Prestigious medical journal The Lancet has just published research that will be depressingly predictable to Counterknowledge.com readers. A study into outbreaks of measles over the past twelve months has shown the UK to have one of the highest infection rates in Europe, which will heavily hinder the World Health’s Organisation goal to eliminate it by 2010.
However, it is not just the UK that has unusually large outbreaks. Switzerland, Austria and Italy were also found to suffer from heightened instances of measles, despite vaccination being common practice in all these countries. With the exception of Italy, the reasons for such abnormal infection rates all arise due to a melange of arrogance and irrational stupidity, unique in some way to each region.
The case for the UK is well known: indeed, it is made even more appalling by data released by the Health Protection Agency this week demonstrating that the UK still suffers from an ‘unprecedented’ rise in measles outbreaks. The cause of this dreary statistic is that old chestnut, “the media”, who in general have parroted baseless fears that the MMR vaccine causes autism, even when the research had been conclusively refuted. As the ever-masterful Ben Goldacre has pointed out on many occasions, studies that countered this claim were rarely, if ever, reported on. Comment was instead obtained from scientific experts like, um, Nigella Lawson and Carol Vorderman, with news reports displaying shameful bias toward emotional appeals rather then actual evidence:
Journalists are used to listening with a critical ear to briefings from press officers, politicians, PR executives, salespeople, lobbyists, celebrities and gossip-mongers, and they generally display a healthy natural scepticism: but in the case of science, generalists don’t have the skills to critically appraise a piece of scientific evidence on its merits. At best, the evidence of these “experts” will only be examined in terms of who they are as people, or perhaps who they have worked for. In the case of MMR, this meant researchers were simply subjected to elaborate smear campaigns. (Ben Goldacre)
So far, so predictable. But what about the outbreaks in Switzerland and Austria? It is with regard to these countries that the story takes on a perverse twist. Switzerland’s immunization rate is still sub-par, but rising slowly. When infection does appear, it is likely to spread to areas where vaccine uptake is low; it is also areas where local communities are likely to favour ‘alternative’ practices, such as homoeopathy and anthroposophy. Jean-Luc Richard, a Swiss federal health official, pointed out that in the canton of Lucerne (where alternative medicine is also popular) vaccination coverage resides at only 78%. The recent outbreak in Austria also occurred within a community in which anthroposophy is commonly practiced. It spread to similar communities in Germany and Norway.
Anthroposophy is a flavour of woo that is probably unfamiliar to British readers. Set up by “mystic and social philosopher” Rudolf Steiner, it aims to “combine human development with an investigation of the divine spark found in all of nature”, and favours natural medicine that utilise the body’s “natural” healing system. I think you can see where this is going.
His ideas are taught today through “Waldorf/Steiner” schools. A comprehensive review of their ideas exists at OpenWaldorf.com. Their health section aims to offer parents advice on vaccination, which manages to be both confusing and dangerous.
Waldorf’s official position on immunization is that there is no official Waldorf position on immunization. Instead, Waldorf says that immunization should be informed by medical professionals, and ultimately parents should decide whether or not to immunize their own children.
Typically Waldorf schools do not encourage parents to immunize their children against the following diseases: Hepatitis B; Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis; Haemophilus influenzae Type b; Inactivated Polio; Measles, Mumps, Rubella; Varicella and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV).
What if my child falls ill, or even dies as a result of a preventable disease?
Don’t be alarmed if your child dies from a preventable disease because he/she is not immunized, it was probably their destiny. It clearly wasn’t their destiny to be immunized.
I’m genuinely speechless. If I went over to one of their schools and smacked their doctors in the face, would I get away with it if I claimed, “Weren’t me guv’nor, it was their destiny to be bashed in the face”? Somehow, I doubt it.
I’m a liberal person. I read the Guardian, I eat organic yoghurt and I feel guilty every time I ride in an aeroplane. I generally agree that anyone is free to indulge in whatever silly practices they want, no matter how asinine. But my tolerance is tested to the limit when I hear about needless infection due to such damaging ideas. And those infected are the young and vulnerable: the average age of infection in Switzerland is nine years old.
You may think this a storm in a teacup, considering the tiny rate of measles deaths in Europe. But the disease can spread to poorer areas, where measles deaths are still a reality. (Immigration of the virus from Europe caused outbreaks in South America at the turn of the century, with terrible results.)
Cases of measles caused by various irrational practices cast shame on all of Europe. Those who are least able to protect themselves are suffering, and a mockery is being made of medicine. Until these practices are publically highlighted, the WHO’s goal of measles elimination will never be realised. Let’s start repairing some of that damage right now.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
26 responses
The British disaster has been due only in small part to Dr. Wakefield’s claims, or even to the media. What insured the catastrophe was the hardening of the NHS and political leadership on the MMR vaccine. The fear raised by Dr. Wakefield was that a multiple vaccination would have a violent impact on a child’s developing body. That fear was, I would think, fed by folk memories of such things as the effect of “the needle”, multiple vaccinations brutally delivered to conscripts in the world war and after, which according to legend would knock out battalions of fit young men for weeks. The obvious remedy was to make the vaccinations available individually for parents who wanted them that way; many of whom, indeed, spent their own money and time doing so on their own initiative. Instead of which, the bureaucratic-political complex (which has always been the most poisonous element in England) not only insisted on MMR and MMR alone, but actually made individual vaccination impossible and penalized those who resorted to it. Why? For no better reason than MMR is administratively convenient. To chase up children and families for three separate injections takes time and patience, all things the modern NHS has no desire to spare. So it is MMR or nothing. Well, guess what? It has been nothing. After all, why should parents be allowed to make even the slightest choice about their children, if that choice incommodates their betters?
I wish you’d look deeper into anthroposophy- Rudolf Steiner’s pseudo religious spiritual science, because it’s not just “medicine” that karma prevails, but of course Steiner Waldorf schools.
Anthroposophy guides the education, although it isn’t taught to the children, the teachers use it the classroom and the curriculum is hinged on it.
Apart from being quite hilariously bonkers- ( his evolutionary theory is …amazing….man evolved on planets , the moon and Atlantis, gnomes are real life entities etc etc). The disturbing writing by Steiner, is about race, and reincarnation.
Being a self described “esoteric” belief system, only a few , or “first class” anthroposophists hold all the secret knowledge. Steiner culled all these “truths” by clairvoyant “reading” of the akharsik record.
IAnthroposphy’s central tenets is kept from parents- (unless they are deemed “ready” to step on the “path”)- as you say- how many people have heard of anthroposphy?- it isn’t even in the dictionary. And yet it is at the heart of these schools, which seldom mention it in their “propaganda”.
It’s high time they were open about it.
Camphill Villages, biodynamic farming and “medicine” are all rooted in anthroposphy.
Cathy’s remarks are — frankly — unworthy. And I suspect posted to poke a stick at Waldorf Schools and get a rise out of the anthroposophical community. She has clearly skimmed the surface and drawn conclusions about things of which she has no genuine knowledge. The errors in her posting are so numerous they would require far more time and space to set them aright than belongs in a forum like this. But I would say here that nothing is hidden — anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society exist in the world. This knowledge is available to anyone who seeks it out. The books are on the internet — and even available through Amazon! In addition, there are no gradations of membership and no inner circle of savants– as was suggested. I would warmly suggest — as did Rudolf Steiner — that anyone who comes across the ideas and outcomes of anthroposophy and finds any kind of resonance with them should pursue them in freedom (next to love, perhaps the most important word in anthroposophy!), develop the necessary capacities to discern and judge the content of anthroposophy, and draw their own conclusions. Perhaps in Cathy’s case the fault lies not in the stars but in herself… She has told us more about herself than she may have intended….
I’m sorry you find my remarks “unworthy” ( particularly when in almost the same breath you talk so poignantly of love in Steiner’s work)
It’s interesting that supporters of anthroposophy will often say those who criticise “have no knowledge”.
Perhaps they have read the work that anthroposophists would rather they hadn’t.
As an “esoteric” belief system, anthroposophy defines itself as only being intented for a particular group, only they will “know” the “truth”.
So, Marguerite, I suppose most people who discuss anthroposophical notions are “unworthy” really. You only have to read Steiner’s quote about his work:
“No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.”
So, you have to have “preliminary knowledge” to form a judgement. What is that “knowledge” I wonder? Rudolf Steiner’s clairvoyant “truths”?
My criticism lies with the anthroposophical movement not disclosing itself within it’s many fields; the schools barely mention it on their websites or promotional material; neither do the biodynamic agriculture organisations, who like to imply it’s just a better version of organic ( they leave out the spirituality often).
Now I have no problem with those who want to follow their spiritual path, Steiner’s “indications”, “essences”, “impulses”, who believe in reincarnation, karma, astral and ethic bodies, Ahriman and Lucifer, even gnomes.
I know there are many good people within the movement, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to deceive about their doctrine.
I do have a problem with a cosmic plan , which teaches that the path to the “universal human jettisons “lower” “abnormal”, “evil” races on the way, and that white skin is the one which absorbs spirituality best. Among other beliefs.
These things are written by Steiner, however uncomfortable they are to absorb. They are on amazon, yes, and on the Steiner archive ( not all of them though, many haven’t been translated, are available only to the anthroposophical society, or have been “sanitised” or simply left out of translations; there must be something to be ashamed of then. Steiner wasn’t perfect)
No Marguerite, I did not write to “get a rise” or to “poke a stick”. These issues are there, and they should be in the public arena, not hidden, smoothed over or tried to be forgotten.
The schools are deceptive in their recruitment of families; they very rarely mention anthroposophy, won’t answer questions, change the subject to something “easier”,make no attempt to describe it’s central tenets of reincarnation and karma, quite aside from the evolutionary belief, and the root race ones within this.
When anthroposophy is used in the classroom ( which it obviously is all the time, the schools are rooted in it), it can be dangerously damaging.
But there are some good aspects too. Steiner isn’t all bad.
But if the movement want to attract people who believe in it’s mission, start by telling them the truth.
Let’s go back to “love and freedom”. Steiner interchanged the word “freedom” with “spiritual activity” ( in fact he re named a seminal work Philosophy of freedom became Philosophy of spiritual Activity). He also interchanged “imagination” with the word “clairvoyance”. Therefore,one can never really be sure what an anthroposophist really means.
I would draw Marguerit’s attention to Steiner’s work; his theory of reincarnation, evolution and spirituality based on race and skin colour.
Many people I’ve come accross within the movement seem not to read the uncomfortable areas of Steiner’s work; while I agree that some of his ideas are interesting, and he does indeed talk about love, he also had many teachings which are less worthy, and to most people, bizarre.
The word “freedom” when used by Steiner, actually translates as “spiritual activity”, which gives a whole different angle to the meaning. In his work he often used words which in fact had quite a diferent meaning; “imagination” for instance, he interchanged with “clairvoyance”.
Sorry, i’ve repeated myself and it makes the post slightly incoherrent.
Please ignore the repeats.
More on measles and Steiner Waldorf communities.
http://genevalunch.com/2009/02/06/measles-outbreak-in-switzerland-update/
Marguerite’s personal attack on Cathy without addressing the specific issues raised by Cathy suggests to me that Marguerite is an Anthroposophist. It’s been my experience that Anthroposophists use any means they can to try to distract people’s attention from public exposure of Rudolf Steiner’s nutty beliefs.
While a good place to start a conversation likely never begins with the phrase “nutty beliefs,” I would nevertheless like to point to several places where conclusions drawn by the contributors above are erroneous.
To be clear, love and discernment are not separate capacities. No attacks–personal or otherwise — were made or intended or implied. Observations were made and some conclusions drawn based on what was said and revealed by the contributors. And, yes, I am an anthroposophist.
To begin, Rudolf Steiner did not seek followers — in fact, he worked rather diligently to fend them off. It is for good reason that the Anthroposophical Society statutes say that it is an association of individuals. So making broad claims about all anthroposophists will be as fruitful as drawing conclusions about all those who are not anthroposophists. Neither did Rudolf Steiner claim to be perfect; in fact, he repeatedly and consistently told his audiences not to accept anything he said or wrote on faith — but, instead, asked that they (if not capable of spiritual vision) think through the content, judge it for themselves, verify it or dismiss it. This caution is also in his basic works but not mentioned in the remarks about him here. Concerning that, I would include the full reference cited only in fragment above:
“All publications of the Society will be public, in the same sense that those of other public societies are. The publications of the School for Spiritual Science will form no exceptions as regards this public character; however, the leadership of the School reserves the right to deny in advance the validity of any judgment on these publications that is not based on the same training from which they have been derived. It (the leadership) will not regard as justified any judgment not based on an appropriate preliminary training, as accords with common practice in the recognized scientific world. Thus the publications of the School for Spiritual Science will bear the following notice: ‘Printed as manuscript for members of the School for Spiritual Science, Goetheanum, [First] Class. No one is considered competent to judge these writings who has not acquired the requisite preliminary knowledge through this School itself or in a manner recognized by the School as equivalent. Other opinions will be disregarded, to the extent that the authors of such writings will enter into no discussion about these writings.’” (From: The Statutes of the General Anthroposophical Society, Statute §8). — Rudolf Steiner often spoke to long-time students, colleagues, and associates; thus his lectures often assumed knowledge of subjects not spelled out in the content. In time, these were taken down in stenographic form and later published for those individuals; these publications then became more widely available through sharing, wider sales, and so forth. Unable to address every dispute hat might arise over the content, he inserted this caveat not to preclude individual discernment but to advise that conversations could only take place based on a shared understanding. It would be unlikely he would have taken the time to speak to someone who had summarily dismissed them as “nutty beliefs.’ Nevertheless, he still conducted a phenomenal number of documented personal conversations — and, based on his commitment to teach, I would assume that some of them began even in that unflattering light. [As an aside I would note that the First Class mentioned here is the first of three instructional classes Rudolf Steiner intended to form after 1923/24. It does not designate a loftier status -- like the postal system's use of the phrase implies. And the requirement that an applicant to the Class be a member of the Society for a period of time was (and is) intended to assure the applicant has enough basic knowledge to work meaningfully with the content and not be overwhelmed by it. Knowledge of the Class is public. Its contents are available to those who have entered into a free-will agreement with the leadership of the School to maintain that content as it was intended to be maintained, according to Rudolf Steiner who was responsible for it. ]
Over more than thirty years, I have found Rudolf Steiner to be trustworthy and honest, challenging and thought-provoking. Grasping as a unified whole his entire 400+ volume collected works can be daunting — if not fully possible. I have also found that, as with all complicated knowledge forms, setting aside remarks that make no sense to me or appear to be at odds with the current social thought will often be made clearer as my own understanding develops. Sometimes there are errors in the Gesamtausgabe that require correction– and they are made by the editors in future editions. A careful reading of his work also reveals something of his development as, over time, he was in the process of developing and refining his own noteworthy capacities and his ability to describe his experiences. In this context, what may seem to be linguistic inconsistencies are often actually part of Rudolf Steiner’s own continually evolving process. And sometimes remarks he made that were quite appropriate in his time have not withstood well the test of time. In fact, the statements about race mentioned above were made at the beginning of his public career and, like other ideas, found further explanation in other areas of his later work. Would he explain them differently today? Based on the development of his language and thoughts I would suggest he might, addressing these issues with his characteristic forthrightness. It might also interest those reading this exchange to know that Hitler’s National Socialist government banned the Anthroposophical Society and opposed and eventually shut down the Waldorf Schools and the Christian Community in part because they had no racist beliefs and because they would not go along with those the government promoted. Many were imprisoned and murdered for their unwillingness to go along. This valuing of human life — all human life — was and continues to be at the heart of anthroposophy. Unlike many who have some spiritual capacities, Rudolf Steiner virtually never spoke of his own direct spiritual experience but sought ways to bring them to the world in forms that were usable by others. He did not define but characterized what he experienced. The freedom this allows others is an inseparable hallmark of his esoteric teaching.
A distinction also has to be made between the content Rudolf Steiner offered in his books and lectures and the activity of the so-called daughter movements. He did not govern the daughter movements — Waldorf Schools, BD farms, clinics, and so forth. The insights he offered that formed the basis for those initiatives were offered in response to questions — and further advice was offered by him when requested. This places an enormous responsibility on the teachers and school administrators, the farmers — indeed, anyone who seeks to represent anthroposophy in the world. As with all human endeavor the possibility for human error is vast — as is the potential for great human good. Waldorf Schools are not perfect — but neither is any school, public or private….Parental diligence is always required. Abdicating that responsibility is never a good idea.
While it is easy to paint anthroposophy, anthroposophists, the anthroposophical movement, the daughter movements in black and white — to point out the flaws in other as is being attempted here, human health, education, parental responsibility are complicated topics and understanding them is often found more in the grays. Like every parent, I also had to make the immunization choice and found compromises in conversation with a variety of doctors and professionals. Risks exist on both sides of the question — mainstream medicine clearly does not have all of the answers although it is far more likely to claim to have the answers and to prescribe an approach and the medicaments than an anthroposophist would. Autism resulting from immunization, death or physical harm from small pox vaccines, a compromised immune system from over prescribing antibiotics are only a few of the problems inserted into human health by mainstream medical thinking. It doesn’t take much research to find that there are outrageous things going on in the mainstream. To single out the Waldorf Schools and anthroposophy suggests something more is at work here. If someone has had a bad experience, perhaps that truth needs to be revealed in order for real conversation to begin.
For someone who introduces herself to a discussion by saying of another poster “Cathy’s remarks are — frankly — unworthy…. She has clearly skimmed the surface and drawn conclusions about things of which she has no genuine knowledge… Perhaps in Cathy’s case the fault lies not in the stars but in herself… She has told us more about herself than she may have intended….” it seems at best hypocritical to me to then respond to another poster’s reference to a long-dead guru’s nutty beliefs with: “While a good place to start a conversation likely never begins with the phrase ‘nutty beliefs…’”
Here are some examples of Steiner’s nutty beliefs:
Dragons existed
Goblins exist
Ditto fairies, nymphs, gnomes, undines, sylphs, spirit salamanders, etc.
Islands float
Ditto continents
Hearts aren’t pumps
Human consciousness is less evolved than that of bees
To know what happens on the Sun or Venus, you must enter bee consciousness
Cancer can be treated with mistletoe
Pneumonia is caused by the stars
Ditto flu epidemics
Fattening foods separate the “spirit-soul” from the body and empty the head
The human being is antimony
People have twelve senses
Extreme flatulence is caused by a mismatch between the physical body and the “astral body”
Astrology is for real
Astronomy generally isn’t
The Sun, et al, split off from the Earth
The planets don’t orbit the Sun
Humans have migrated to other planets
And come back
Earthlings and others have interbred
Magic is for real
Ditto alchemy
Chemistry, not so much
Most animals evolved downward from humans
Freshwater fish musn’t lay eggs in fresh water
Earth is less than 20 million years old
The hardest rocks come from plants
Dandelions (to give just one example) wish they were trees
Animals’ organs don’t work like ours
Modern biology generally is wrong
Modern physics is generally wrong
The atomic theory is wrong
Atoms are caricatures of demons
Electricity is decaying light
Magnetism is chemical
Gravity doesn’t exist on fluid worlds
Vulcan is for real
Mars is liquid
Mars is crisscrossed by straight lines resembling canals
Buddha moved to Mars
Lucifer’s home is Venus
Venus is a husk cast off by Lucifer
Jehovah lives on the Moon
Moon men lived in an atmosphere thicker than water
Saturn men were different from us today
Saturn became the “planet Sun”
Uranus and Neptune are not true members of the solar system
Anti-Semites are harmless
The Aryan race exists and is best
Other races are lower and in decline
Some people descend to subhuman status
It’s their own fault
Some of Steiner’s teachings are hilarious until you remember that children are being “educated” by the cult this nutty man started.
For a more comprehensive list and elaboration on these beliefs, check out http://waldorf-problems.com/steiners_blunders
Margaret has illustrated an anthroposophist’s outburst at someone criticising Rudolf Steiner and his doctrine; it would have been more to the pint to actually talk about the issues raised.
( Marguerite, do tell me what I’ve revealed about myself by not believing in anthroposophy; and what “fault” in myself you can read from what I’ve written. Or maybe it’s clairvoyance; yes, I have plenty of faults, but not taking Rudolf Steiner’s work as gospel isn’t one of them. How do know what genuine knowledge I have? Sooo condescending….. ooohhh. I’ve had my fill of condescending anthroposophists, but I will try to keep this civil, and not descend to petty personal attacks))
First, there are some things which, as an anthroposophist, Marguerite, it would be good to have your opinion, as you say “abdicating responsibitlity is never a good idea” ; this, though is precisely what anthroposophists do when faced with the unpalatable truth about their pseudo religion.
I think the word “trust” is not one some are familiar with. The schools are places where we trust those in charge to tell us the truth about the doctrines leading them. It never even occured to us that they could be quite so deceitful.
The schools are not truthful when they recruit families; several sources have stated this, teachers who say they were told not to mention anthroposophy, or pass on it; anthropospphical press agent who told schools to emphasise the visual, and the outer appearance of things rather than the “essential core” . The set answer is that parents should “do their own research”. When our children first went, I had very limitied acces to the internet; I asked the school many many questions, and they were deceptive.
Marguerite, why , do you think, isn’t the word anthroposophy mentioned in the schools literature, advertisements ect? And if it is, it says nothing. Why? How can people live with this deception? Have they no shame? Is this spiritual task is so great that deception is allowed? What arev the karmic consequences of that? But still you have the gall to imply that parents who have been deceived are “abdicating responsibilty” .
There are more than a few who have had bad experiences at Steiner waldorf schools. And in your heart, you must know that.
Historically, I think you’ll find what you’ve written about anthroposphists and Hitler’s National socialist party is erroneous; many anthroposophists had close ties to the nazis ( even Steiner’s widow didn’t distance herself from Hitler after the war. The nazis supported bio dynamic farming, - there were even biodynamic experiments in concentration camps. Contrary to what you say, the waldorf schools were allowed to remain open for far longer than other independent cultural institutions, and were closed finally partly because of their “international” orientation, and anthroposophy’s “oriental” origins. Anthroposophists find it hard to come to terms with the historical facts involved with their relationship with the Third Reich. Peter Staudenmaier writes about it here http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Staudenmaier.html
Most anthroposopists who refuse to distance themselves from these unpalatable part of their doctrine; they argue about it on discussion boards, but won’t step up and say Steiner was wrong. I notice that you Marguerite, haven’t addressed Steiner’s evoutionary belief that primitive races degenerate, (owing to mischief by lucifer and Ahriman), that white skin absorbs the spirit best . If this is discussed , it leads to the obvious conclusion, that Steiner’s entire karmic, cosmic plan would be upset. So anthroposophists can’t discuss it..
You say Steiner frequently told audiences to question and not accept all he said; he also frequently stated that everything he was saying was true, everything he said were facts, and he often dismissed scientists and other’s opinions as rubbish. If I had time, I’d list the ammount of times he said “gentlemen, all this is true” or words to that effect.
As to your assertions that Steiner would probably have ammended much of what he wrote had he been living today, I daresay that’s true( he changed his mind often enough as it was), so why do the schools still use the same curriculum, the same wooden method of “painting”,the same way of classifying children as in the temperaments, why do they try to “encourage” the changing of lefthandedness( this happened to one of my daughters, and she was made to knit right handed), tell the children that everything they are telling them is “true” , the complete truth, not to be questioned (happened to one of my daughters, it makes me shudder to think about), have a lax attitude to safety because “guardian angels are watching them”, leave bullying to happen, because of “karma”, and oh so much more but most of all, refer back to Steiner’s word for each and every “indication”. Why? Why, if , as you say it wasn’t set in stone? Something is going badly astray.
It’s time for disclosure; if anthroposophy is to be behind so many pulic fields such as education and agriculture, it has to be honest and open.
Instead of personal attack on critics, why not look upon this as an opportunity to renew your movement? Attract people who really believe it, rather than trick those who, when they find out Steiner,s clairvoyant spoutings, think it’s utterly ludicrous?
Anyway, it’s all karmic isn’t it? All part of the cosmic plan?
Like in numerous other discussion forums and at blogs since 2007, Cathy also at different pages here at CK pursues her relentless ideological anti-Steiner and twisted crusade, much based on repeaedly unreliable agitprop writings by Staudenmaier, like the piece she refers and links to.
For a short introduction to her campaign last year, see http://thebee.se/comments/MN.html
For an introduction to the writings of Staudenmaier, see http://thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.htm
For a more detailed analysis, see http://defendingsteiner.com/refutations/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism.php
And http://waldorfanswers.org/AAntisemitismMyth.htm
http://waldorfanswers.org/RSAgainstAnti-Semitism.htm and
http://waldorfanswers.org/AnthroposophyDuringNaziTimes.htm
And for some comments on her anti-Waldorf crusade, here at CK as in numerous other places on the net, see
http://waldorfanswers.org/Waldorf.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education and
http://waldorfanswers.org/WaldorfFAQ.htm
And for just a short introduction to Steiner’s views on “race” and other external generic characteristics, see
http://waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm
TheBee, do you actually have anything to say about anthroposophy, vaccinations, or karma? These comment boxes aren’t really there to promote your own websites.
Peter Staudenmaier is a respected historian, whose sources are accurate, whose writing is erudite and clear. He writes objectively about facts. While these facts may be uncomfortable for the anthroposophical protectors of the faith, they would do well to address them.
Has it occurred to you that it looks quite desperate to so obviously advertise the fact that you follow people around the web, cross referencing and second guessing their identities.
I’m a mother, who was deliberately lead to believe Steiner schools were quite a different place than they turned out to be. Children, including my own, had some bad experiences there, many of which I believe were because the schools are rooted in anthroposophy.
Much though I’m sure you’d prefer this not to be in the open, and for people to read your websites and think anthroposophy is an inconsequential part of the education, it doesn’t mean you have licence to follow women around the net, or write things to try to scare them.
I changed my nickname because I was being stalked around the net. I felt threatened.
You, on the other hand ( who uses multiple identities, pretending to be a woman on mothers forums too) ,why do you change your nickname?
I have no “pages”. Where have you got that from? I see you have made plenty.
If you believe it’s “twisted” to ask for honesty , and for uncomfortable passages about race to be openly discussed and rejected, I think most people would agree who has the warped angle on this.
Staudenmaier played “historical scholar” during the first four years he wrote on anthroposophy based on a B.A. in German literature.
He still likes to play.
Word- and mindgames..
Thebee:
Your relentless pursuit of Peter Staudenmaier, who is an academic working within the history department of Cornell University, Ithica NY is beginning to sound like paranoia.
What can you be so afraid of?
The bee, I have no idea what these cryptic messages are supposed to mean.
No one is playing games (except, it appears, you)
This is far too serious an issue to be playing games, particularly if your children have been affected.
Peter Staudenmaier is a respected , published historian attached to one of the most prestigious universities in the world. His research on esoteric belief systems including anthroposphy clearly upsets those who hold these beliefs to be true, those who would rather they were reserved for the few who follow anthroposophical doctrine.
Perhaps the time has come to see this opening up of the less savoury aspects of anthroposophy as fortuitous, so that rather than drawing in those who don’t belive in it by stealth and deception, it will attract solely the people who do.
That, combined with denouncing the race belief, rather than trying to deny it even exists, woud be a god outcome for all.
I meant “good” outcome!
What a freudian typo!
Cathy on Staudemaier’s word- and mind games:
“The bee, I have no idea what these cryptic messages are supposed to mean.
No one is playing games (except, it appears, you)”.
Try http://thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.htm for some comments on the paper you recommend as “education about anthroposophy”?
Iris:
“Your relentless pursuit of Peter Staudenmaier, who is an academic working within the history department of Cornell University, Ithica NY is beginning to sound like paranoia.
What can you be so afraid of?”
Cathy tries to sell him him as some sort of “reliable” source on anthroposophy.
I have pointed to some analysis and documentation of his actual reliability to complement the picture.
http://defendingsteiner.com/refutations/Top_10_Things_Wrong.php
Hang on, respected historian, who places anthroposophy in its context, writes a critical commentary, follows this up with annotated sources and references, which are all carefully peer reviewed before they are published, isn’t a reliable source.
So, are the only reliable resources……anthroposophists…?
:-))))))))) :-)))))))) :-))))))))
I love your logic.
Good historical scholarship entails:
1. Truthfulness in describing the primary documentary sources upon which one founds one’s judgments, meaning
a. being truthful about what is stated in the primary sources that do exist, as described by the authors of the primary sources,
b. telling the whole truth about the content of the primary sources you say you use, and
c. not adding untruths about nonexistent primary documentary sources.
2. Demonstrating that one has understood the basic concepts of the subjects one discusses, also as they are understood and used by the authors, whose works you use as primary sources.
Demonstrating some reasonable balance in the judgment one comes to on the basis of the truthful description of the primary sources, the demonstrated understanding of the basic concepts discussed as well as a general overview of the subject one discusses.
I’ve followed his writings on anthroposophy from the start. His record on the points described has not impressed me.
It has very litte to do with wheter you’re an anthroposophist in some sense or not.
Does he like to play mind games?
Yes.
http://thebee.se/comments/comments1.htm
Measles in Steiner schools from WRS
“Health board investigating 4 doctors after measles outbreak
Four doctors in the canton of Vaud are being investigated after claims they failed to report measles cases they knew about. The allegation’s going to be looked at by the canton’s health board, which comprises of doctors and lawyers. It can decide on sanctions if the doctors failed in their duty to alert authorities. The measles epidemic is continuing in Vaud, with more than 40 cases now confirmed at 10 schools. All but four of the ill children have connections to the Steiner school, in Crissier. A 12 year-old girl, who lived near Geneva, recently died from the disease.”
I would just like to point out that the author of the original article referenced a website openwaldorf.com. If you scroll to the bottom of the site it says This web site is based on one Waldorf parent’s personal journey. It has no official affiliation with Waldorf education.
How can you use that as a source for what Waldorf schools are about. That was poor research.
One crazy woman’s perspective does not a whole school movement describe!
I wonder what kind of Waldorf schools some of the critics sent their kids to, and where they were. My children have been in one for years, and our school doesn’t stop us from taking pictures at events (we actually have a staff person photo things for papers and articles), they don’t pressure people not to immunize, there is no racism, or any of this crazy stuff you people talk about.
They tell fairy tales, yes, but as the kids get older they stop believing in the fairies and gnomes, just like other kids stop believing in the easter bunny and santa. My questions have always been answered openly and honestly. No one hides anything, or tells me I wouldn’t understand. I’ve read many of Steiner’s works. Some things I agree with, some things are a little out there.
I find most of the critics take things out of context to suit their argument. A lot of things he wrote are dated, as are most things from the beginning of the 20th century. Some things still ring true.
I’m sorry for people who had bad experiences at schools run by what sound like fanatics. I hate that those experiences can give credibility to people who like to trash what, for us, has been an amazing educational experience for our children.
Incoming links from other sites