wall built around the uncertainty of self...Capacity tells one that one is certain of the law of logic and all that thinking can produce, but it is stunned when a crack of Light, of total incomprehensible reality bursts forth from within the iron fortress we created for ourselves.

So if there were a truth and if there were an error in thinking the admission of such subjective motives and hidden motives that one refuses to admit to oneself, is plainly revealed by the very intensity with which one pursues persecution or proving to others that a man like Steiner cleverly manipulated people to set up wonderful structured and rewarding schools and works, only to hook people in the false beliefs that are now victims of further hypocrisy.

Now if we learn to unravel ourselves before some shattering event unravels us, we become more sincere and honest human beings. We lose nothing of the power of our intellects. However this inner shattering of our own iron clad subjective defenses is far more healthy when we constantly question ourselves first. Question our responses, our actions and our reactions, so that others do not have to do the homework we refuse to do for ourselves. So that when the time arrives when one ripens the Intellect to a new capacity of generous cosmopolitan compassion, one has already done some ground work. There is no doubt that we are all good people but there is also no doubt that we all spill out our subjective nature all over the street.

This makes your own quest Peter a perfect example of the crisis in the Fifth Post Atlantean Age. This is everyones crisis. Destroy hypocrisy, but understand the motives of why one wants to illuminate, share and dismiss hypocrits. It is a very Pauline question, but you have not yet arrived at the Pauline direction. Yet is is a healthy vital intellect that rides you as much as you think your riding it. Driven by what? Well we all pride ourselves on being driven by something. Yours is fence sitting on moral relativism until something jars you loose. In the meantime the quest to ferret out hypocrisy is not in the least a new mission to humanity. It is a typical mission that is typical to the age of the Intellectual Soul and the 5th post Atlantean epoch.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hi Bradford,

I still don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand, but for what it's worth, I am decidely not a moral relativist. I am an opponent of moral relativism.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:11 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hi Andrea, thanks for your sketches.

I agree with you that many varieties of Nazi antisemitism had a 'materialist' cast in the sense you seem to mean, and were heavily indebted to Darwinist notions. But Nazi antisemitism was very different from the kinds of antisemitism that predominated during most of Rudolf Steiner's life.


Very different ?

It don't seems to me at all.

There were in it a couple of main roots : the biologistic-darwinistic one (the mainstream) and the occult -ariosophist one. The first has his birth date around 1850-60 onwards, the second around 1890s when RS was writing his epistemological essays.. Those issue overwhelmed the traditional "christlike" judeophobia
One of the chief stumbling blocks in trying to get historical perspective on the development of antisemitism is the temptation to view the entire phenomenon through the lens of the holocaust.

Excuse me, but who acted this way?

Moreover is it true or not that the Shoah ("Holocaust" is not the right word to be used in spite of the worldwide abuse of it)) is at the end of an historical path that was built up in the the above said way and on the above said cultural grounds ?

That won't help us understand where antisemitism came from and why it played such a prominent role in German culture before 1933.

Why ?

You also wrote:

[Andrea:]

The right balanced way it should have been the birth of a federal Palestine's Republic where Arabs,Jews and Christians should have had the same rights.

[PS:]

Sounds great to me. I don't see what this has to do with the history of Austrian and German philosemitism and antisemitism from 1880 to 1925, which to my mind is the proper context for assessing Steiner's views on Jews. I think that history is what our discussion ought to focus on.

Uh, you're running away.......You're demonstrating to be yourself unable to do historical connections.
Never heard of Balfour's declaration consequences ?

So you're weak not only in Anthroposphy but also in general History.

A.

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:09 am
Subject: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, VALENTINA BRUNETTI

Never heard of Balfour's declaration consequences ?

So you're weak not only in Anthroposphy but also in general History.

Bradford comments;

Gee Peter, my sympathy, your speed reading seminar really paid off yesterday. Hope you survived the bombardment. Naturally I am grateful that you took the time to respond so lopsidedly to every issue. It is your subjective drive to hold onto the direction of research that removes any moral equation from scholarly contemplation.

In this educational crime, (I call it a crime because the ability to teach, present reality and bring forth ideas to students, severed from the researchers heart forces is where the whole illness of thinking and anti-social nightmare arises) that enables future students to darken themselves from ever discovering whole human beings who carry clarity and insight down to the very foundations of form, embryo and well researched non-big bang theory.

Andrea had a point about enablers in the West who allow such Holocaust thinking to happen for a very clear, Jupiter period of twelve years which set the seed down for the current unfolding of "The Kingdom of the Unrisen Light". That's right, no one, not one person on the planet escapes the 12 year imprint in their personal biography of the Jupiter rhythm.

For intellectual flunkies, that means that the great signature of our deeds, our lives, reveals that where Jupiter was when we were born, returns approximately twelve years later to the same spot and reviews with you, in the quiet of your heart, how you faired. I hope the word Signature, doesn't cause you to many problems. Hard to imagine a life creating a "signature" isn't it?

Education moves from 12 to the teens. There is no way around it and it is a scholarly mystery of our world. Just think what Earth experienced for the Twelve Year period of Hitler's enablement? Think what the Earth experienced to have such words of insight solidly flowing from a human life and a human being who grounded his work in deeds that revealed the very heights and depths of what human beings could be. Before the event of Hitler. I know for you Steiner was just wobbling around trying to find his bearings, like all of us in a mixed up complex world. There was certainly nothing special about him and his contributions to humanity.

Alright, I got that off my chest.

Now I want to get back to "Balfour's" contemplation where Zionism and the time line of Dr. Steiner apparently did not exist as an opinion for you. Apparently the Palestinian issue did exist and like everyone else here, I am not seeking a professional career in bamboozling and appeasing the racists lies that you shall be rewarded for.

Sorry, was that a little harsh or not worthy? Am I one of the foolish believers and hypocrites you have vowed to expose? In the name of hypocrisy, most of us Peter are on your side. Think about it. We are on your side of having been wounded intellectually by false faith. Most of us on this list, as you can well read, ain't just funky believers in the church of R.S. or any church for that matter. We are very Groucho Marx on the subject. "I wouldn't be a member of anything that would have me as a member."

I read so many items from your responses yesterday that took such a strange slant of denial and justification that there was no choice but to see the psychodynamics that drive you to bend Light into darkness. Since you are an amateur historian, Andrea was very clearly correct about dating and headlines of the Balfour events.

I wouldn't want to draw you attention to Steiner's indicatations that Soloviev and his "Anti-Christ" had envisioned the very exact scenario ahead for the future of the Palestinian and Israel conflict because that would perhaps indicate that there might have been a vision and prophetic ability tempered by clear thinking in.... STEINER? Wouldn't want to shock the Intellectual Community with advanced human capacity, think of the jealousy, the envy and the subjective rage that would invoke.

Balfour:

The Balfour Declaration: The Tragedy of the Century

http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=421

"With these words, Dr. Daud Abdullah opened his speech on the historical circumstances surrounding the British government's decision to grant the Zionists a homeland in Palestine. Short as it was, the Balfour Declaration is at the root of the unfolding tragedy of Palestine, the most recent episode of which being plans by leading Zionists to seize the event of an American military assault on Iraq and expel Palestinians once again from their land to neighbouring Arab countries.

Dr. Abdullah sought in his lecture to uncover the real motives underlying Britain's issue of the Balfour Declaration, in spite of Prime Minister Herbert Asquith's rejection in November 1915 of the Zionist Herbert Samuel's proposal for a British protectorate in Palestine under whose stewardship the Zionist programme would be implemented. He proceeded to outline the explanations given ever since for the dramatic change of foreign policy in 1917. These are as follows:

(1) Humanitarian service to European Jews
(2) Anti-Semitism
(3) Reward to the Jews for war service
(4) Biblical Restoration
(5) Imperial rivalry
(6) Strategic interests.

The researcher went on to argue that the first three factors were insignificant in the British government's calculations, since the plight of the Jews had never been a chief concern of Balfour's. In fact, he had in the past refused to intervene with heads of government to protect Jews and halt the persecution to which they were subjected. Furthermore, Jewish contribution to the British war effort was, in fact, minimal and confined to a number of non- Zionist Jews, as several historical studies have revealed.

The researcher, therefore, concludes that the last three factors were the most crucial in the issue of the Declaration. The rise of non-Jewish Zionism gave currency to the Biblical notion of "return to the promised land" as a precondition for the coming of the Messiah and conversion to Christianity by Jews, as preludes to the end of the world. Facilitating the Jews' "return" to Palestine was thus seen by Western Zionists as part of their duty to uphold Old Testament prophecies as Protestant Christians. In their view the return and restoration of Jews in Palestine was not so much for their sake as it was `for the sake of the divine promise made to them'.

NEWS FLASH - PRIOR BRADFORIANISMS

"The Fundamental Christians and George Bush are "Loving It" that Israel is in the spot they are in. Why? Because of the End Times Prophecy nuts. George Bush under his religious "Dominionism" and his mission from God to prepare Christians for "The Rapture" is doing his "I'm the saved drunk in the White House" dance with all his phony Fundie Sentient Soul macho slime.

Who will vote him back again? Those who race bait and can't wait for the entrance of Jesus back in the flesh, walking through Israel again with his digital camera and a japanese tour bus. If you want to do us a favor. Look at Race Baiting Gibson and how the Christians back the position of Israel, not because it is right, but because it is expected for the end times.

There are serious gazillion seller books depicting this end time scenario just the way Georgy Porgy and the U.S. is acting. The Chosen nation of Christians swept up in glory... give us a friggin break. Why do we dislike George Bush, because of the way his Neocon friends of Israel are playing George. George is being played and American Fundamentalism is buying it."

NOW RETURN TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM

A RECIPE FOR BAKED BALFOUR:

"Imperial rivalry and strategic interests were, according to Dr. Abdullah, the predominant motives behind the issue of the Declaration and the implanting of Jews in Palestine. While France and Russia had an important foothold in Palestine, owing to their connections with the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Christians of the region, Britain lacked an indigenous support base. In Jewish Zionists, Britain found its missing ally. Furthermore, Palestine's strategic location as the crossroad of three continents, in addition to Germany, France and Russia's quest to consolidate their presence in the region, either through the building of railway routes, or through dominance over the Bosphorous, drove Britain to extend its control over Palestine. This way, it would ensure that the "sacred land" did not pass to other hands after the War, securing its long-term strategic interests.

The researcher further indicated that the ultimate aim of the founding of a Zionist entity in Palestine, as expounded in Zionist literature, is dominance over the heart of the Islamic world, in the aim of reshaping the map of the Middle East region.

The Declaration, Dr. Abdullah pointed out, is not sacrosanct. It must be reappraised, repealed, and the terrible injustices against the Palestinian people it has generated must be redressed. He concluded his speech by saying: "The Balfour Declaration is no more sacred than the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court or the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, all of which the United States unilaterally repudiated or "unsigned". As long as world leaders and statesmen continue to revere Mr. Balfour's Declaration, their energies and resources would remain forever hostage to a problem that was created by men and can yet be resolved by men".

The Balfour declaration derives its legitimacy from racist and distorted interpretations of Biblical narrative:

In the speech he presented at the seminar, Professor Michael Prior stressed the role played by distorted interpretations of the teachings of Christianity in the proliferation of Zionist ideas within the Christian church and justification of racist practices and war crimes in the name of religion. Professor Prior maintains that his position as a theologian committed to the purity of the teachings of Christianity incites him to look with a critical eye to certain Christian texts and seek to revise them in the light of the universal spirit of tolerance and equality between human beings.

Professor Prior notes that fallacious interpretations of religion, albeit common among the various religious families, are particularly alarming in Christianity, due to the seldom-questioned and pervasive dominance of Zionist ideology. It is truly intriguing, he adds, that one is allowed to go to extreme lengths in one's criticism of the Church, its teachings and fathers, but finds oneself utterly powerless to say so much as a single word on the effects of Zionist thought on Christian religious literature. This, according to Prof. Prior, is a result of the enormous presence of Zionists in decision-making circles, as well as the media in its various forms.

The Balfour Declaration, Prof. Prior went on to say, ought to be seen in this context, with its corroboration of Zionist interpretations of certain Biblical texts, racist dismissal of others as inferior beings and usurping of their land, even if some of the victims happen to be co-religionists. He, further, cited a number of passages from Zionist writings, based on racist interpretations of the Bible. Here, "divine promise" to Jews of settling in the Palestine is said to sanction the cleansing of its indigenous population seen as immersed in ignorance, darkness and un- civilisation.

Balfour Declaration: Void of Legitimacy

Mr. Abdul-Massih focused in his speech on the illegality of Israel's existence, which is grounded on an equally illegal document, viz. the Balfour Declaration. This is a promise by a party with no right to the land to a third party, who is entirely alien to that land. He went on to draw attention to the terminological distortions used, since the promise is referred to as a "declaration". This is aimed at bestowing a character of legality on a political agreement formulated by the Zionists themselves, with a view to usurping land from its lawful owners.

Mr. Abdul-Massih devoted the remainder of his speech to refuting some of the arguments frequently used to justify the `Declaration'. These are as follows:

(1) Palestinians were unable to govern themselves and needed outside guardianship. Historical studies testify to the absurdity of this argument, since Palestine had been an Ottoman province with representatives in the imperial Ottoman council. `Akka, Nablus and Jerusalem alone had over 60 representatives in the council, all elected by the Palestinian public in the district.

(2) Jews are a majority, the rest, only divided minorities, as the `Declaration' text implied. The indigenous people are turned into scattered communities with no shared bonds, with a view to establish the postulate of "a land without people for people without a land". This too is refuted by historical facts, since Jews only formed 8% of the population at the time; the rest were Muslims and Christians.

(3) Palestinians were uncivilized barbarians: historical research proves without the slightest shred of doubt that Palestinians have always been a people of culture. They belonged to a civilization that flourished across the ages, to the extent of being described as the "land of milk and honey", where Muslims and Christians lived in harmony. Its Christians warmly greeted the coming of Salah al Din al Ayubi, not that of the Crusaders. It had its most glorious, golden age under Muslim rule with its tolerant peaceful nature. He recalled the amusing fact that the keys to the Nativity Church are still in the hands of one of Jerusalem's Muslim families."

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

Very different ?

It don't seems to me at all.

There were in it a couple of main roots : the biologistic-darwinistic one (the mainstream) and the occult -ariosophist one.

I think that leaves out most of the story. Antisemitism in late 19th and early 20th century Europe was an extremely heterogenous phenomenon, and its 'mainstream' manifestations were by no means exclusively biologistic, much less Darwinian. Many antisemites focused on what they saw as cultural differences between Jews and non-Jews, not on supposed biological differences. Nazi antisemitism was thus importantly different from these earlier forms of antisemitic thinking.

Moreover is it true or not that the Shoah ("Holocaust" is not the right word to be used in spite of the worldwide abuse of it)) is at the end of an historical path that was built up in the the above said way and on the above said cultural grounds ?

In part, yes, I think that is true. But it's also important to take into account the extent to which -- and the specific ways in which -- Nazi antisemitism departed from the earlier tradition. Physically annihilating the Jews would simply never have occurred to someone like Treitschke.

Uh, you're running away.......You're demonstrating to be yourself unable to do historical connections.

I didn't mean to run away from a discussion of Israel and Palestine. I simply don't see why some of the rest of you think this is relevant to a discussion of German antisemitism and philosemitism before 1925. I have all sorts of opinions on Israel and Palestine, but they have no direct connection to my work on Steiner. If you think that is somehow misguided, could you explain why?

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:34 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

[PS:]

Treitschke.

[Andrea:]

Uh, you're running away.......You're demonstrating to be yourself unable to do historical connections.

[PS:]

I didn't mean to run away from a discussion of Israel and Palestine. I simply don't see why some of the rest of you think this is relevant to a discussion of German antisemitism and philosemitism before 1925.

Hey who created such a rule ? Who said that we are discussing only between those "gates"? If it's good for ya it's not for me and others on the list!

I have all sorts of opinions on Israel and Palestine, but they have no direct connection to my work on Steiner. If you think that is somehow misguided, could you explain why?

Again, (CHE PALLE!!!)

I started talkin about the fact that . in my opinion, Steiner's insights aganst Zionism were right. So I (Bradord too) have been able to follow a short path of thoughts about European and Middleastern history. a path linking one another antisemitism.Zionism. WWI and II events and the birth of Israel' nation-state. If you think that this is out of topic is a problem of yours!.

"And you wise men don't know how it feels..to be .thick as a brick!. (Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson, 1973).

Hi Tarjei: As you can see I have been mild (only an Italian slang, very easy to understand) neither "bad words politically uncorrect" nor scornful behaviour. Wait and I'll became cool like a perfect Enghlishman!!

Andrea the ex-cave dweller.

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:02 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hello Andrea, you wrote:

Who said that we are discussing only between those "gates"?

I'm not sure why you wrote "we" in that sentence. What I am discussing is Steiner's relationship to the antisemitic and philosemitic currents in German-speaking Europe between 1880 and 1925. If you thought I was discussing the situation in Palestine from 1948 onward, then you misunderstood me.

I started talkin about the fact that . in my opinion, Steiner's insights aganst Zionism were right. So I (Bradord too) have been able to follow a short path of thoughts about European and Middleastern history. a path linking one another antisemitism.Zionism. WWI and II events and the birth of Israel' nation-state. If you think that this is out of topic is a problem of yours!.

I do not think that Steiner's criticisms of Zionism are off topic. I said that very clearly yesterday. In my view, his criticisms of Zionism played an important role in his overall assessment of Jews and Jewishness. But WWII and the establishment of the state of Israel obviously played no role whatsoever in shaping Steiner's views on Zionism or on anything else. Is there anything unclear about that?

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:33 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A couple of sketches about "antisemtism"

Hello Andrea, you wrote:

Who said that we are discussing only between those "gates"?

I'm not sure why you wrote "we" in that sentence. What I am discussing is Steiner's relationship to the antisemitic and philosemitic currents in German-speaking Europe between 1880 and 1925. If you thought I was discussing the situation in Palestine from 1948 onward, then you misunderstood me.

"We" is the list. You are not the list. But if you like to be "at the center" just like a 18 month toddler, is, again, your own problem.

"I started talkin about the fact that . in my opinion, Steiner's insights aganst Zionism were right. So I (Bradord too) have been able to follow a short path of thoughts about European and Middleastern histtory . a path linking one another antisemitism.Zionism. WWI and II events and the birth of Israel' nation-state.If you think that this is out of topic is a problem of yours!"

. But WWII and the establishment of the state of Israel obviously played no role whatsoever in shaping Steiner's views on Zionism or on anything else. Is there anything unclear about that?

You are, as usual, turning things upside-down. Pedro.

I said a very different think ! (If I have had to say that those insights of RS (died 1925) were shaped by Israel State's Estabilsh. (1948) I'd been on the state of mind as yours -a "psychiatric-cares-help-need" " one- when you keep on raving about agreements between RS's and JE's cosmoconceptions!) about the fact that Steiner was right about Zionism as the tragic story of Middle East demonstrate.

A.

Peter

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind