en inte så självklar självklarhet

Ur en kommentar:

Inte ens en självklarhet som att en majoritet av antroposoferna var emot Hitler tros på.

Helt enkelt av den enda anledningen att denna utsagas verklighetsförankring är långt i från ‘en självklarhet’. Som jag skrev i mitt svar kan man hålla det för mer eller mindre troligt — men någon självklarhet är det då rakt inte.

Annat än möjligen för den, som föreställer sig att antroposoferna var (och är) förmer än andra, som tror att antroposofernas förment högre insikter ledde just dem till att genomskåda den grymma regimen på ett sätt som andra medborgare inte förmådde göra. Varför ska vi — icke-antroposofer — bara tro på, utan belägg, att antroposofer var ‘bättre’ än andra tyskar under Hitler-eran? I synnerhet när antroposofin innehåller dessa element av rasism, och det är belagt att åtskilliga prominenta antroposofer stödde nazist-regimen? (Se länkar i inlägget.) Var alla andra antroposofer mer moraliskt högstående än såväl dessa prominenta antroposofer som resten av samhället? Knappast.

Det krävs verkligen lite mer för att ‘självklarheten’ ska framstå som sannolik, när till och med det Antroposofiska Sällskapets internationella styrelse — vid Goetheanum i Dornach, Schweiz — gjorde sig besväret att skriva till den tyske Führern. Brevet, som undertecknades av Günther Wachsmuth, Albert Steffen och Steiners efterlevande maka, Marie Steiner von Sievers, sändes till Hitler i november 1935. Aktion Kinder des Holocaust publicerar brevet här. Ett utdrag:

Die Allgemeine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, die im Jahre 1923 von Dr. Rudolf Steiner konstituiert und begründet wurde, hat zu irgendwelchen freimaurerischen, jüdischen, pazifistischen Kreisen irgendwelche Beziehungen oder auch nur Berührungspunkte nicht gehabt. Die arische Abstammung Rudolf Steiners ist überdies vom Rassepolitischen Amt in Berlin ausdrücklich bestätigt worden. Auch die Bezeichnung der Gesellschaft als ,international eingestellt’ ist in dem in der Auflösungsbegründung gebrauchten Sinne durchaus unzutreffend, da die Beziehungen unter den Mitgliedern der einzelnen Länder sich lediglich auf den Gedankenaustausch in wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Fragen beschränken, wie ihn jede gute wissenschaftliche und künstlerische Vereinigung in Deutschland und im Ausland pflegt. [. . .] Die Allgemeine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, die in allen Kulturstaaten der Erde (mit Ausnahme von Sowjet-Russland) durch Mitgliedergruppen vertreten ist, fühlt sich dem deutschen Geistesleben besonders verpflichtet und schaut deshalb in grosser Besorgnis auf das Schicksal ihrer deutschen Freunde. Wir bitten daher Ew. Excellenz, bei den zuständigen Instanzen die Aufhebung der diskriminierenden Bezeichnung als “staatsfeindlich” und die Rückgängigmachung der Auflösung gütigst veranlassen zu wollen.
Wir haben die Ehre, Ew. Excelenz die Versicherung unserer ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung auszusprechen.
Der Vorstand der Allgemeinen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft
gez. Albert Steffen, Marie Steiner, geb. v. Sivers, Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth

Tom Melletts engelska översättning av brevet kan läsas här. Vad beträffar Wachsmuth, skriver Michael Eggert:

Wachsmuths an anderem Ort (Ekstrabladet, Kopenhagen, 6.6.1933) geäußerte Sympathie und “Bewunderung” (“es soll kein Geheimnis sein, daß wir mit Sympathie auf das schauen, was z. Zt. in Deutschland geschieht”) lässt vermuten, dass es sich nicht nur um strategische Positionierungen der Anthroposophen gehandelt haben kann.

Som Peter Staudenmaier skriver i det citat jag postade i en kommentar i går:

The initial responses by anthroposophist leaders to the rise of Nazism included a number of markedly positive appraisals. In June 1933, for example, Guenther Wachsmuth, Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, gave an interview to the Danish newspaper Ekstrabladet in Copenhagen (published in their June 6, 1933 issue). When asked about the relationship between anthroposophy and the Nazi government, Wachsmuth explicitly noted his “sympathy” and “admiration” for the new rulers of Germany. (Wagner I p. 41) The newspaper titled the interview “Anthroposophists and Nazis Hand in Hand” with the subtitle “Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth from the Goetheanum in Switzerland declares his sympathy for Hitler” (ibid. p. 40) In private correspondence, Wachsmuth characterized his relationship with Nazi officials as “friendly” (Werner p. 37).

Man kan verkligen undra på vilken grund det är en ‘självklarhet’ att de flesta antroposofer var Hitler-motståndare. Till och med det Antroposofiska Sällskapets styrelse, vars medlemmar själva alltså befann i antroposofins internationella högborg i Dornach i Schweiz (och således, för att poängtera det uppenbara, inte i Hitler-Tyskland), framstår ju mer eller mindre som Hitler-vänner.

________________________________

Tillägg: Man kan också ta en titt på waldorfskoleanhängarnas attityd gentemot naziregimen.

Four years later, after Mergenthaler’s final blow against the Stuttgart Waldorf school in 1938, 363 parents from the school signed a letter to Hess and Goering asking that Mergenthaler’s order to close the school be rescinded. The letter read in part:

“The Waldorf school in Stuttgart was founded as a bulwark against the corrosive powers of intellectualism and materialism in 1919, when our Volk was at its lowest point politically and culturally. […] Already at that time, when international tendencies were dominant, and despite facing strong hostility, the school consistently cultivated German spiritual life and built the entire education of the children on this basis. Eighteen years of experience have proven that through the Waldorf school, our children are being brought up to be hardworking, full-fledged members of the national community, healthy in body and soul. We are therefore convinced that the educational work of the Waldorf school can be successfully made fruitful for the cultural rebuilding of our Volk within the framework of the National Socialist state.”

(Eingabe der Elternschaft der Stuttgarter Waldorfschule, March 14, 1938; the 363 signatories span the spectrum of Waldorf parents and include Eugen and Margarete Link, Emil Kühn, Erich Schwebsch, Hanns Voith, Erich Gabert, Ernst Bindel, Erwin Schühle, Irma Haas-Berkow, Franz Lippert, Carl Stegmann, Margarita Karutz, and Friedrich Kipp.)

För mer belägg av samma art, se källa. Se också här:

A similar 1936 letter from 230 parents at the Waldorf school in Hamburg-Wandsbek insisted that Waldorf pedagogy “fulfills the educational principles established by the Führer himself.” The letter cited several passages from Mein Kampf to substantiate this claim.

5 thoughts on “en inte så självklar självklarhet

  1. Yes, it is foolish and self-serving for anthroposophists to imagine that they are more far-sighted or morally superior to non-anthroposophists.
    Steiner did warn people that one of the potential effects of starting on a path of inner development is that one may become MORE egotistical, not less.

  2. Well, it’s almost as if he were clairvoyant ;-)

    These are not very appealing traits, and they touch upon something else he said: it’s no point in telling people anthroposophy isn’t a cult, when anthroposophists act as if it were one.

  3. “it’s no point in telling people anthroposophy isn’t a cult, when anthroposophists act as if it were one.”

    Very well put.

  4. Ah, but Steiner did state that anthroposophy was a Reverse-Cult. By that he meant that any religious expression in church was a “normal” cult (and remember “cult” then did not have the crazed New Age connotation it has now)

    For example, when someone would go to Mass (or to the Christian Community rip-off called the “Act of Consecration of Man,” he or she would be in a passive, or receiving relationship to the beings of the spiritual world. Blessings, revelations, grace, etc., would all flow DOWN from above onto the devout church goer.

    However, once you became an anthroposophist, then the direction would reverse —that is to say that you would be actively gathering spiritual experiences and such on the earth which you would then “offer up,” as it were, to the gods and angels above.

    Another way of looking at it is to say that the angels themselves would go to their “church” which was the innermost being of a human being.

    He explains all this in the “Awakening to Community” lectures of 1923 where he also states that the Christian Community (and other religious services) were for those people who were not yet ready to be anthroposophists.

    I suppose you could then look at attending religious services as “riding the bicycle of anthroposophy with training wheels.”

Comments are closed.