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

Rudolf Hess

Expand Messages
  • at@ael...
    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
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Peter Staudenmaier
      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
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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

        Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
        Für die Bilder Ihrer Lieben - Yahoo! Fotos - kostenlos!

      • holderlin66
        Bradford comments; Let me see if this wine taste bitter, errr better!! The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 25, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Bradford comments;

          Let me see if this wine taste bitter, errr better!!

          "The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not
          refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bour­geois"
          economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating
          the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally
          demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the un­soundness of
          their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical
          methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It
          has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the
          absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology.
          Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold
          on the modern mind."

          What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx

          "The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own
          brand.

          http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457

          "Until the middle of the nineteenth century no one ventured to
          dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable
          and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based
          on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to
          each other only because we can appeal to something com­mon to all of
          us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think
          deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who
          unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of
          deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to
          follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same
          ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men.
          There are people who cannot count further than three; but their
          counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or
          Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowl­edge
          of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not
          grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is
          true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But who­ever
          examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.

          Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter
          into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and
          books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual
          coöperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our
          minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of
          different logical structures or a logical structure different from
          our own.

          Yet, in the course of the nineteenth century this undeniable fact
          has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them
          the "proletarian philosopher" Dietzgen, taught that thought is
          determined by the thinker's class position. What thinking produces
          is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of
          Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social
          class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore
          useless to discuss anything with people of another social class.
          Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they
          must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social
          background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the
          merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois"
          origin of the physicists."

          Bradford concludes;

          I did not know that Marxist thinking was so like, so like, what is
          the example I am looking for?
        • at@ael...
          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
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:49 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
          • holderlin66
            ... holderlin66 wrote: Now here is some good whine...no I meant wine, vat is da mattter mit me? The German nationalists had to face
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 25, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,

              "holderlin66" <holderlin66@h...> wrote:

              Now here is some good whine...no I meant wine, vat is da mattter mit
              me?

              "The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as
              the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correct­ness of
              their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and
              praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of poly­logism,
              prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they con­cocted their
              own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is
              different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has
              its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics,
              and so on.

              But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor
              Tirala, his counterpart as cham­pion of Aryan epistemology, declares
              that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are
              those of the Aryans.[xiii] In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo,
              Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois;
              in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One
              of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from
              the pollution of the Western philoso­phies of Descartes, Hume, and
              John Stuart Mill. They are insearch of arteigen[xiv]German science,
              that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the
              Germans.

              We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man's mental abilities
              are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we can­not
              demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it
              possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as ex­
              pressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize
              that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts
              result.

              We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects pro­duced by
              traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we
              know that such damage may restrict or completely de­stroy the mental
              abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less
              than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us
              with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical
              structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or
              anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.

              Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to
              declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various
              classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in
              what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the
              bour­geois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic
              of the Jews or the British.

              It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ri­cardian theory of
              comparative cost or the Einstein theory of rela­tivity by unmasking
              the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is
              first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan
              logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these
              two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning
              inferences are made which—although correct from the viewpoint of non-
              Aryan logic—are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And,
              finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the
              replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan
              inferences must lead to.

              But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody.
              The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor
              Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and
              non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever,
              has never entered into details."

              Bradford concludes;

              I guess they never met Peter.
            • Peter Staudenmaier
              Hi Daniel, you wrote: Peter, you state that ...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources... I am hoping you can be more specific,
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 25, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                 
                 

                Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
                Für die Bilder Ihrer Lieben - Yahoo! Fotos - kostenlos!

              • Frank Thomas Smith
                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
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 26, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  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

                • holderlin66
                  ... holderlin66 What thinking produces is not truth but ideologies. This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 26, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,

                    "holderlin66"

                    "What thinking produces
                    is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of
                    Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social
                    class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore
                    useless to discuss anything with people of another social class.
                    Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they
                    must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social
                    background, of their authors."

                    Bradford attempts to illuminate;

                    You see, we have ideologies. We are members of the Michael School
                    club, we have got the letters, the baseball caps (which
                    incidentally, I want to get a start up company that really produces
                    neat baseball caps that have STEINER boldly on them for distribution
                    and mail order) plus many here play in the Steiner Rock Band and
                    School orchestra. There is the Eurythmy glee club, those rollicking
                    cheerleaders with their sexy outfits...And those sour Rabbinical
                    Waldorf Teachers all dressed in the latest Steiner Smock.

                    If someone were to argue with us, well for them, Ideologies are as
                    good as races, relgions, country clubs and gated communities. In
                    fact think of Gated Communites. We have them all over America.
                    Hopefully those Gated Communities will contain demographically like
                    minded, like incomed souls with the same values. The same watered
                    down and bullshit American values, but that is what we pay for in
                    living in a Gated Community. You can go to any dinner party and
                    really just hear the same ole stuff because of the social class that
                    you have chosen to hide in.

                    If you are a member of the Michael club... you might get responses
                    like, "I prefer to discuss it this particular way, because what
                    would be the point in saying, the people in my low rent, Ahrimanic
                    mind set community, my materialistic community, really don't care
                    for your stinking Steiner ideologies". For the world is now in a
                    place where pockets of fragmented belief systems collect themselves,
                    and incestually talk amongst themselves.

                    If suddenly a different race or religion were to suddenly move in or
                    rent a house in this already distinct community, well, people would
                    take notice, they would respond. Prejudice would fly. OOOps there
                    goes the neighborhood. The housing values go down, people leave the
                    schools.. a real Love Canal.. of ecological or soico-ecological
                    poison is released.

                    How can I better put this? The thinking mind, the skull, the very
                    substance of our souls, and Christine is right to point to idiots in
                    science trying to prove humanity has a soul or that humans have
                    astral out of the body experience, but they didn't ask us. The
                    article she presented was right to declare that such thinking is
                    beyond the scope of most thinkers and it would entail crossing the
                    line to another "Ideology".

                    These Ideologies, for some of us who have failed to catch up, have
                    nothing to do with great bogus humanitarian brotherhood and global
                    cosmopolitan hand holding and tree hugging, no. Rather they have to
                    do, with how the intellect, the materialistic intellect has defined,
                    not sweeping spiritual issues, but rather, pockets of isolated,
                    protected, enfranchised and specific communities of ideologies.
                    Gated communites, members only clubs and members only lists.

                    You see how even a list becomes a Gated Village and a visitor would
                    stay clear of treating the content or substance as anything but a
                    highly protected klan of Ideologies, which each differnt brain and
                    soul gathers around itself? For them, this has nothing to do with
                    the objectivity of the world but rather appears as the highest level
                    of the subjectivity of the world.
                  • holderlin66
                    ... holderlin66 We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man s mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we can­not
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 26, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,

                      "holderlin66"

                      "We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man's mental abilities
                      are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we can­not
                      demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it
                      possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as ex­
                      pressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize
                      that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts
                      result."

                      Bradford asks;

                      Mental abilities = bodily features. Think of the implications of
                      this statement. Care to examine this hypothesis? Let see now. You
                      look Chinese so you must be able to speak Chinese and as Steiner has
                      indicated in the Egyptian Iblis research, Speech brings forth
                      Thought, so you must be thinking as Chinese think. Therefore your
                      relation to "The Great Wall of China"..(I'm sounding like the
                      character in Princess Bride when he discusses Australians) your
                      relation to the Great Wall of China, puts you out of touch with
                      western civilization and subject to the ant mentality of the ancient
                      pre-egohood of Atlanteans.

                      Why? Because not only can we see the Great Wall of China from the
                      Moon but it was a deliberate occult attempt to make the thinking of
                      the Chinese and all those souls who need to dip back into Chinese
                      incarnations, as a refresher course of Atlantean will forces and
                      iron bound family ties.

                      You also, must be gifted in the Art of Kung Fu because you have
                      slanted eyes and make screechy noises when you punch things. Your
                      bodily features tell me that you are catlike, tricky and not to be
                      trusted. I know this because I've seen a Bruce Lee movie. Anyone who
                      promotes Bruce Lee and Kung Fu movies obviously have Racial
                      motivations and their intentions are racist. For them it is "nichts
                      weniger als" all those western devils. Therefore Bruce Lee and the
                      cult of the Crow, Bruce Lee and "Kung Pow! Enter the Fist" are
                      promoting racial doctrines.

                      Then we trace back the different pictographic reading from top to
                      bottom and how alien it is to those who read from left to right or
                      from right to left, we begin to see the entire conspiracy of the
                      brain. It is all full of brain imbedded and body type realities. As
                      those various races developed with their reading and writing counter
                      to all Aryan traditions look what happened to the brains of the
                      Hebrews? You see Aryan traditions and the changing of brain
                      patterns from ancient pictograph and hieroglyphics to writing must
                      be considered. For those tricky Chinese still use the vertical
                      pictographic method of reading and writing. Just think of the
                      implications of such crap if it is still taught in their schools.

                      But by all means, avoid in your discussion the idea that Picture
                      Consciousness was denied, no images were allowed the Hebrew People.
                      Why, well it was either antisemitic or anti-aryan. Once they lost
                      all those wild pagan images and were forced to retrain their
                      imaginations, the Hebrews became coin counters and bookies...

                      Whoever it was that shifted the Hebrew People out of Imaginations,
                      Memories-Dreams and Reflections- obviously made way for Freud. The
                      height of reducing the brain waves of the Hebrew People to the dry
                      counting of math had intentional fruit of producing not only
                      Einstein but the Rothchilds and there you have it.. Moses with his
                      silly Egyptian experience messed up the entire universe and that is
                      why we have the atomic bomb today.

                      You see the atomic bomb is math to the math of Oppenheimer and
                      Einstein and instead of the Messiah, they got Einstein's flowering
                      of the Messiah in the math of the bomb, all because of reshaping the
                      brain to fit racial characteristics.Whose fault was it? Moses.

                      Bradford
                    • at@ael...
                      Peter Staudenmaier: Various observers report that Hess structured his diet and his health care around anthroposophist beliefs (see Roger Manvell and Heinrich
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 26, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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
                         
                      • at@ael...
                        Daniel wrote: Peter, you state that ...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources... I am hoping you can be more specific, because I
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 26, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                        • Peter Staudenmaier
                          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
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 26, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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
                             

                            Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
                            Für die Bilder Ihrer Lieben - Yahoo! Fotos - kostenlos!

                          • Detlef Hardorp
                            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
                            Message 13 of 18 , Feb 27, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment

                              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 over­head. '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 sooth­ing 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 instru­ment.) 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 thrum­ming.

                               

                              '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

                               

                               

                            • dottie zold
                              ... 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
                              Message 14 of 18 , Feb 27, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ---> 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

                                __________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
                                http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
                              • winters_diana
                                ... 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
                                Message 15 of 18 , Feb 27, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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
                                • Peter Staudenmaier
                                  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,
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Feb 27, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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
                                     
                                     
                                     

                                    Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
                                    Für die Bilder Ihrer Lieben - Yahoo! Fotos - kostenlos!

                                  • Detlef Hardorp
                                    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
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Feb 27, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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
                                    • at@ael...
                                      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
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Mar 1, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.