read more: PDF: The Disastrous 21st Century, A Eurasian Conflict Imagined in London in 1992

read more: PDF: Commitment, Compromise and Communicide, Inner and outer challenges for the Camphill movement in the UK

Notes on Wilde’s life and his posthumous writing De Profundis

The following contributions have been made on the occasion of the Oscar Wilde Conference organised by Marcus Schneider on 31 May/1 June 2008 at the Scala Basel, where the eurythmy ensemble, Eurythmiegruppe Stuttgart, (artistic director: Elisabeth Brinkmann) performed Wilde’s one-act play Salomé. The play was having its première in 1896 at the time when its author was serving his sentence in Reading Gaol. The following presentation has been edited and at some passages expanded.

Thomas Meyer

read more: PDF: Oscar Wilde and Hubris – Oscar Wilde and the Overcoming of Ambition and Vanity

The book Anthroposophie in Deutschland bears the characteristics of a political broadside by means of which the opponents – in this case Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy – are to be slandered. In order to accomplish this, the author employs various methods and “stratagems” such as, for example, de- contextualising quotations and thus changing their meaning, excluding facts or bringing unsubstantiated claims. Does this only concern a dissenter freely expressing his opinion? Perhaps there is more to it: If it is true that Zander qualified as a university lecturer on the basis of this treatise* then he would not stand alone when under public scrutiny—but also together with all the experts (that are needed in the course of a habilitation) and the faculty members involved, i.e. the “crème de la crème” of the research community. In this case, the question would be: Is it possible that someone who presents a dissertation which so flagrantly disregards research criteria, nevertheless successfully clears all the academic hurdles and attains a university teaching qualification?

Dr. Jutta Schwarz, Zürich

* Ed. comment: The following statement is found in the epilogue of Zander’s book, pg. 1717: “Rüdiger von Bruch, historian at Humboldt University, Berlin, undertook the risk of assuming responsibility for part of this work as fulfilment of a postdoctoral thesis.” Zander does not indicate which part.

Helmut Zander’s publication Anthroposophie in Deutschland – Theosophische Weltanschauung und gesellschaftliche Praxis 1884–1945 (Göttingen 2007) [Anthroposophy in Germany – Theosophical worldview and its social practice 1884 – 1945] has aroused interest and has been met with approval in anthroposophical and other circles. The following analysis shows that Zander dismisses the scientific character of Anthroposophy, without himself having at his disposal a comprehensive, clear concept of scientific research and without himself having undertaken a genuine and serious study of the epistemological foundations of Anthroposophy.

For this reason, Zander’s work—despite a wealth of partially accurate, but also in part plainly incorrect, isolated fragments of information—has the character of a pseudo-scientific polemic against Steiner’s spiritual science. In November Der Europäer published a study by Dr. Peter Selg which provides carefully substantiated evidence that Zander’s representation of the development of anthroposophical medicine is characterised by allegations, half-truths and misjudgements.

Thomas Meyer

Articles by Meyer and Selg can be downloaded here as PDF files (in German):

Thomas Meyer:
Helmut Zander und sein dilettantischer Wissenschaftsbegriff Helmut Zanders voluminöses Vorbeigehen am methodischen Kern der Anthroposophie Rudolf Steiners – ihrer Wissenschaftlichkeit

Dr. Peter Selg:
«Helmut Zander und seine Geschichte der anthroposophischen Medizin» Teil 1

Z. Tóth Csaba

“The federation of Europe is the only hope we have” – Lord Robert Cecil of Chelwood, 1897.

read more: PDF: Abduction of Europe

read more: PDF: Abduction of Europe

read more: PDF: «Mendacity as the basic characteristic of our times»

read more: PDF: A Fundamental Indication of Rudolf Steiner’s, With Relevance to Present-Day Global Politics

The “scientific research” methods of present day opponents of anthroposophy

In connection with the repeated, rehashed claims that Rudolf Steiner’s writings contain racist and anti-Semitic comments, various opponents of Anthroposophy have recently put in the pillory yet again the following statement: “Judaism as such has long since lived itself out and no longer has legitimacy within modern national life. The fact that it has nevertheless preserved itself is a flaw of world history, the consequences of which could not be avoided”. This passage is taken from an essay written by Steiner in 1888 about Robert Hamerling’s epic poem, Homunkulus, in which he defends Hamerling against the accusations raised concerning anti-Semitism following publication of the epic.

Taken in context, the cited comment refers to nothing more than the idea of a self-contained national entity—rejected by many Jews at that time—versus the complete assimilation of the Jewish nation “into modern national life” which many Jews had accomplished previously, over the course of centuries. Already in March 2000, Der Europäer corrected the misinterpretation of this and other passages by Steiner.*

The methods employed by most opponents at that time and also today can be described with the following analogy: Someone writes down the name “Douglas”; someone else comes along and claims that this name must be “taken out of circulation” because every person called by this name would be offended—for the name contains the elements D, O and G which undisputedly spell “DOG”! Using precisely this method, passages of Steiner’s writings are arbitrarily cited out of context and presented as offensive. There is no difference in the level of operation. Those who work with such methods cannot claim scientific credibility or the right to censor Steiner’s writings.

* See (in German)   «Neuere Tendenzen zu geistiger Rückständigkeit…», Thomas Meyer, März 2000)