Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49398Re: Wilson (was: Austria-Hungary)

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Feb 9, 2012
      In a way wer'e all trying to find evidence for what should be the obvious. Frank has quoted Churchill:

      " 'The second cardinal tragedy was the complete
      break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire...There is not one of these peoples or
      provinces that constituted the Empire of the Hapsburgs to whom gaining their
      independence has not brought the tortures which ancient poets and theologians
      had reserved for the damned.'"

      The only reason the Wilson's 'national self-determination' proposal doesn't get short shrift is because it *sounds* high-minded, and that's enough for most people. Which is then just the thing conservative historians like Der Staudi (though he may see himself as 'radical' he really isn't) can then trade on to damn independent thinkers like Steiner: eg see WC message 8146.


      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
      > I've gone through the 48 lectures in the series "Interpreting the 20th
      > Century: The Struggle Over Democracy" by Professor Pamela Radcliff,
      > Ph.D. (Columbia University, Associate Professor, Department of History,
      > University of California at San Diego), available from The Teaching
      > Company /The Great Courses
      > <http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=8090>
      > .
      > In lectures 46 and 48, Pamela Radcliff makes some interesting remarks
      > that may corroborate the suggested take on Woodrow Wilson below (from my
      > previous post). Check this out:
      > In Lecture Forty-Six ("The 'End of History'?"), she says about ethnic
      > nationalism in particular:
      > "The first nature of this threat is that this kind of racial nationalism
      > threatens the principles of individual rights. Once again, it takes us
      > back to the Nazi form of nationalism where the unit of society is the
      > ethnic group versus the individual, and leaves no basis on which
      > individuals and indivisual minorities have rights."
      > In this lecture, Pamela Radcliff was saying these things in the context
      > of the political and social conflicts and chaos that followed the
      > collapse of Communism in the late eighties and early nineties,
      > especially after 1991. In Lecture Forty-Eight, however, ("A New World
      > Order?"), she makes a direct link to Wilsonianism when explaining one of
      > several positions on the issue at hand:
      > "Implicit in the other position is that nation-states are or should be
      > weakening in the face of global challenges. Thus this position would
      > argue that the nation-state system has proven to have a destructive
      > impact on the world in the 20th century, and that the Wilsonian ideal
      > for every people to have their own nation and state has given rise to
      > many of the violent conflicts as well as the environmental destruction
      > of the 20th century.
      > "The origins of the nationalist conflict in Yugoslavia can be traced all
      > the way back to the 1918 formation of the Yugoslav nation out of a
      > diverse group of regions with different cultural traditions and no
      > common history."
      > One of the things about Woodrow Wilson that seem to have irritated
      > Rudolf Steiner, apart from his schoolmasterly moralism (somewhat
      > reminiscent of Obama's elequent rhetoric imho), was that he kept talking
      > about the freedom of nations and peoples -- treating states and
      > institutions like human beings (just like corporations have personhood
      > according to American jurisprudence), and neglecting and ignoring the
      > simple fact that you can't have free nations unless you have free
      > individuals first.
      > Here is an excerpt from GA 196 translated by none other than --- yes,
      > you guessed it: Our very own Frank.
      > "I will now read to you a definition of the law that Woodrow Wilson gave
      > so you can see how this definition consists of nothing but platitudes.
      > He said: "The law is the will of the state in respect to those
      > citizens who are bound by it." So the state unfolds a will! One can
      > well imagine that someone who is embedded so strongly in abstract
      > idealism, not to mention materialism — for they are practically the
      > same — can claim that the state is supposed to have a will. He would
      > have to have lost all sense of reality to even conceive of such a thing
      > let alone write it down. But it is in the book I spoke to you about
      > yesterday — the codex of platitudes: The State, Elements of
      > Historical and Practical Politics."
      > ( -- Rudolf Steiner: The History and Actuality of Imperialism
      > <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA196/English/SCR2011/19200222p01.html\
      > > , Dornach, 22nd February, 1920, GA 196)
      > Yours for -- what was it? Oh yes, yours for the avoidance of history and
      > contempt for academics and scholarship and aversion to learning! And for
      > the love and pursuit of illiteracy!
      > Tarjei
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > "Think for a moment upon the problem, 'How much would Woodrow Wilson's
      > > brain be worth if this brain were not sitting in the Presidential
      > chair
      > > of the United States?' "
      > > ( -- Rudolf Steiner: The Reappearance of Christ in the Etheric, XII:
      > > Individual Spirit Beings and the Undivided Foundation of the World:
      > Part
      > > 3 <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ReapChrist/19171125p01.html> ,
      > > Dornach 25th November, 1917, GA 178)
      > > The development of Europe with all its new nation-states and all that
      > > developed into the opposite of what Wilson had expected or hoped for,
      > a
      > > veritable nightmare. The reason is that Wilson's proposals were
      > totally
      > > unrealistic. And that reminds me: On June 15, 2010, Johan Galtung was
      > > asked by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now
      > > <http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/15/i_love_the_us_republic_and>
      > > what he thought about Obama's remarks about Afghanistan, and he said
      > > "totally unrealistic".
      > > PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured
      > > violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation by the
      > > Soviet Union and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan
      > land
      > > for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to
      > > understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We
      > > have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by
      > > the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon
      > > violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we
      > > will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect,
      > to
      > > isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten
      > the
      > > day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in
      > > which America is your partner and never your patron.
      > >
      > > AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama. Your response?
      > >
      > > JOHAN GALTUNG: Totally unrealistic and extremely badly informed, and
      > > that from such an intelligent, such a charming man with such a
      > brilliant
      > > rhetoric.
      > > Those exact words by Galtung about Obama in 2010 could have been said
      > > about Woodrow Wilson in 1918: Totally unrealistic and extremely badly
      > > informed! The most tragic thing about Wilson -- apart from getting
      > the
      > > (totally debased) Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 after being hailed in
      > Paris
      > > like Jesus riding into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (just like Obama, who
      > > found it necessary to inform his supporters before inauguration that
      > he
      > > wasn't born in a manger) -- the worst thing is that all of Wilson's
      > > successors have been looking up to him like a role model to be
      > emulated.
      > > And listening to Obama is like hearing the echo of Wilson -- pretty
      > > ox-poo rhetoric. And the world never learns, apparently -- it wants to
      > > be deceived.
      > >
      > > Tarjei
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
      > > fts.trasla@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > On the subject of Der Staudi's distorting mirror world, I've been
      > > looking into a little more detail at the later half of the C18 history
      > > of the Austria-Hungary 'empire'/'state'…? It's hard to find the
      > > right name for it as it was such a patch-work of languages (11
      > > recognised), peoples and ethnicities, sometimes described as
      > > 'ramshackle' or 'decaying' in English circles. Wiki has this to say
      > on
      > > the nationalities issue:
      > > > --------
      > > > http://southerncrossreview.org/Ebooks/ebbasicissues2.htm
      > > >
      > > > Note 15: Page 139 President Wilson's 'fourteen points' constituted
      > the
      > > ideological basis for the principle of 'self-determination of
      > peoples',
      > > which was to underlie the political restructuring of Europe after the
      > > war. This principle presupposes that ethnic groups (peoples, nations)
      > > are perfectly separable and definable, like so many individual pieces
      > of
      > > a jigsaw puzzle. If each governs itself through its own national
      > state,
      > > then the cause of political morality is served. In fact, Europe was
      > and
      > > is a quilt of nations with many overlapping ethnic 'grey' regions. The
      > > effect of self-determination or the 'nationalities principle' is the
      > > disenfranchisement of many smaller or larger minorities with the
      > > resultant bitterness and frustration. The course of history since this
      > > principle was put into effect in Europe and elsewhere would seem to
      > > support such criticism. Winston Churchill wrote the following about
      > the
      > > carving up of the Austro-Hungarian empire: 'The second cardinal
      > tragedy
      > > was the complete break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire...There is
      > not
      > > one of these peoples or provinces that constituted the Empire of the
      > > Hapsburgs to whom gaining their independence has not brought the
      > > tortures which ancient poets and theologians had reserved for the
      > > damned.' The Second World War, Vol. 1, Chap. i, The Gathering Storm.
      > > According to the idea of the 'social triformation', or 'threefold
      > > society', the nationalities (ethnic) problem can only be solved by
      > > liberating 'national' life from the power of the political state. In
      > > other words, the creation of a free cultural-spiritual sector.
      > > >
      > >
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic