Rudolf Hess


From: at
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:08 pm
Subject: Rudolf Hess

Peter,

Earlier you stated that Rudolf Hess is an example of a prominent Nazi who was simultaneously a follower of Steiner. I was hoping you could elaborate on this. I don't find it mentioned in most histories of the era. Perhaps you could share the evidence that you have uncovered that would support this contention.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Earlier you stated that Rudolf Hess is an example of a prominent Nazi who was simultaneously a follower of Steiner. I was hoping you could elaborate on this. I don't find it mentioned in most histories of the era. Perhaps you could share the evidence that you have uncovered that would support this contention.

Sure. The most abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources: Arfst Wagner's seminal five-volume collection Dokumente und Briefe zur Geschichte der Anthroposophischen Bewegung und Gesellschaft in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, and Uwe Werner's book Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Both Wagner and Werner (the latter more strenuously than the former) argue that the evidence they present does not indicate any personal sympathy for anthroposophy on Hess's part, and Wagner reprints a letter from Hess's wife saying that Hess had no interest in anthroposophy. I think some their interpretations of the documentary material are erroneous, and I think the letter from Ilse Hess is of dubious value as evidence. In any case, you will find a lot of material there on Hess's role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich.

As for non-anthroposophist literature, James Webb writes that "by his own admission" Hess "was sympathetic to Steiner's doctrines." Webb reports that Hess told the British doctor who examined him after he flew to Scotland "that he had for years been interested in Steiner's anthroposophy." (Webb, The Occult Establishment p. 308) In another work Webb writes that “Rudolf Hess was a devotee of Rudolf Steiner” (Webb, The Harmonious Circle p. 186). Various observers report that Hess structured his diet and his health care around anthroposophist beliefs (see Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Hess: A Biography pp. 64-66; Albert Speer, Errinerungen pp. 133-134; Wulf Schwarzwäller, Rudolf Hess pp. 112-115). Walter Schellenberg relays a report from the German intelligence services describing Hess as a “silent patron and follower of the anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner.” (Schellenberg, Memoiren p. 160) Anna Bramwell writes that “Hess was a follower of Rudolf Steiner” (Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century p. 197). There are several other references of this sort in the literature.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Peter, you state that "...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources..." I am hoping you can be more specific, because I haven't been able to find it.

I understand that a number of people have written some variant of "Rudolf Hess was a devotee of Rudolf Steiner." I want to know what they base this opinion on. For example, where did Hess get the information that he used to formulate his diet? Did he read Steiner, or get it from a magazine article? Diet is not exactly something Steiner talked a lot about, and what little there is is mostly buried in the lectures to the workers of the first Goetheanum. If Hess really read this deeply into Steiner's works, I would tend to think there would be more evidence than has yet been presented. On the other hand, if he formed his views on information from a friend of a friend, then the connection to Steiner is rather tenuous.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Peter, you state that "...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources..." I am hoping you can be more specific, because I haven't been able to find it.

You haven't? Werner's book has an index. It contains 44 references to Hess. There are whole sections with titles like "Hess' erneuter Einsatz für die biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise." Are you saying that you disagree that Hess played a major role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich?

For example, where did Hess get the information that he used to formulate his diet? Did he read Steiner, or get it from a magazine article?

I don't know. How might one find out something like that? The sources I cited say that he was fastidious about keeping a biodynamic diet.

On the other hand, if he formed his views on information from a friend of a friend, then the connection to Steiner is rather tenuous.

I can't entirely agree with that understanding of "tenuous". We aren't looking for instances of personal influence, are we? I think we're looking for the influence of specific ideas, practices, and so forth, which are very frequently conveyed third-hand, or via magazine articles, and so forth.

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:32 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Earlier you stated that Rudolf Hess is an example of a prominent Nazi who was simultaneously a follower of Steiner. I was hoping you could elaborate on this. I don't find it mentioned in most histories of the era. Perhaps you could share the evidence that you have uncovered that would support this contention.

Sure. The most abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources: Arfst Wagner's seminal five-volume collection Dokumente und Briefe zur Geschichte der Anthroposophischen Bewegung und Gesellschaft in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, and Uwe Werner's book Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Both Wagner and Werner (the latter more strenuously than the former) argue that the evidence they present does not indicate any personal sympathy for anthroposophy on Hess's part, and Wagner reprints a letter from Hess's wife saying that Hess had no interest in anthroposophy. I think some their interpretations of the documentary material are erroneous, and I think the letter from Ilse Hess is of dubious value as evidence

Sure, Malaka.
It is at odds with all your prejudices and tricks!

In any case, you will find a lot of material there on Hess's role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich.

Hi Daniel,

if you want to be really informed about it have a glance at the www.lohengrinverlag.de site. Here you find good material about it Our fellow german anthro really don't sleep!.

As for non-anthroposophist literature, James Webb writes that "by his own admission" Hess "was sympathetic to Steiner's doctrines." Webb reports that Hess told the British doctor who examined him after he flew to Scotland "that he had for years been interested in Steiner's anthroposophy." (Webb, The Occult Establishment p. 308) I

Uhu: The problem lies in the fact that this statement is a pure invention of James Webb.

n another work Webb writes that “Rudolf Hess was a devotee of Rudolf Steiner” (Webb, The Harmonious Circle p. 186).

Another unsupported claim of this pseudohistorian, who died after having becoming totally mad (too many lies in that brain?).

Various observers report that Hess structured his diet and his health care around anthroposophist beliefs

This has nothing to do with Anthroposophy itself, but it's only a fitness matter.

A.

(see Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Hess: A Biography pp. 64-66; Albert Speer, Errinerungen pp. 133-134; Wulf Schwarzwäller, Rudolf Hess pp. 112-115). Walter Schellenberg relays a report from the German intelligence services describing Hess as a “silent patron and follower of the anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner.” (Schellenberg, Memoiren p. 160) Anna Bramwell writes that “Hess was a follower of Rudolf Steiner” (Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century p. 197). There are several other references of this sort in the literature.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:15 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Peter:

Both Wagner and Werner (the latter more strenuously than the former) argue that the evidence they present does not indicate any personal sympathy for anthroposophy on Hess's part, and Wagner reprints a letter from Hess's wife saying that Hess had no interest in anthroposophy. I think some their interpretations of the documentary material are erroneous, and I think the letter from Ilse Hess is of dubious value as evidence

Andrea:

Sure, Malaka.
It is at odds with all your prejudices and tricks!

I love you Andrea!!! To hear Peter debate so vigorously a non point is jaw dropping and I love how you catch him. Paulina too. She just brought home some serious bacon:)))

Dottie

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:17 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Peter wrote:

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Peter, you state that "...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources..." I am hoping you can be more specific, because I haven't been able to find it.

You haven't? Werner's book has an index. It contains 44 references to Hess. There are whole sections with titles like "Hess' erneuter Einsatz für die biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise." Are you saying that you disagree that Hess played a major role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich?

For example, where did Hess get the information that he used to formulate his diet? Did he read Steiner, or get it from a magazine article?

I don't know. How might one find out something like that? The sources I cited say that he was fastidious about keeping a biodynamic diet.

On the other hand, if he formed his views on information from a friend of a friend, then the connection to Steiner is rather tenuous.

I can't entirely agree with that understanding of "tenuous". We aren't looking for instances of personal influence, are we? I think we're looking for the influence of specific ideas, practices, and so forth, which are very frequently conveyed third-hand, or via magazine articles, and so forth.

Peter

Hess was interested in biodynamic agriculture and did help them as well as at least the Dresden Waldorf school survive. It was the last one to stay open, but was eventually closed too. The interesting thing here is not that Hess liked biodynamic Kartoffeln, but that anthroposphical institutions attempted to stay operative during the Third Reich, even if they had to kiss the Führer's ass. And the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach helped them do it. In hindsight, a moral mistake. It reminds me of when Peron returned to Argentine from exile in Spain. The rumor was that all schools would have to hang portraits of him and Evita in all the classrooms, as had been the case during his previous dictatorship. I said that if it came to that we should either close or not obey and let them close us. (As a foreigner I was more secure against disappearing than the others, most of whom were Argentines, so I wasn't exactly a hero.) No one said anything pro or contra, but I sensed that they didn't want to do either. Peron turned out to be a weak old man and died soon after, so no decision had to be made.

Frank

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

From: at
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Peter Staudenmaier:

Various observers report that Hess structured his diet and his health care around anthroposophist beliefs (see Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Hess: A Biography pp. 64-66; ...

Rudolf Steiner's name is not mentioned at all in this biography. Nor does the word "anthroposophy" appear in the pages you have cited. The pages discuss the fact that Hess was particular about his diet, and like Hitler was a vegetarian, teetotaler and non-smoker. The closest even a remote mention of anthroposophy is the statement by Speer cited on page 65 that "Hess argued stubbornly trying to explain to Hitler that his [vegetarian] food should contain certain biologically dynamic components." This could support the well known fact that Hess was interested in the anthroposophical version of organic farming. It does not, to my mind, establish that Hess ever read a word of Steiner. Hess' surrounding himself with "clairvoyants and astrologers" is mentioned, as well has his interest in "horoscopes and the semi-occult" and his personal fortune-teller.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Albert Speer, Errinerungen pp. 133-134;

Is probably the source of the quote in Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Anna Bramwell writes that “Hess was a follower of Rudolf Steiner” (Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century p. 197).

I've checked this reference too. Bramwell makes her statement without any citations whatsoever, so the reader really has no clue how she came to this conclusion.

Peter Staudenmaier:

There are several other references of this sort in the literature.

If they are all of similar quality, they don't really establish much.

To me, to be a "follower of Steiner" requires an actual study of Steiner's works. It is evidence of this that I am looking for. Repeated references to the "fact" that Steiner was a "follower of Steiner" do not establish anything. Just because something is repeated, even frequently, does not make it true.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Daniel wrote:

Peter, you state that "...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources..." I am hoping you can be more specific, because I haven't been able to find it.

Peter Staudenmaier:

You haven't? Werner's book has an index. It contains 44 references to Hess. There are whole sections with titles like "Hess' erneuter Einsatz für die biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise." Are you saying that you disagree that Hess played a major role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich?

Daniel:

Well, I found those. I'm just curious which ones you think have been misinterpreted by Werner, as Werner doesn't see any of them as painting Hess an Anthroposophist. Neither do I really see any of them as evidence that Hess was actually a follower of Steiner. As I stated earlier, I consider reading Steiner a requirement for meeting the definition of a follower or devotee or acolyte or anthroposophist. Hess used his position as Hitler's Deputy to defend quite a few people besides anthroposophists; I don't see in this fact any evidence of a personal devotion to Rudolf Steiner. Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel's biography shows that Hess ran after just about every form of alternative health around at the time, and as such he was bound to run into anthroposophists in the medical field eventually. Does this make him a follower of Steiner?

And let's be clear, I am trying to establish whether Hess was a "follower of Steiner" or an anthroposophist, not whether his office protected biodynamic farmers after anthroposophy was outlawed.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

This could support the well known fact that Hess was interested in the anthroposophical version of organic farming. It does not, to my mind, establish that Hess ever read a word of Steiner.

We don't know what Hess read. We do know some of what Hess did.

If they are all of similar quality, they don't really establish much.

What was it you were looking to have established?

To me, to be a "follower of Steiner" requires an actual study of Steiner's works.

You mean his written works? So there are no followers of Jesus? I think this is an untenable approach to the issue. Following anthroposophical tenets in one's personal life is evidence of anthroposophical beliefs.

I'm just curious which ones you think have been misinterpreted by Werner, as Werner doesn't see any of them as painting Hess an Anthroposophist.

Here's an example. Werner basically says that Hess had no interest in or sympathy for anthroposophy or Steiner, that he was merely protecting and promoting biodynamics as an independent entity. But Werner also reproduces a 1937 memo from Lotar Eickhoff (Hess’s aide, who joined the Anthroposophical Society after the war) which explicitly states Hess’s conviction that biodynamic farming cannot be separated from its anthroposophist foundations: “The Deputy of the Führer [i.e. Hess] is of the opinion that if one wants to preserve one aspect — like biodynamic agriculture — one cannot in any way separate it from its scientific basis and its scientific reinforcements, that is, from the work set down in Rudolf Steiner’s books and the Rudolf Steiner schools.” (pp. 214-215) I think this memo speaks directly against Werner's conclusion.

Neither do I really see any of them as evidence that Hess was actually a follower of Steiner. As I stated earlier, I consider reading Steiner a requirement for meeting the definition of a follower or devotee or acolyte or anthroposophist.

I suppose that depends on how strictly we interpret each of those terms. But if we're looking to trace the lineage of particular beliefs and practices, then I think what you say above is mistaken in principle, not simply in this case. Evidence of direct reading is too restrictive a criterion for ideological influence in general, especially with historical figures.

Hess used his position as Hitler's Deputy to defend quite a few people besides anthroposophists; I don't see in this fact any evidence of a personal devotion to Rudolf Steiner.

I don't think that devotion to Steiner as a person is an issue here, if that's what you mean.

Does this make him a follower of Steiner?

There is no shortage of people today who combine anthroposophical beliefs with any number of other theories, from astrology to homeopathy. Many of these people can accurately be described as followers of Steiner, in my view.

And let's be clear, I am trying to establish whether Hess was a "follower of Steiner" or an anthroposophist, not whether his office protected biodynamic farmers after anthroposophy was outlawed.

That's fine, but the second part is important to the kind of history that I do. Some anthroposophists have taken the line that Hess helped out more or less anybody who came across his path, so what's the big deal, but I think this misses the point. Hess was fairly selective about the groups and individuals that he favored, and he did not shy away from going to bat for them in the face of sometimes intense opposition from other Nazi leaders. His support for Walter Gross, the head of the Office of Racial Policy, is one example, and I think his interventions on behalf of Waldorf and biodynamics is another. In fact I think that the divided attitudes toward anthroposophy within the higher echelons of the party make a very interesting case study in the dynamics of Nazi policy and its implementation (one of the few topics on which I largely agree with Werner). Making sense of this material requires us to take seriously the levels of expressed interest in the variety of anthroposophical projects in Germany at the time, as well as exploring some of the reasons for this interest.

Peter

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

OK folks, let's cede to PS: Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables, the latter like Waldorf Education. And as is Peter Staudenmaier. As to the Waldorf parents: I have a memo of a former Waldorf school secretary who cites a former Waldorf parent as saying that Waldorf Education cannot be separated from its roots. As to PS:

We jump to the year 2079. The "Anthroposophy-Tomorrow" list is now called "Anthroposophy-Yesterday" (as tomorrow has come and gone). The most popular thread in the discussion: Was the late Peter Staudenmaier an anthroposophist? Of course he was, he was the first to show them the light! He saw things for what they really were. Not embellished by lofty imaginations. And he had read tons of Steiner. Very critically, of course. But isn't that what Steiner wanted of anthroposophists? A critical appraisal of what he said? Well, he got it! In fact, anthroposophy really began to take off in a genuine way through the courage of Peter Staudenmaier's independent inquiry. By asking precise questions as to what people meant when they used anthroposophical jargon, it began to become ever more apparent that most of the time, there was nothing behind the words except empty visions of an "overworld" that doesn't, in fact, really exist. That began the paradigm shift in anthroposophical thinking. Anthroposophy and Steiner were deflated for what they really were. That's how anthroposophy came and went.

It all reminds me a bit of my most favourite stories: the Narnia chronicles by C.S. Lewis. An excerpt from chapter 12 of "The silver chair": Jill, Scrubb and Puddleglum have just released Prince Rilian from a spell cast by the which of the underworld, who unexpectedly enters the chamber and a conversation ensues.

'Narnia?' she said. 'Narnia? I have often heard your Lordship utter that name in your ravings. Dear Prince, you are very sick. There is no land called Narnia.'

' Yes there is, though, Ma'am,' said Puddleglum. ' You see, I happen to have lived there all my life.'

'Indeed,' said the Witch. 'Tell me, I pray you, where that country is?'

'Up there,' said Puddleglum, stoutly, pointing over-head. 'I - I don't know exactly where.'

'How?' said the Queen, with a kind, soft, musical laugh.' Is there a country up among the stones and mortar of thereof?'

'No,' said Puddleglum, struggling a little to get his breath. 'It's in Overworld.'

'And what, or where, pray is this . . . how do you call it ... Overworld?'

'Oh, don't be so silly,' said Scrubb, who was fighting hard against the enchantment of the sweet smell and the thrumming. 'As if you didn't know! It's up above, up where you can see the sky and the sun and the stars. Why, you've been there yourself. We met you there.'

'I cry you mercy, little brother,' laughed the Witch (you couldn't have heard a lovelier laugh). 'I have no memory of that meeting. But we often meet our friends in strange places when we dream. And unless all dreamed alike, you must not ask them to remember it.'

'Madam,' said the Prince sternly, 'I have already told your Grace that I am the King's son of Narnia.'

'And shalt be, dear friend,' said the Witch in a sooth-ing voice, as if she was humouring a child,' shalt be king of many imagined lands in thy fancies.'

'We've been there, too,' snapped Jill. She was very angry because she could feel enchantment getting hold of her every moment. But of course the very fact that she could still feel it, showed that it had not yet fully worked.

'And thou art Queen of Narnia too, I doubt not, pretty one,' said the Witch in the same coaxing, half-mocking tone.

' I'm nothing of the sort,' said Jill, stamping her foot. * We come from another world.'

'Why, this is a prettier game than the other,' said the Witch. 'Tell us, little maid, where is this other world? What ships and chariots go between it and ours?'

Of course a lot of things darted into Jill's head at once: Experiment House, Adela Pennyfather, her own home, radio-sets, cinemas, cars, aeroplanes, ration-books, queues. But they seemed dim and far away. (Thrum -thrum - thrum - went the strings of the Witch's instru-ment.) Jill couldn't remember the names of the things in our world. And this time it didn't come into her head that she was being enchanted, for now the magic was in its full strength; and of course, the more enchanted you get, the more certain you feel that you are not enchanted at all. She found herself saying (and at the moment it was a relief to say):

'No. I suppose that other world must be all a dream.'

'Yes. It is all a dream/ said the Witch, always thrum-ming.

'Yes, all a dream,' said Jill.

' There never was such a world,' said the Witch.

'No,' said Jill and Scrubb, 'never was such a world.'

' There never was any world but mine,' said the Witch.

' There never was any world but yours,' said they.

Puddleglum was still fighting hard. 'I don't know rightly what you all mean by a world,' he said, talking like a man who hasn't enough air. 'But you can play that fiddle till your fingers drop off, and still you won't make me forget Narnia; and the whole Overworld too. We'll never see it again, I shouldn't wonder. You may have blotted it out and turned it dark like this, for all I know. Nothing more likely. But I know I was there once. I've seen the sky full of stars. I've seen the sun coming up out of the sea of a morning and sinking behind the mountains at night. And I've seen him up in the midday sky when I couldn't look at him for brightness.'

Puddleglum's words had a very rousing effect. The other three all breathed again and looked at one another like people newly awaked.

'Why, there it is!' cried the Prince. 'Of course! The blessing of Asian upon this honest Marsh-wiggle. We have all been dreaming, these last few minutes. How could we have forgotten it ? Of course we've all seen the sun.'

'By Jove, so we have!' said Scrubb. 'Good for you, Puddleglum! You're the only one of us with any sense, I do believe.'

Then came the Witch's voice, cooing softly like the voice of a wood-pigeon from the high elms in an old garden at three o'clock in the middle of a sleepy, summer afternoon; and it said:

'What is this sun that you all speak of? Do you mean anything by the word ?'

'Yes, we jolly well do,' said Scrubb. 'Can you tell me what it's like?' asked the Witch \(thrum, thrum, thrum, went the strings).

'Please it your Grace,' said the Prince, very coldly land politely. 'You see that lamp. It is round and yellow land gives light to the whole room; and hangeth more-1 over from the roof. Now that thing which we call the sun I is like the lamp, only far greater and brighter. It giveth Slight to the whole Overworld and hangeth in the sky.'

'Hangeth from what, my lord?' asked the Witch; and I then, while they were all still thinking how to answer her, | she added, with another of her soft, silver laughs: ' You see ? When you try to think out clearly what this sun must be, you cannot tell me. You can only tell me it is like the lamp. Your sun is a dream; and there is nothing in that dream that was not copied from the lamp. The lamp is the real thing; the sun is but a tale, a children's story.'

'Yes, I see now,' said Jill in a heavy, hopeless tone. 'It must be so.' And while she said this, it seemed to her to be very good sense.

Slowly and gravely the Witch repeated, 'There is no sun.' And they all said nothing. She repeated, in a softer and deeper voice. 'There is no sun' After a pause, and after a struggle in their minds, all four of them said together. 'You are right. There is no sun.' It was such a relief to give in and say it.

'There never was a sun,' said the Witch.

'No. There never was a sun,' said the Prince, and the Marsh-wiggle, and the children.

For the last few minutes Jill had been feeling that there was something she must remember at all costs. And now she did. But it was dreadfully hard to say it. She felt as if huge weights were laid on her lips. At last, with an effort that seemed to take all the good out of her, she said:

'There's Asian.'

'Asian?' said the Witch, quickening ever so slightly the pace of her thrumming. 'What a pretty name! What does it mean ?'

'He is the great Lion who called us out of our own world,' said Scrubb, ' and sent us into this to find Prince Rilian.'

'What is a lion'?' asked the Witch.

'Oh, hang it all!' said Scrubb. 'Don't you know? How can we describe it to her ? Have you ever seen a cat ?'

'Surely,' said the Queen. 'I love cats.'

'Well, a lion is a little bit - only a little bit, mind you -like a huge cat - with a mane. At least, it's not like a horse's mane, you know, it's more like a judge's wig. And it's yellow. And terrifically strong,'

The Witch shook her head. 'I see,' she said, 'that we should do no better with your lion, as you call it, than we did with your sun. You have seen lamps, and so you imagined a bigger and better lamp and called it the sun. You've seen cats, and now you want a bigger and better cat, and it's to be called a lion. Well, 'tis a pretty make-believe, though, to say truth, it would suit you all better if you were younger. And look how you can put nothing into your make-believe without copying it from the real world, this world of mine, which is the only world. But even you children are too old for such play. As for you, my lord Prince, that art a man full grown, fie upon you! Are you not ashamed of such toys ? Come, all of you. Put away these childish tricks. I have work for you all in the real world. There is no Narnia, no Overworld, no sky, no sun, no Asian. And now, to bed all. And let us begin a wiser life tomorrow. But, first, to bed; to sleep; deep sleep, soft pillows, sleep without foolish dreams.'

Dream well! Detlef Hardorp

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

It all reminds me a bit of my most favourite stories: the Narnia chronicles by C.S. Lewis. An excerpt from chapter 12 of "The silver chair": Jill, Scrubb and Puddleglum have just released Prince Rilian from a spell cast by the which of the underworld, who unexpectedly enters the chamber and a conversation ensues.

Dearest Detlef,

Well that was truly stunning connection to what is happens for real. I have only read The ScrewTape Letters as well as the one about his wife Joy's death. Now I can see I must read his work even further as he did indeed know of a thing.

I was just thinking last night that Diana one day in the future could have the tables turned on her in a way that Peter has tried to turn the tables on Dr. Steiner. One could miss and match her words to see that she was indeed fond of Dr. Steiners work as well as one who did not like it. She could be considered in the future by one very twisted idealogue to not be sure whether she truly was a follower of Dr. Stiener or if she truly did not like his work just by her interaction here. It's so interesting that if a person so wishes to make a thing true, despite the true feelings or thoughts or intent of said person, all they have to do is find a few pro and con thoughts here and there and wahla you have a ready made biography that ignores the heart of what Diana felt about Anthroposophy.

Thanks for that fantastic connection,

Love,
Dottie

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: Rudolf Hess

Dottie wrote:

I was just thinking last night that Diana one day in the future could have the tables turned on her in a way that Peter has tried to turn the tables on Dr. Steiner. One could miss and match her words to see that she was indeed fond of Dr. Steiners work as well as one who did not like it. She could be considered in the future by one very twisted idealogue to not be sure whether she truly was a follower of Dr. Stiener or if she truly did not like his work just by her interaction here. It's so interesting that if a person so wishes to make a thing true, despite the true feelings or thoughts or intent of said person, all they have to do is find a few pro and con thoughts here and there and wahla you have a ready made biography that ignores the heart of what Diana felt about Anthroposophy.

That's interesting, Dottie, because I was just thinking the same thing (not about myself, only, but lots of people). But I don't think any "twisting" or "table turning" would be necessary to show that I was "fond of Dr. Steiner's work" during one period and not so fond during a later period, since I have said so repeatedly, and have no reason to try to hide this. I state repeatedly that I studied anthroposophy very enthusiastically for a couple of years and still feel very interested in it (and still not entirely unsympathetically). That is true of a number of critics. The "heart" of what I feel about anthroposophy? . . . I don't even know what that is.

(Not that I expect anyone to write my biography <G> - boy, would that be a snooze - but if someone tried to unearth what were the critics' "true" motives and "true" feelings about Waldorf and anthroposophy, and try to view the whole controversy from a total outsider's perspective, I'm sure many contradictions would be apparent in the actions and motives on both sides, and frequent "switching sides" would be a big part of the story.) Life is interesting.

Diana

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Hello Detlef,

I see that you still haven't managed to reach Ralf Sonnenberg. Would you like his email address? Anyway, on to your chosen theme:

OK folks, let's cede to PS: Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables, the latter like Waldorf Education.

Lots of people like biodynamic vegetables. Relatively few people are so committed to maintaining a strict biodynamic diet that they do so at the risk of offending their boss, who happens to be an unpredictable dictator known for having subordinates murdered when they strike him as less than loyal. Rudolf Hess did exactly that with his boss, Hitler. If you think this indicates a merely casual interest in anthroposophical practices, may I suggest you reconsider?

I think that the question of how narrowly to construe terms like "anthroposophist" and "follower of Steiner" is a very interesting one, but you don't seem to have much interest in it. Oddly, you have never challenged my description of Otto Schily as an anthroposophist, even though Schily has done virtually nothing as Interior Minister for Waldorf schools or biodynamic farmers, in stark contrast to Hess's well documented role in the Third Reich. It is certainly worth arguing over my characterization of Schily (after all, he says publically that he is not an anthroposophist, and according to stricter definitions of the term I'd even agree), but if you don't object in his case, how come you get all hot and bothered over Hess?

Curious,

Peter

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

I wrote:

OK folks, let's cede to PS: Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables, the latter like Waldorf Education.


PS wrote:

Lots of people like biodynamic vegetables. Relatively few people are so committed to maintaining a strict biodynamic diet that they do so at the risk of offending their boss, who happens to be an unpredictable dictator known for having subordinates murdered when they strike him as less than loyal. Rudolf Hess did exactly that with his boss, Hitler. If you think this indicates a merely casual interest in anthroposophical practices, may I suggest you reconsider?

I reconsider and cede again. Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables so much that he ate them exclusively, the latter like Waldorf Education so much that they even send their children to Waldorf schools.

And of course Otto Schily is an anthroposophist, even though he says publically that he is not an anthroposophist (according to PS). After all, his brother went to a Waldorf school and he uses Weleda soap. Unlike with Hess, I have been told by a reliable source that he even attempted reading Steiner! But then that was less of an achievement, since no dictator was likely to kill him for it. Hess might have tried as well (deep down in a dungeon in the dark so Hitler's secret police wouldn't notice). Who knows? And what we don't know for sure - and there is a lot of that - just might have happened. Who on this list can prove the contrary?

PS wrote:

I think that the question of how narrowly to construe terms like "anthroposophist" and "follower of Steiner" is a very interesting one, but you don't seem to have much interest in it.

Quite to the contrary, Mr. Staudenmaier! I am very interested. So tell us: what is your definition of
a. an "anthroposophist" and
b. a "follower of Steiner"?
Are the two identical? Are all followers of Steiner anthroposophists? Are all anthroposophists followers of Steiner? What would be the broadest possible definition of the two terms, what would be the narrowest possible definition? Which definitions do you use when?

Curious!

Detlef Hardorp

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

From: at
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Hess

Peter Staudenmaier:

Hess was fairly selective about the groups and individuals that he favored, and he did not shy away from going to bat for them in the face of sometimes intense opposition from other Nazi leaders. His support for Walter Gross, the head of the Office of Racial Policy, is one example, and I think his interventions on behalf of Waldorf and biodynamics is another.

I'm now curious about this. Do you have examples of people for whom Hess did not go to bat, even though they petitioned him directly?

Daniel Hindes

 Another bottle of wine for our guest

 Hess, English occultism and the Flight in UK

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


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