I have been looking through newspaper and magazine archives hoping to find a clue why Farwerck and a few others left so soon. I have not found a definitive answer yet, but perhaps painting the history of the organisation as portrayed by these sources could be helpful.
As we saw, the society was founded in November 1931 in Utrecht as announced in different newspapers. 9 Days after the announcement of the foundation, Farwerck and a few other founders left.
In the newspaper Barchem bladen in 1931 an author quotes an invitation that he received concerning the first meeting of the society.
Only an organic (aristocratical-patriarchical-hierarchical) common living to the Divine Law – Ara Rita, supported by free Aryan (=nobel) people will lead a people to its highest education, to culture.
Also a focus on Christianity shines through. In advertisements -seemingly from the society itself- it is mentioned that the group is aligned to the “Guido von List-Gesellschaft” and the “Edda-Gesellschaft”. Of course this can mean that the people behind the society were inspired by these organisations or simply used the names to boast their own, but it could also mean that they connected themselves to Ariosophic thinking.
In a magazine that also published a few texts of Farwerck, Eigen Volk, there are reports of the group’s meetings. Initially these reports are positive. In 1931 there is a text trying to debunk allegations that the group would be “theosophical, anti-semitic and fascistic”. The first meeting was attended by only 30 people and even a few people who would originally lecture were absent. Chairman J.R. de Haan did most of the talking. Another speaker by the name of Kan talked about the secret doctrine which brought him negative reactions from the attendees. The third lecture was by J.H. Dubbink about the investigations into language by Guido von List was also not received with only enthusiasm. At the end of the meeting a board was elected, consisting of Haan, Van Dissen, Dubbink, De Haay, Croockewit, Schut and Hep. So already here there are no Farwerck or Heyting. It is beginning to seem that even before the first meeting, they withdrew their support.
When there were critical reactions to the references to Guido von List, a lengthy and critical article about the society appeared in the magazine Aristo (no. 6) which aimed its arrows at the using of Hermann Wirth.
In December 1931 another name among the founders, D. van Hinloopen Labberton, published his resignation in De Telegraaf about the biggest Dutch newspaper. He writes that he is a pacifist who is member of no society which does not aim at the harmony of different peoples and races. Obviously, the society had the name of being nationalistic.
Still, the society itself distanced itself from “religious, political and neutral currents and parties”.
The society made the news for some years to come. In my previous text about Ariosophy I have looked a bit into the people involved in the Nederlands Ario-Germaansch Genootschap, but about most I did not find much. It is too bad that this chairman Haas has such a generic name as it could be interesting to learn a bit more about him.
The temporary conclusion is that it seems that people whom Farwerck knew had the idea to start a new society. They approached (known) people to boast their importance, but when some of these people either learned what the society was really about or when they met the people behind it, decided that they did not want to be associated with it and took public distance.