Posted on 04/02/2010 3:52:09 AM PDT by Achwoherdenn
A description of Reinhold Schneiders activity in the publicist opposition against the Nazi regime in Germany and his historical-philosophical insights, as he presented them in 1946 in his book "Homecoming of the German Spirit".
(Excerpt) Read more at monarchieforum.org ...
Written and translated from the german language version by Andreas Haas
Today, good than twenty years after the system antagonism, it is a good idea to read books that were written before in the zones occupied by the western allies the era of Konrad Adenauer began, of whose „fug“ one tried to liberate oneself sexually 1968 and thereafter. Liberty is also a matter in Reinhold Schneiders Homecoming of the german spirit. On the image of Christ in the german philosophy of the 19th century, published 1946 in the city of Baden-Baden by the Hans Bühler jr. Verlag.
Schneider (1903-1958) was, when we speak about the publizist confrontation with the political-ideological system, whose casualty a considerable part of the Germans became early in 1933, the leading head of the resistance. In Karl Ludwig Freiherr von und zu Guttenbergs monthly publication „Weiße Blätter for History, Tradition and State“ (literally: „white leafes for ...“), whose appearance stopped not until 1943 due to paper shortages, he had regularly published book recensions and essays to historical and religious-philosophical questions, which left and in many cases also disrupted the frame of the ideological Gleichschaltung (literally: „uniformity“).
Therein also current and by the daily press discussed topics were picked up occasionally. „What is actually german?“ Concerning that question one can speak by all means, at least in the early phase, of opinion pluralism. Just because the open discourse was no longer possible, this basic question was fought all the more passionate, the more it touched the core of the german identity. The art was to pick up such debates. To a real storm in the „Reichs“-Blätterwald (literally: „wood of leaves in the 'empire'“, methaphorical term for press landscape, quotation marks around „empire“ imply the „third reich“ be considered no legitimate successor of the first two empires, with the first lasting 800-1806 AD and the second 1871-1918) it came in spring 1935, after so heavy tumults had occured in the theatre of the city of Hagen during the performing of a neopagan stage play, that the performance could not be finished before police and SA (abbreviation for „Sturm Armee“, i.e. Nazis civil war militia „storm army“) had removed the „young lads“ from „catholic circles“. The subject of that stage play, which in it's shameless onesidedness reminds to Rolf Hochhuts „The Deputy“ (a stage play from 1963 that broarches the issue of Pope Pius' XII. „role“ in the holocaust), was the historical conflict between the founder of the empire Kaiser Charlemagne and the duke of Saxony Widukind — the leading role.
This attack from the pen of a trailer of the Ludendorff movement (neopagan movement of „german-blievers“) was directed against the Roman Catholic Church. That was the occasion for the „Weißen Blätter“ to take a firm stand! The february issue brought in the column „votes and judgments“ two reprinted articles from the paper „Germania“ about the course of the drama presentation and for defence of Charlemagnes sanctification by Frederick Barbarossas antipope Paschal III., and from Reinhold Schneider it published an appraisal of the historical work of the poetry Richarda Huch, which had been released already in the year before, in which he dicsussed with a pointed feather the „updating of the history view and it's representation in the recent years“ and as editorial an disquisition on the „God-experience of the peoples“. Speaking up therein directly against nationalsocialism was not possible. All the same Schneiders wake-up call was clearly discernible. Who read then, each access to God through a special „God-bearer people“ must necessarily lead to a situation, where though „the talk is on and on about God“ however „as of a dead“, knew as matter of fact, that the author was not appointed to the casually mentioned „arabs“ and even less to the „russian people“. It was obvious, that nobody in the Soviet Union could be tempted by this false concept of God „without seeing through it“, because there God was precisely not „present in the middle of current events, in the political decisions, even in the state“.
To convey the message in such a prompt and clear manner succeeded not always. Here and then there were also contributions, in which terms and thought patterns of the NS-propaganda recurred, so that today's readers must read very closely and think through them, if he is willing to interpret them properly. Understanding them includes also to grasp the value the legal publication of this newspaper did have for the opposition: with the german history as broad theme setting, catholics bound to their tradition and believing protestants could equally be addressed. That was the only way for effecting into the mileeus of both great denominations, in order to tie networks through it's distribution and to work towards a common plane in terms of content and concept. — — —
When the war was over and Germay a desert of wrackage, Reinhold Schneider saw himself probably in the guilt of two close friends and companions: the editor of the newspaper which had served him for almost a decade as a speaking tube, had been arrested after the 20th July 1944 (the day of the failed attempt by colonel lord of Stauffenberg to assassinate Hitler) and killed in the night of the 24th April 1945, and Jochen Klepper, whose poems, church hymns, and fine felt reminiscences to the slipped away Prussia had committed suicide in December 1943, along with his spouse of jewish ancestry Johanna, whose baptism could not have helped her in this world; — shattering the sonnet the escaped dedicated to him, which legally could not appear before 1946.
It was the same year when Schneider released his „Homecoming of the german spirit“. Therein he explores what „the most terrible criminal court of history“ had evoked, that he behold in this „atrocious earth woe“: „Whoever researches truthfully the stream course (note of the author: „of history“), will make the discovery that the stream has breached no dam, which the spirit has not ransacked previously and has blewed no stone gate without the explosive power of the spirit“.
As a blieving catholic he surely could have said also lots about individual guilt. Yet even he himself and his combatants had made certain concessions to that system, — indeed, must make —, since otherwise their articles against this spirit could not have been published. But precisely for that reason nothing else could have come in his mind, than reclaiming the guilt on the fundament of the history of ideas: The „german spirit“, so that spirit, who began to dominate the scientific discourse at german universities at the begin of the 19th century, „is in all its mysteriousness well acquitaned with the secret of the fall, we have done, with the secret of our abysmal guilt; if we would only engage in a true conversation with him, we could adept a lot. Yet it seems as if the world, the impetuous insistence of history, had no time, no place for such a conversation.“ — With these words in the first chapter Schneider reasons the detailed trial in the sense of 1. Joh. 4, 1-3 of this spirit.
In the conversation that follows in the chapters II. to VII. Schneider gives then an overview about the philosophs of the german idealism and their teachings. In his trial he focusses on their image of Christ and the corresponding basic statements and implications in the realm of philosophy of history. All these thinkers had concerned themselfs more or less intensely with the Redeemer and searched to make themselfes a name, by conveying His essence — or rather of what it was for them — into the „language of reason“.
Lessing pleaded, the seek for were better than partaking with the truth, even if one would fail hereby „always and forever“. Instead of the Redeemer he saw in Christ an „enlightened teacher“, condemned the „tyranny of the letter“ and wanted to see history as an „education process“ that was led by God the Father. Yet according to Schneider already Lessing had grasped that „one life could therefor not suffice“, wherefore he then fell into the superstition, man would be sent „more than once to the world“; thus Nitzsches „eternal return“ was already applied as motive in Lessing.
The theme of Kant was „the good moral conduct“, compared to which he called solely „anything else the man … supposes to be able to do, as to become complacent to God“ as „mere religious delusion and after service for God“. Even though Kant must have been very familar with the Holy Scripture and talked even himself about the mans „evil“ and „inverted heart“, he reverted everything towards the rationale. Within the boundaries drawn by him the historical act of Christ as Redeemer was without any meaning, could not contribute to the final intent of the Holy Scripture and was „something entirely indifferent, with which one can hold it, as one likes“. Although Schneider acknowledges that „generas“ had „strenghed and proved from“ from Kant's moral philosophy, but he still considers it as proved that it's „foundations have not reached down deep enough“ and makes the point that „the figure of Christ can outside of history“ be perceived in as few as history can be only perceived „in the light Christ carried into it“.
In Fichte Schneider sees, so to speak, the archetype of someone kept imprisoned in the „dungeon of mere reason“; in this mental constitution he bore his philosophy of the me and not-me, which, due to the atheism controversy initiated 1799 by it, has cost him, his professorship in the city of Jena; as to safe his „unmeasured grown“ me, he felt forced to intensify is cell walls with new elements and talked since then, referring to the „message of Jesus Christ“, about the „insight into the absolute unity of human being with the divine“, with what he succeeded to become rehabilitated as professor in 1805 in the city of Erlangen. Instead of Christs historical redeemer act, he set the „metaphysical“ that would make „only true“. Here Schneider cites Kant who had spoke of the historical redeemer act as „the salto mortale of human reason“ that would have mattered with Fichte: „the thinker should have once fallen on his knees and bring the voice of divine love the sacrifice of his thinking“. — Base patterns of Fichtes philosophy later showed up at the Ludendorff movement.
The potency of the philosophy of history first Hegel had realized. With his „philosophy of world history“, Schneider writes, he exploited „as with a blast spaces and times, the huge dimension of the earth drama to the thinking“. Apparently under the impression of the french revolution, which at first delighted him, but then repuled him, he had the audacity to hardwire his philosophy with a caricature of the Most Holy Trinity, as to underpin it „christian“! The interpretation and the content of history degenerated into a mental game between with each other warring subjects of world history with an ever more substantiating „world spirit“ in the position of an arbitrator in the manner of a God substitute. In these as spirits comprehended subjects, where one had it to do „not with individuals or with the restriction of or the decline to the particular individuality“, Schneider recognizes the „spirit of the german people“ (in german: „deutscher Volksgeist“), whith whose victory during the hyper-germanizing (in german: „deutschtümelnd“) March 1848 and the overthrow of the Hohenzollern-monarchy in November 1918 some kind of Hitler was predetermined.
This is valid all the more, as Hegel had segmented the world history into epochs, whose third would be „carried by the germanic people“. Creation of the realm of „concrete freedom“ were the task of the germanic people, whose empire would have to be the temporal completion of history. This concept, to which, according to Schneider, „history has responded with a terrible scorn“, was the more fatal as it had established at the universities long before Hitler came to power, so that one had to count with caveat from the academic side, if one questioned the „spirit of the german people“. This applied particularly also for „the history“ as the instance, which would reinterpret today's injustice into the justice of tomorrow, since after Hegel „every time that people“ would be „at the time and the ruling“, which had taken „the highest concept of the spirit“; it could though happen „that peoples of not so high concepts“ would remain, yet they would be „set to side in world history“; the „becoming“ (future) deemed always as „higher“ than the (past) „becoming“ towards it would always be in the „right“. „Holy“ thus became according to Schneider „the ruling, in the power of history standing state“.
As a human thinking in historical terms Schneider unquestionable had respect for Hegel, but he became not absorbed in his philosophy. He criticized that „the position where Christ entered into history, where he broke her circle through his victory over death and erected the cross, is not labeled in this concept of history as entrance and departure gate, as the 'door' through which we have to walk living and dying, if we want to come out from history and reach eternity“. Here we may not conceal that Karl Marx via Feuerbach also draw this muddy source. Like Hitler could be seen as „the finisher of the german people spirit“ in terms of Hegels, so one had in the Soviet Union to fall into delight when talk was about the „class spirit“ and it's historical mission. Yet according to Iwan Iljin (1883-1954) the Left Hegelians had „actually understood nothing, and distorted everything“, which was „the case particularly with Karl Marx“ whose „empirical dialectic baubles reaches not even into the hallway of Hegels philosophy of world history“. That Marx still held up Hegel could be explained with the former having been, according to Richard Wurmbrand (1909-2001), a „Satanist“.
Schelling, the aging particularly, is seen very positive by Schneider. He recognizes approaches of a try to „reconcile philosophy and revelation, to find home from the cold loneliness of the with himself talking spirit, in enormous claims in vain for sufficiency aspiring spirit“ with Hegel, back „into Gods temple — not in a man-made temple“. Schelling's goal of a „revival of the tradition“ as „task for philosophy and remedy for the „under great ills“ suffering time merely Hegels defenders had been contrary, adverse to whom he had made the concession that one „must have“ a system and „one system can be disproved only by some other system“. Schellings dream of a „revival of religion through highest science“ thus remained unfulfilled.
The dashing of the „longed conqueror of Hegel“ at the „will to system“ was the more tragic as he had realized and clearly termed Lessings and Kants errors: „The real content of Christianity however is the person of Christ alone … Christ is not the teacher, as they say, Christ is not the founder, he is the content of Christianity.“
In tracing an image van Gogh's coined on Nietzsche, in which „the circle of prisoners“ „turns under massive walls“, Schneider recalls with a mocking „Is not the whole eternity mine?“ to the words of Lessing, with which he, in a sense, said farewell to this world. In Nietzsche he finds et al. „the criticism of his time and it's unreason (literally: „Ungeist“, meaning un-spirit), which affected in many cases the right and still was not taken to heart“, „the beguiling melody of a soul, which has sentenced itself to the death of loneliness, the unique spectacle of a human burning himself“; finally „a tree, that wanted to became a torch, that was he himself“ and „here the death is powerful, as death, that consumes itself“.
Where Nietzsche in his „Antichrist“ thunders against all those „who have blood of theologians in their body“, Schneider sees „the son of the pastor of the village Röcken“ curse against his father. Although he is dismayed, that Nietzsche „asked with terrible earnest, for the honesty and breadth of Christianity“ and still got „no response“, he still advocates, that Nietzsche „against his will“ was seeking even „in the fire of his hatred, to rescue a small space“ for „the bearer of the 'merry message', as he understood it“ and sees him — even in his figure of the antichrist — in constant conflict with the „power of Christ“, that „became objectively to him, in the moment, when it's mere being was denied“.
In his „Zarathustra“ then recognizes the „business beyond all measure“, with which few years before highways were built „on wich — in the hour of history — the conquerer“ would arrive and he calls Nietzsche a „poor servant of Hegel's world spirit“, who „in advance has felt and celebrated“ the collapse. — In these words one can literally see Hitler, who in his last days declared calmly, that the german people has „turned out to be the weaker one“ and „the future“ therefore would now be the ownership of the „the more powerfull eastern-people“. Although Europe and Germany lay in ashes, but the Hegelian „world spirit“ whom he served, had survived and it's thirst for blood had been breastfed.
In his chapter on Nietzsche Schneider also speaks up against any try to wash away guilt with philosophy: „Guilt remains guilt. We are destined to confessors, not to judges, to repentance and atonement, not to apologia“. Still more important than this is to him, that „the peoples recognize again, what history always was: the interplay of grace and challenge, in which the man is called“. Schneider senses the danger, that „the arena of these years in it's tremendous dimension flattens to a civil tribunal“, because then „the deads have died in vain, the sufferings were suffered in vain“ and „the challenge would today — or tomorrow — triumph.“
Unfulfilled until this day remains his hope, „that the world learns, to face the deathly seriousness of the challenge in trust on Him, whom is given all authority in heaven and on earth, that might possibly be a start, that could tear off this terrible chain. However the start would still have to be more inward, more silent: the world musted learn again to pray: 'Lead us not into temptation.'“
Comfort and a possible home for the german spirit seeks and finds Reinhold Schneider, who had fought probably in all his writings for the actual german not to be confused with what he has recognized as the root cause for all this misery, not before the last chapter on the „pious to Frankfurt“: in his „Booklet of complete life“ from the 15th or late 14th century „when perhaps the phase began, that now must be overcome“ he differed „between true and false, divine and natural light, which itselfs wakes up true and false love. In true light God reveals himself, and the love that is 'taught and led' by this light 'follows him and fulfilles his commandment'. … The false light however is turned to the 'I, me, mine'; it's love does not seek God, but rather itself, even though it imagines to recognize 'God and the louder witless truth'.“
„And this“, Schneider regives the Frankfurter, „happens most of all there, where high natural reason is; because it rises so high in it's own light and in itself, that in itself finally thinks it was the true eternal light, and as such passes off itself and thus itself is deceived and deceives with itself the people, who know nothing better and also are inclined thereto.“
In the finish he explains then with words of the Frankfurter:
Even if it were possible, that the wrong, natural light „would recognize God and quite right the united truth, it would not let off from ownership, that is from itself and from it's own“. The reason is that the false light believes to be beyond about Christ and the „life of Christ“. It's self-will would have died on the cross. For the „cross is nothing than the life of Christ, it is a bitter cross for all nature. But the false light loves onle „it's in itself“. This is it's being, it's terrible fate: „It wants not to be Christ, but it wants to be God in his eternity.“
This light that doesn't want to be Christ, yet is light; it is capable to blend centuries with it's tremendous brilliance. But we reach with these words to the uttermost possiblity of distinction and decision, the responsibility in the spiritual life of the world: We must ask the light, whether it wants to be Christ. This will of the light can not remain hidden; it also can not deceive. The prism of the truth makes it evident. In the light of the life of Christ the pious saw the creatures as an „command and a way to God“, the time and temporality already as a blessed „outer baily and outskirt of eternity“, the world was open to him, the creatured all a message of God, the earth a garden, in which only one tree was forbidden: the will, that does not want to die on the cross, want to not be Christ.
History knows no coming back, no recurrence in the literal sense. But also it is an „command and a way to God“. Through the experienced and all the misery of experience — not through denial of misery — leads the way to Christ, leads Christ, the Lord of history, the humanity and with it all creature home to God. Where the cross stands, the spirit is asked, if it wants to be Christ. Against his will, under the authority of grace, the spirit has helped in the construction of the immense cross of these years. Now the cross, that he has raised, asks him whether he wants to be Christ.
Thanks for posting. German philosophy is a tragedy. Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism . . . most of the big isms are rooted in it. And it was a rebellion against Christ and an aspiration to godhood. Interesting that it took root in the German people . . . I always think of the tribes in the woods taunting the Romans . . . free people . . . when I think of the ancient Germans.
Achtually, when you jump from german philosophs of the 19th century back right to the heathen german tribes who resisted the romans you ignore lots that was inbetween. The most important you forget is certainly the french revolution. It is probably more instructive to realize that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was to Napoleon Bonaparte, like Hegel was to Hitler.
That means: before the Germans rebelled against God the French did ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.