This is a guest post from a contributor who prefers to remain anonymous. Correspondence should be addressed to the Editor.
Creationism is not the only enemy of science in today’s classroom. Within the self proclaimed “fastest growing school movement in the world”, Steiner Waldorf schools foster their belief system with a deception which is quite chilling.
Anthroposophy - the word is not even in the dictionary, and my spell-checker is foxed by it - the pseudo religion/science which lies at the heart of Steiner education (and also biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophical medicine, and cosmetics - Weleda and Dr. Hauschka) is the guiding force within these classrooms, and yet in the schools the word is barely heard, let alone explained. Schools are cagey and evasive at the mere mention of the word, and swiftly move on. It is deliberately buried. This is a religion which recruits by intentionally not setting out its beliefs. Surely this is the behaviour of a cult?
Most people think of Steiner schools as gentle places - a creative pedagogy, where every toy is wooden, and phrases like “free to learn” and “natural” are used with abandon. Only occasionally do their more ludicrous beliefs get a mention: the supernatural, the occult, belief in karma, demons, angels, Atlantis, medieval temperaments, spirit worlds, astral forces and… gnomes!
The schools routinely champion themselves as a radical alternative to the mainstream, their websites drawing people in with vague and general terminology and gushingly self-congratulatory advertisements for Steiner and the movement. But they invariably make one huge omission: that “anthroposophy” guides their every move, and that anthroposophy’s central tenet is “racial hierarchies”.
Racist? No wonder they need to hide it. But it’s not quite as simple as that. In fact, Steiner isn’t simple at all: it’s very, very complicated, as anyone questioning his work will be told, constantly and patronisingly. This isn’t the racism of bigotry or prejudice, but the paternalistic, “soft” racism which teaches that some races have “higher qualities than others”; that hair and skin colour have “spiritual significance”. That is partly why it is so alarming; it creeps in with “a spiritual smile”. And besides, the teachers had better be kind because – hey - they might come back as a “lower” race next time.
Here are a few extracts from the great man’s writings.
“The white race is the race of the future, the race that works creatively on the spirit.” (Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, Dornach 1993, p. 67)
“The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious perfection.” (Rudolf Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, p. 252)
“thorough impregnation of the flesh by the spirit, this is the characteristic of the mission of white humanity, the whole mission of white humankind. People have white skin colour because the spirit works within the skin when it wants to descend to the physical plane…but where the spirit is held back, where it takes on a demonic character and does not fully penetrate the flesh, then white skin colour does not appear” (Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges, 37)
“one can only understand history and all of social life, including today’s
social life, if one pays attention to people’s racial characteristics. And
one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one
first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the colour of their skin.” (Rudolf Steiner, “Farbe und Menschenrassen”, lecture in Dornach March 3, 1923)
Reincarantion and evolution are the recurring “truths” throughout his work: a divine cosmic plan, beginning on the planets, the moon and Atlantis, and culminating in a mighty war between white and coloured mankind before human evolution can run its course. Anthroposophic truth is culled entirely from Rudolf Steiner’s clairvoyant “reading” of the Akashik record - an astral history of the world past and present.
So closely guarded is this esoteric doctrine, that it is not only parents and journalists who are kept in the dark. Although teacher training consists almost entirely of Steiner’s work, it is carefully selected. Anthroposophical zealots are usually at the helm of schools, while less experienced teachers are on a path of knowledge of their own, attentively orchestrated by those above.
Those who get involved with anthroposophy are initially introduced to the “new age” material, and are gradually exposed to Steiner’s more extreme work, through “study groups” where particular texts, suggested by experienced anthroposophists, are focussed on. Only if parents are deemed “ready” will they too be encouraged to attend. Otherwise, the parents are told that Steiner is difficult and they are dropped a few cherry-picked phrases. The teachers have a divine spiritual task and have been karmically chosen; parents are superfluous.
The schools argue that anthroposophy isn’t taught to the children; but Steiner’s writing is the equivalent of the “original text”, constantly referred to by teachers. What Steiner said is often repeated as “true” simply because he said it.
Some ‘truths’ though, are less palatable than others:
“If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense … In the case of fair people, less nourishment is driven into the eyes and hair; it remains instead in the brain and endows it with intelligence. Brown- and dark-haired people drive the substances into their eyes and hair that the fair people retain in their brains.” (Rudolf Steiner, Health and Illness, Vol. 1, Anthroposophic Press, 1981.)
The black or Negro race is substantially determined by these childhood characteristics.” (Rudolf Steiner, The mission of the folk Souls, Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005, p. 75.)
“Ever since the Atlantean race began slowly to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on earth.” (Rudolf Steiner, The Temple Legend, Rudolf Steiner Press, 1997, p. 201.)
Everything in the schools has spiritual significance, from the curved buildings and typefaces, the colours of the walls, songs, rituals and festivals, lack of ball games, karmic reasons for leaving the bully to bully, changing left-handedness, to the choice of myths taught. Most work is copied from a teacher, including art; there are no text books from the outside world, the children are guided towards ‘pictorial’ thinking to encourage clairvoyance.
Steiner education is an initiation, created to feed anthroposophical notions for the children to use in their next incarnation, anthroposophical legends, songs, colours, rituals. The schools have a greater function, as Steiner made clear when talking about education:
“the Spiritual Movement has a quite definite goal, namely, to mould future humanity in advance” (Rudolf Steiner, The Future of Man from Theosophy of the Rosicrucian)
“The task of Anthroposophy is not simply to replace a false view of the world with a correct one……The task is to raise the spirit-soul into the realm of the spiritual,” (Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner, p. 115.)
And for Steiner, the spiritual was directly related to the colour of one’s skin.
So why are these things not in the public domain? Particularly since the first state funded Steiner academy in Hereford was opened in September, apparently the government and Ofsted have been hoodwinked. Many studies and reports turn out to be researched by anthroposophic sympathisers.
The anthroposophists don’t like Steiner’s belief system and work discussed in the public arena; they dislike this so much that they threaten websites with libel and lawsuits to ensure debate is gagged. This behaviour isn’t new: in 2000, following reports about racism and anti-Semitism in Steiner’s work, journalists from Spiegel and Report politics magazine received floods of threatening emails, lawsuits, and verbal abuse.
Anthroposophists also use obfuscation to deflect from discussing the facts, posting pages of links to their own glowing websites, or links comparing critics to Hamas and Osama Bin Laden, among others. Objective historical research is so feared that desperate attempts are made to distort Steiner’s beliefs with little or no regard for the academic process. By objectively deconstructing Steiner’s work, the magic is taken away.
Anthroposophy’s entire spiritual doctrine is founded on the root race theory, attatching qualities, good or bad, to different races and skin colours, and ranking them accordingly; this explains how the divine cosmic plan unfolds. It’s hardly surprising there is so much covert reticence surrounding it. And these are not ideas stuck in the past, of a man “speaking of his time”. These are themes in current debate, deliberated over by anthroposophists - teachers in Steiner Waldorf schools - who discuss the cosmic significance of the Aryan race and its task to lead into the spiritual future, or whether dividing humans into separate races, and arranging them in groups of “higher” or “lower racial forms”, is actually “racist”. It’s going on now.
How can anyone know which of Steiner’s “truths” are seeping into the classroom? There are stories all over the web of just this happening. There are those, teachers and parents, who have unplugged themselves from the matrix, escaped from Plato’s cave, and have seen it for what it really is.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
121 responses
Camphill ‘communities’ are run by Steiner’s acolytes. These are deliberately isolated institutions housing people with learning disabilities. Their revolting ideology is that people choose to be disabled before they are born, in order to learn some sort of ‘karmic lesson’. Concomitant is the idea that staff and inmates are destined to be together in the ‘community’, and that therefore abuse within it is impossible. Whatever happens is meant to happen.
Hi TOnesian, yes, Camphill is another institution which falls under the anthroposophical umbrella. Steiner said ” they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. ” I think Camphill communities see their task to help these “demons” incarnate “properly” next time round. Their belief in karma is scary.According to Steiner, we “choose” what we look like, illness, strength and weakness., are all indications of your past lives.Those strange stares Steiner people drill into you, they’re probably searching for clues based on the shape of your head or the size of your nose.
Camphill receive huge ammounts of government funding, and are known for their excellent fundraising.
How do they manage to keep their spiritual philosophy so hidden?
They must see their task as so great, keeping people in the dark isn’t really that much of a crime.
Excellent article that echoes many of my own experiences.
After briefly sending my daughter to a Steiner school and living in a Steiner community I found their belief system incredibly controlling and dangerous. It fetishizes nature and childhood to gain more followers through the idea of secret knowledge - layers and layers of mystery and pontification. All fascinating to the spiritually curious and idealistic new parent riding the green wave. I saw many parents gradually became terrified and scornful of the outside ‘materialist’ world and dropped friends, family, and relied very heavily on the community, I saw a mother agonize over her child being exposed to a cartoon and how it would pollute not just her child but potentially ‘infect’ the other children through play.
I witnessed the most horrific bullying and was told the children and parents are getting what they need, they are working out their karma, or having difficulties incarnating from their previous life. It excuses the most horrifying behaviour as every action including violence is seen as a spiritual lesson to gain another foothold up the spiritual ladder. If you question them, you are spiritually terrorized into believing you are deficient in some way. I was told I must ‘trust’, to stop being so suspicious and think with my heart.
It was a competitive environment in a much more subtle way - how you and your child looked, moved, talked, wore, ate, how you approached illness, what they played with and how they played were all things that were under the microscope. I include an extract from a former Steiner teacher (From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/7452):
“Not only do the sex and race we “incarnate” into result from spiritual
causes, but we “choose” our physical appearance and other physical
characteristics including illnesses, injuries, deformities, constitutional
strengths and weaknesses etc. directly out of our spiritual nature. Steiner
gives many examples; one I recall is that great physical beauty results from
having suffered greatly without complaining in a previous incarnation.
Absolutely everything that happens to us is a karmic “choice” we have made,
and Steiner gives lengthy explanations for how in each incarnation, by our
actions and attitudes we are “preparing” the physical body that we will
inhabit in the next lifetime, and beyond. There are specific correlations, I
don’t recall any offhand but it is a specific way your head is formed versus
your internal organs, etc., and it has to do with moral virtues and
aesthetic sensibilities. Another example is left-handedness coming from
karmic weaknesses or from heavy manual labor in a previous life. This is the
reason Waldorf teachers obsess over the shape of a child’s head or ears, the
color in a child’s cheeks, the texture of the hair, the shape of the feet,
the gait, the set of the shoulders etc. These are clues to the past life,
and to the spiritual “lessons” the child faces in the present incarnation
(which the Waldorf teacher believes that he/she can help with)”.
I feel sad that the author is unable to publish his name, though I do completely understand why. The bullying, threats and spiritual intimidation do not stop at the school gates.
Totnesian, may I ask if you live in Totnes?
I use to live there myself a few years ago before as some like to say I got ‘Totnes burn out’ and moved away! I loved Totnes but some, well quite a lot of the people were a little unhinged. I was told recently that Totnes has the highest ratio of mental health problems in the UK, there is of course another interpretation which explains the town’s flourishing spiritual growth industry.
I understand there are anthroposophical towns in the UK, Europe and America and during my time there felt that the Steiner school had such a grip on the town it was becoming an extension of anthroposophy. I recently read that Totnes is the base of the transition town movement and looking at the founder Rob Hopkin’s webpage he uses the anthroposphical motto ‘Heart, head and hands’ in the top left here http://transitionculture.org.
I suspect it is very difficult to have any open discord living there if one doesn’t support the movement.
Re, the curved buildings, furniture toys and typeface, I remember being told that everything is round at the school as Steiner believed the circle was the perfect embodiment of the astral body.
The author speaks of the movement’s deception which remind me of a quote from a former Steiner parent called Sharon Lombard:
“If Anthroposophy were only a church, our paths would never cross, but Anthroposophy does not restrict itself to its circle of True Believers. Instead it sets up schools where these disguised beliefs are foisted upon unsuspecting parents whose opinions can be disregarded because they don’t “know the path.” These parents are expected to follow unknowingly the requirements of a religion which denies to them that it even exists, and may be criticized in their ignorance for anthroposophical incorrectness. No wonder so many parents initially feel bewildered and later angry for having been deceived (Foss, 2003, March, 16.Percedol”
(Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2 No.2 2003)
(http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombard_sharon_csr0202j.htm)
@ Mrs Dawkins
Yes, I live in Totnes. I used to think the hippies were just harmless goofs but I’m finding their anti-rationalism and smiling selfishness increasingly hard to tolerate. Though I have not seen any statistics about the incidence of mental health problems, someone once described the place to me as being like a mental hospital with a high street. I thought that was a pretty good analogy. Yes, Totnes was the UK’s first Transition Town, and you’re right about the ‘head, heart and hands’ reference. Rather like Waldorf schools, they seem to be good at self-promotion and grant-grubbing but not much else. I have no ‘cosmic’ neighbours, friends, relatives or colleagues, so Transition initiatives are never mentioned to me by people I know. That’s a measure of the essential irrelevance of the Transition movement. It does give rise to amusing ironies, mind. Take the Totnes Pound: one of the most enthusiastic adopters of this ‘local currency’ runs a shop brimming with plastic kitsch made in China. If the powerdowners are right, then they are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic if the best they can manage is asking people to walk, not drive, to the plastic tat shop and spend glorified book tokens there rather than Sterling.
It’s true that I often feel it necessary to keep my gob shut about a lot of this stuff here. Before I learned discretion, I found that many ‘alternative’ people are some of the most insecure, hypersensitive individuals you can meet. Who needs a rational argument when you can shout?
Thanks for your comments Private Eye. I particularly picked up on these,
“idealistic new parent riding the green wave. I saw many parents gradually became terrified and scornful of the outside ‘materialist’ world and dropped friends, family, and relied very heavily on the community”
” I witnessed the most horrific bullying and was told the children and parents are getting what they need, they are working out their karma, or having difficulties incarnating from their previous life.”
These are the things which affect the parents of children in a Steiner Waldorf school every day.
The “community” is all important, a word used often. Parents are expected to contribute not only money ( Steiner schools are nearly all private) but large ammounts of time cleaning, gardening, cooking and fundraising.
Bullying and lack of adult intervention is often heard about in relation to Steiner schools. The “karma” explanation is disturbing.
One also hears about the number of children coming and going, their wild limitless behaviour, and the air of “confidence” of the children; maybe the bullied leave, leaving only the cocksure to rule the roost.
The piece you quote from the Cultic Studies Review is excellent.
@ Totnesian
I think I know the very shop you mention, begins with a G? So much to say… I too understand the experiences of living amongst those with the thinnest of skins. Think of the most extreme intense part of Totnes, a village just outside the town and that is where I use to live. The tales I could tell most people wouldn’t believe apart from those who have lived there!
So have you been ‘Landmarked’ yet? There is such a large presence of this stuff in the town, I’ve often thought it needed investigating.
I recall a teacher at the Steiner school explaining how they eventually had to put a notice up in the school grounds stating they had no connection to the Landmark Forum/Education as many new parents confused it as a precursor to the various levels of initiation into anthroposophy.
I don’t miss the intense staring and long meaningful oppressive hugs I can tell you! There were times I was a recipient of those hugs and wanted to twist them into a headlock and keep them there for longer than was spiritually necessary.
I do miss the youthfulness of Totnes (I nearly said energy, but managed to stop myself) I arrived as a new mother, a buddhist, very green, full of ideals and left allergic to all things alternative and an atheist with the saying “If your mind is too open, your brains will fall out” ringing in my ears concluding that as well as all hippies being selfish they are also evil!
Have you lived there all your life? I’ve often wondered what the locals must make of these particular ‘blow ins’.
Mrs Dawkins
Thanks for the link to transition culture; it always spooks me when green organisations get hooked up with spirituality….”blood and soil” and all that… buti can’t see anything anthroposophical on their website, except the header “head heart hands”.
Do you think the anthroposophists hope to highjack or ride along with them?
TOtnesian
I laughed out loud at the plastic tat being bought with the sound pound….. ha ha just like the silk pastel coloured drapes hiding the TV’s and the Boden garb in the Steiner gang….
You’re right about the insecurity, do you think it’s to do with being “judged”, “am I being spiritual enough”?
Staff Reporter, are you the author? I would like to thank you for writing such a clear and intelligent article.
Is it safe to say that when I write the word ‘community, I mean cult? After having sent my daughter there and lived amongst the devoted followers I am left in no doubt.
What angers me more than anything is that the schools are winning support and state funding by hiding what they are. I guess they have had 80 years of playing with words and their meaning through spiritual obfuscation and the idea that it is too difficult, out of context or mistranslated.
I apologise in advance if this offends anyone but it reminds me of the misuse of the euphemism during nazi occupation. When you consider the where both of these movements came from and read that far from Hitler being against anthroposophy he felt threatened by it as it was in direct competition with many of his ideals, the whole movement needs serious investigation and must be challenged.
@ Staff Reporter and Private Eye
Yes at times there is a fine line…there was a recent article in the Times where the Green party had to admit there were leading activists on the BNP list http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5197862.ece . I remember reading of someone called Keith Bessant and wondered if he was related to Annie Bessant?
Have you heard of the historian Peter Staudenmaier? He has written extensively on anthropsophy, there are numerous articles of his on the web, one of his most well known is ‘Anthoposophy and Ecofascism’ here http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Anthroposophy-and-Ecofasc.htm
As a former Steiner school student I can easily identify myself with many of the points the author raises; everything from how and what subjects are brought to the children (myths, gnomes, fairytales… instead of learning actual school subjects) to the school’s passive stance on bullying (being bullied is a question of desert–I had deserved the treatment I was given… and moreover, the kindergarten and the school made every attempt to hide the real truths from parents).
I can also relate to the treatment of critics–when you openly choose to criticise this spiritual movement, the bullying and the threatening and the outright nasty behaviour you experienced within it, will continue in other venues. They think any criticism amounts to harassment of the whole movement, and they don’t hesitate to make use of any method in silencing those who they think ought not dare speak their minds. At times I’ve even doubted there are decent anthroposophists out there–because hardly anybody will question what the anthroposophist thugs do in their mission to intimidate critics.
Parents rarely, if ever (unless they themselves are anthroposophists), have any idea what steiner education is all about. They have no clue as to what really goes on in classroom, what the social situation is for the children, how little the children learn in terms of traditional school subjects, etc. Steiner schools usually do reside in nice buildings, and the usually do teach singing, painting and quite a lot of crafts–but that’s *not* the essence of this pedagogy. The core of it is spiritual, the aims of everything that goes on in the school are, ultimately, on a level that most parents don’t even begin to understand. And that’s the point; they aren’t meant to gain a real comprehension of what’s going on. If they did, they’d be out of there the next second.
I spent nine years in a waldorf school (Steiner schools are called waldorf schools where I live) and I consider these years basically wasted; although the painful impacts of my experience are fading with age. I think anyone who have already had a negative waldorf/steiner experience benefits from learning about the source of the steiner movement: anthroposophy. Understanding it is empowering–and I hope many parents these days are in the position that they do already possess the power, through the internet for example, to investigate this movement, before they sent their children into its open arms, and that they have the personal strengths to not be afraid to look behind the fancy facades. That would go a long way towards preventing disappointment and pain. Steiner school proponents should welcome such a critical attitude, and if they don’t, they will continue to run into the problem of dissatisfied former students and parents who *dare* speak out about it! And I can without any doubt say that those who do speak are just a tiny fraction of all those who were badly hurt by the movement.
All in the name of humanity’s spiritual progress.
Cheers from Stockholm (Sweden),
-z
This article is a real devils brew consisting of lies and distortions. The author has made no real attempt to enter into the essential nature of anthroposophy and instead throws mud at some straw man.
Not suprising that it is an anonymous work.
I find it particularly awful the comments re. camphill. I lived and worked in one of those places. True they are not ideal, and i had plenty of difficult experiences, but on the whole i believe they are good places where i met people of genuine goodwill. In truth there is very little goodwill to be found among the people who commision and compose pieces of writing such as this.
Victor Morrow, when you mention the word ‘good’, what do you mean?
Zooey, that’s a revealing and excellent post. The feeling a child must have of helplessness, when their parents don’t have a clue, as you put it, makes for dispiriting reading.
And from a practical point of view, the fact you feel you wasted 9 years is just dire.
Victor Morrow, could you give me specific references to the lies and distortions?
The reason I stayed anonomous is obvious. Harassment of those with a different world view, who dare to talk or write about it, is endemic, as I wrote in the article.
There are good people in Camphill. And I believe some people who live and work there live reasonably fullfilling lives; in spite of their spiritual renewal. Camphill, in spite of it’s outward appearance of equality, is , as you proably know, fairly hierarchical in reality; and the villagers are at the bottom.
But good people can have motives which are not good. Personal spiritual paths don’t necessarily go hand in hand with social care.I think that’s the point here.
Aha, “Victor” begins the counter-offensive. Steiner good. Anthro good. Anthro critics bad.
Actually there’s more to it that anthros won’t talk about in front of critics. Steiner has written that they are in the vanguard of human spiritual/racial evolution towards the “universal human”. No prizes for guessing what colour that mythical creature’s skin will be. Therefore critics of anthroposophy must be, consciously or not, working to further the ends of “dark forces”. This explains the peculiarly virulent zealotry of some anthros.
TOtnesian, working with “dark forces”?
LOL. Anthroposophists do like to exaggerate the content of criticism sometimes though, saying “Steiner wasn’t a nazi” when that hadn’t even been mentioned for example. Clever.
If the anthroposophists actually admit Steiner’s doctrine in full, including his cosmic plan of the degeneration of “lower”, “evil” “primitive” races in favour of the “ideal pure type” ( would that be Aryan :-0?) they would have to essentially rewrite the entire anthroposophical belief system.
As yet, they don’t even distance themselves from it.
To those who have no idea what it’s all about, but have been seduced by the beauty, and the “ideals”, without knowing it’s full story, critics are bad.
I suspect anthroposophists dare not disclose this information or even question it as it would upset and interfere with Steiner’s cosmic plan, especially now it’s gaining such a strong foothold in alternative education.
Please check out these two sites:
Overcoming Racism through Anthroposophy:
http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/11_EffPractices/pdfs/RacismAnthro05.pdf
and
Waldorf schools against discrimination - Stuttgart Declaration
http://www.steinerwaldorfeurope.org/material/stuttgart_declaration.pdf
[[http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Art_of_Avoiding_History.htm The Art of Avoiding History]]
[[http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Anthroposophy-and-its-Def.htm Anthroposophy and its Defenders]]
[[http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/JanusFaceOfAnthroposophy.html The Janus face of Anthroposophy]]
The historian Peter Staudenmaier writes this about Steiner Waldorf under Hitler:
“I have bumped into this quote a few times now at Waldorf sites:
“With the rise to power of Hitler’s government, a life and death struggle began for the German Waldorf Schools. There was continuous harassment, and finally they were closed with the simple explanation that there was no place in Nazi Germany for any school that educated individuals to think for themselves.”
Does anyone have information regarding the source of this type of quote?
Was this “simple explanation” ever documented?
“It’s probably taken from one of the reports filed by the
anti-anthroposophist faction of the Nazis. That faction did indeed
denounce Waldorf education as excessively individualistic.
I’d like to say that this is only half the story, but in fact it’s more like one sixteenth of the story.
For starters, the Waldorf leadership themselveroutinely trumpeted Waldorf’s non-individualist orientation and boasted about how well the schools prepared pupils for joining the Volksgemeinschaft, the Nazis’ term for the German national community.
And the anti-anthroposophist faction within the party faced a powerful lobby of pro-anthroposophist Nazis, who supported and promoted Waldorf education along with biodynamic farming and other anthroposophist endeavors.
The anti-anthroposophist faction didn’t gain the upper hand until the middle of 1941, more than eight years into the Nazis’ twelve-year reign, and the last Waldorf school in Germany wasn’t shut
down until then (while several Waldorf schools continued to operate in other countries under Nazi occupation). Above all…there was a significant measure of pro-Nazi sentiment among leading anthroposophists during the Third Reich, and the Waldorf movement was no exception in this regard.
Within active Waldorf circles, the two chief tendencies
were an enthusiastically Nazi grouping, who saw Waldorf pedagogy as especially compatible with the goals of the Third Reich, and a larger accomodationist grouping that attempted to convince Nazi educational authorities (who looked askance at all private schools) that Waldorf was an acceptable alternative to state schooling.
Interestingly, the main Waldorf journal at the time was somewhat more forthright in its appreciative comments about various aspects of National Socialism than other German anthroposophist periodicals were (though they were outdone,
of course, by the chief biodynamics journal, which praised Hitler even after the start of the war). Also, a large proportion of Waldorf faculty joined the Nazi teachers’ association at a relatively early stage.
As usual, the passage above reveals that anthroposophically derived projects still have a long way to go in coming to terms with their own
past.
Peter S.”
For a detailed description of the alleged “secret” relation between Waldorf education and anthroposophy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_schools
For an introduction to the small W(aldorf)C(ritics) hate type of group the author recommends and uses as source of ‘”information” about Waldorf education, see http://americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html
For an introduction to the writings by the author of the article “Anthroposophy and Ecofascism”, see http://americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html
Thebee, has it ever occurred to you (spiritually speaking of course), that the very act of parents and students asking these questions and highlighting our harrowing experiences that in some way it is part of Steiner’s cosmic plan?
If you can stop posting with your hate campaign angle for a moment and think of ALL the possible consequences, it may be that it is the right thing to happen. We both know that anthroposophy won’t be taken out of the equation - you can’t have Steiner/Waldorf schools without the anthroposophy. Steiner Waldorf schools ARE anthropsophy. It may be that the movement is forced into full disclosure and be renamed Anthroposophy schools, you won’t get the public funding that you were hoping for, but by being open and truthful you may attract parents genuinely interested in anthropsophy BEFORE signing up themselves and their children to the movement.
Changing how one responds could be a really valuable opportunity to strengthen your resolve and reevaluate where the movement needs to be rather than trying to secretly spiritualize the world while denying the misson to do so exists.
The Bee, wrong on a few counts I think;
there’s been a long running dispute at wikipedia; the anthrposophists apparently watch it to make sure only their version is there.
If, according to your stance, anthroposophy is so open in the Steiner waldorf movement, why is it so very rarely mentioned in the school’s promotional material and websites?
Why do you think this is?
As to my sources of information, unless you are using anthroposophical clairvoyance, I find it hard to believe you’re aware of my reading material:
Steiner’s own work forms the main thrust, his anthroposophical beliefs are there in black and white; much of this is recently published, or on the Rudolf Steiner Archive.
academic research and historical studies, Peter Staudenmaier’s scholarly scrutiny certainly leaves few stones unturned;
personal experience, and experience of others.
I’m sure much of what is written is uncomfortable for anthroposophists to accept.
I wouldn’t use the phrase “hate group” about Waldorf Critics, although it seems to generate a strong feeling from Steiner Waldorf supporters and anthroposophists; it’s not particularly small either is it? With members from all over the US and Europe?
It would be more pertinant if you actually commented on the essential ideas in this article.
Private Eye, what a wonderful idea! Part of the great plan. But you’re so right. If the schools attracted people who actually believed in anthroposophy, much much harm and heartache could be avoided. Unlike, say church schools ( which our youngest goes to) where one understands the religious bias, it is open and clear, and we can talk to our children about religious belief, and what people around the world believe and how it differs.
In Steiner schools, as no one talks about anthroposophy, and they are shifty about allowing any observation of the classes, we only catch snippets from our children; they never mention that reincarnation and karma (among a host of other beliefs) are integral to Steiner’s model of child development; they make it their business not to.
Would you like to comment TheBee?
It is widely reported that Thebee is at the forefront of the long running dispute at Wikipedia in which Staff Reporter speaks of. He monitors the net constantly for any unfavourable press which is why we find him here. I first had the pleasure of his company at the mother’s website Mumsnet where he pretended to be a mother called Eva52. If anyone has a few days to spare I recommend looking through the 4000+ posts to appreciate his PR campaign, threats, demands and finally revealing his close legal associate Percy Bratt (yes really) to block, threaten and delete parents writing about their experiences .
Let’s examine this term spiritual science that Rudolph Steiner spoke of, I jumped for joy this morning when I read all about Charles Bonnet Syndrome, an 18th-century Swiss philosopher whose grandfather had seen people, patterns and vehicles that were not really there. Bonnet was the first person to identify that through sensory deprivation, say if you blindfold yourself long enough one could have visual hallucinations. so crucially, the condition is caused by lack of visual stimulation. Usually, on opening our eyes, the nerve cells in the retina send a constant stream of impulses to the visual parts of the brain. If the retina is suppressed or damaged, the stream of impulses reduces, but - rather than lie dormant - other parts of the brain become hyperactive. So when the brain isn’t receiving as many pictures as it is used to, it builds its own artificial images instead from the areas we use every day to process faces, objects, landscapes and colours. Cloud bursting for the idle?
As a parent of a Steiner Waldorf school you are asked not to allow media into the family home, this includes tv, radio and newspapers, so no wonder the Steiner folk are ’seeing gnomes’, it must be welcome relief when all you have is a flaccid puppet and a beeswax candle for company.
(I/III) HATE TYPE OF CAMPAIGN?
Is the hate campaign angle proper with regard to the anti-Waldorf campaign cultivated by the WC group since long - http://thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#Summarizing_comments
It started its anti-Waldorf campaign in 1997 by supporting allegations that Waldorf schools practice and teach witchcraft - http://tinyurl.com/dy3wd6 Since then, it has continued to publish among other myths two that together correspond to the central anti-Semitic myth, the “Jewish World Conspiracy” myth. See myth 5 and 6 at http://americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html To this come the repeated insinuations through years by the prime mover of the WC, Dan Dugan on his mailing list that Steiner basically was not that different in nature to Hitler.
Since a number of years, the WC-group has then continued to publish and support the inquisitory and repeatedly untrue and twisted writings of Peter Staudenmaier, who fills a similar role to WCs as the historian David Irving to anti-Semites. The hate-nature of the campaign is also shown by “Staff Writer”s way of continuing to pursue it in the guest blog above, filled with appalling out of context “quotes”, similar in nature to those used by JewWatch against Jews and Jewry.
Is the hate-angle a to the point description of the WC anti-Steiner campaign that you continue to pursue in your guest blog above? If you look closely and in full at what the WC-site publishes and know its history, I do think it supports this characterization
(II/III) JUSTIFIED DEMAND
On:”It may be that the movement is forced into full disclosure and be renamed Anthroposophy schools, you won’t get the public funding that you were hoping for, but by being open and truthful you may attract parents genuinely interested in anthropsophy BEFORE signing up themselves and their children to the movement.”
There are two aspects of this demand.
One is proper. Our time does not stand secrecy. Of course parents are completely justified in their right to know that Waldorf education and Waldorf schools have their roots in an anthroposophical view and understanding of the human being as a being of body soul and spirit, and of the world.
The Wikipedia article on Waldorf education “reveals” this in full. This is also the case with the site of WaldorfAnswers, for which I am co-webmaster, and that is fully supported and linked to by for example the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America and the European Council of Steiner Waldorf Education (ECSWE) as one of many informational sites on Waldorf education. ECSWE also gives many links to sites on Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy for purely informational purposes for anyone interested.
BUT: Waldorf schools are not targeted at children of anthroposophists or people more or less deeply interested in anthroposophy and the parents need not be interested in or even sympathize with anthroposophy neither before, nor during, nor after they have had their children in a Waldorf school.
I doubt many of the numerous (also prominent) people who have gone to or who have been parents to pupils at Waldorf schools through many decades would consider themselves to be “anthroposophists” -
What parents think of anthroposophy as such is quite uninteresting as long as they think what the schools do is good for their children. In no way are the schools meant to be any sort of recruiting organizations for any anthroposophically based activity. If some school pursues such a goal, it is completely off-track. What the parents think or what worldview, secular or religious they have is completely up to themselves to decide and act on.
Anecdotal evidence also indicates that very few of the pupils continue into some sort of anthroposophically based activity after school, and that the proportion of the pupils that do that does not differ very much from the proportion of parents with an anthroposophical inkling - http://waldorfanswers.org/WAnthroposophyMyth.htm
http://waldorfanswers.org/Waldorf.htm tries to give a balanced and to the point description of the relation between Waldorf education and anthroposophy.
While Waldorf schools have much of their roots in an “anthroposophical” view and understanding of man, they must not in any way try to “sell” it, neither to the parents nor to their pupils, and therefore also do not tell about it more than marginally in passing at their web sites. Also, many teachers probably also do not know or understand enough about it to be able to answer possible penetrating questions by parents about it. If it had been a goal of Waldorf education to “recruit” “anthroposophists” they would be trained to do it. But it isn’t and they aren’t.
(III/III) DEMAND WITH A TWIST
The second aspect of the justified demand that Waldorf schools tell about their roots in an anthroposophical view and understanding of the human being and the world is twisted.
It has very little to do with the as such fully proper right by prospective or present parents or others to know about the philosophical basis of Waldorf education, but with something else.
It has to do with a wish by some “waldorf critics” that prospective parents and others be “informed” that anthroposophy as the philosophical basie of Waldorf education is bonkers, crazy, evil, anti-human, and not least anti-Semitic as “Staff Reporter” tries to portray it above.
This is a spin-off of failed efforts by its all time secretary of the WC/PLANS at the end of the 1980s to transform the San Francisco Bay Area Skeptics (BAS) at the time into a crusading offensive grass root organization, preaching secular humanism in the Bay area - http://thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS Even his own buddies in BAS.
In 1991, two years after the failed campaign against his own secular humanist friends, Mr. Dugan ran a new campaign, now against audiophiles. In an article in the Journal Stereophile at the time, “Audio McCarthyism”, the reporter expressed his great surprise at the unexpected demagoguery used by Mr. Dugan in the campaign, comparing it to that used by the otherwise quiet, undistinguished Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy at the beginning of the 1950s in his use of irresponsible accusations, militant attacks and self aggrandizing witch-hunting in his efforts to try to crash his opponents.
That’s the way the WC group and site and Mr. Dugan have continued since then. After reading the guest blog at the top of theis page by “Staff Reporter” and the comments following it, Mr. Dugan has commented on it as a fulfillment of his anti-Steiner crusade and diatribe since many years: “Wow! With a dialogue like that going on, maybe I can just retire to my nature sound recording now!”
Thebee,
co-webmaster of WaldorfAnswers
(As for Wikipedia, that you “Staff Reporter” describe with “there’s been a long running dispute at wikipedia; the anthrposophists apparently watch it to make sure only their version is there.” After an arbitration some years ago, it was ruled that only reliable published unbiased sources were allowed to use as citations for controversial issues. That’s the reason the articles related to Waldorf education look the way they do. They follow the ruling of the arbitration, that is the good standard for all normal encyclopedias.)
@TheBee
Our writer has elected to remain anonymous. Please respect that, or you will be banned from Counterknowledge.com.
Thebee:
Why are you so excited then at the criticisms of mothers who have had such bad experiences at Steiner schools all over the country? The distress caused is sometimes so great that families take years to recover from their brush with one of the most inefficient education systems in existence.
If you have confidence in the strengths of your system you need not protest so much. Certainly you would not need to pursue across the web individuals speaking from traumatic personal experience, in many cases concerning young children.
Few are interested in the minutiae of arguments between a group of San Francisco humanists in the 80s and 90s. Is there an case to be made for Steiner education on its merits now which would justify state funding? If anthroposophy is so mild and inoffensive, why does the literature outlining the character of individual schools not go into greater depth to explain the basis of Steiner education? Why do so few parents know that Steiner gained his spiritual knowledge through clairvoyance? It’s hard to pin the schools down on his one.
I am all for diversity in education. The kindergarten system used in Steiner schools has many merits from which my own son benefited and I learnt a great deal about the needs of small children from exceptional teachers who, I agree, were doing their best to ignore anthroposophy.
But this criticism of Steiner schools is part of the wider debate about anti-rationalism which rightly informs this site. There are other schools which provide an alternative to state education, one of the very best not far from Totnes. Parents who find it often say this is what they were looking for when they stumbled into the local Steiner school. It is creative, democratic and secular. Independent minds flourish.
Thebee
Thankyou for making an attempt to reply to some of the points.
I don’t actually mention anti semitism specifically; the article is about general racist belief in Steiner’s world view of reincarnation and evolution, but since you bring it up, here’s some of Steiner’s words on the subject:
“Anyone who has dealt with Jews knows that… mistrust of non-Jews has completely taken over their souls … I consider antisemites to be harmless people.” Rudolf Steiner, “Die Sehnsucht der Juden nach Palästina,” Magazin für Literatur, vol. 66 no. 38,
“The Jews have a great gift for materialism, but little for recognition of the spiritual world.” [Rudolf Steiner, FROM BEETROOT TO BUDDHISM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1999)
“Judaism as such has long outlived itself and no longer has a legitimate place in the modern life of peoples; the fact that it has nevertheless succeeded in maintaining itself is an aberration in world history the consequences of which had to follow.” [Rudolf Steiner, On the Nature of the Jews, DIE GESCHICHTE DER MENSCHHEIT UND DIE WELTANSCHAUUNGEN DER KULTURVOLKER, Dornach, 1968; English translation from “Anthroposophy and the Question of Race” (English summary for the media). Council of the Anthroposophical Society in The Netherlands, Zeist/Driebergen, April 1, 2000.]
Regarding anthroposophists racist views generally, in the lead up to Nazism, Peter Staudenmaier posted this on the waldorf discussion lists this morning; fully referenced for sources, it makes illuminating reading, and would be worth your while reading, before you dismiss any idea that anthroposohists and their belief has never carried racist ideas or propaganda.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/8903
Just a quick question - If anthroposophy is so irrelevant to Steiner waldorf education, of so little consequence that it isn’t even mentioned in the schools websites, and that your websites make it out to be of little importance, what is the point of it?
Private eye,
your post about Charles Bonnet, which unfortunately got pushed higher up the page owing to screeds of other posts… is inspired. The schools do encourage that dream like state from the children. Don’t they believe that academic stimulation up to the age of 14 damages the astral body?
Hallucinations of gnomes and fairies, visions of sylphs are all quite probable with so little stimulation apart from wishy washy watery paints and chanting teachers.
Just shortly:
See above and below http://waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html#Noah
For a general introduction to the reliability of Staudenmaier’s way of describing published historical sources:
http://defendingsteiner.com/refutations/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism.php
… and
http://thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
Thebee, why don’t you put down your links for a moment and try and engage with the other posters?
Thebee, I’ve taken a look at your websites and your rantings do anthroposophy no favours. I recall you saying it took 10 years of ‘feeling for elephants in the dark’ before you understood the philosophy.
Anyone can set up a website, just as anyone can call themselves a musician, a therapist, a teacher an artist or a healer which I found typical in Steiner schools though strangely I never saw any of them working…..
Peter Staudenmaier on the other hand is a published author, a lecturer, a social ecologist and historian who has been involved with the Institute for Social Ecology since 1989. He has been an active participant in the anarchist movement, the green movement, and the cooperative movement in the United States and Germany for two decades. He is currently a PhD candidate at Cornell University.
Thebee, may I ask what are your qualifications?
I have studied mathematics, physics, and biology at the University of Stockholm, psychology at the University of Oslo and philosophy of science at the University of Gothenburg and at the Karolinska Institute. I have a Waldorf teacher training, have taught math at Waldorf schools and taken an active interest in anthroposophy for some 35 years.
I have participated in the alternative movement in Sweden, and with 1000+ contributions in discussions with “critics” of all sorts on the WC-list a number of years ago and with quite some few at Mumsnet last year, possibly also with you there.
Don’t be offended if I think I’ve hade my share of it and feel disinclined to participate in any more such discussions also here beyond some links to what I already have written.
Regards,
Thebee, thank you for leaving.
Onwards.
I was “educated” at a Steiner school for five years. When I was about eight or nine we had regular painting lessons using handmade, natural watercolour paints. We were told what colours to use (black is NEVER permitted) and shown how to arrange these colours in whichever indistinguishable wishwash the teacher had chosen that day. On one day a boy with black hair and dark skin, who often got into trouble with the teacher, had drawn a wave and a man surfing on that wave. A blonde blue eyed girl, sitting next to him cried out for the teacher to come and look and on seeing the drawing she removed the paper, threw it away and instructed him to stay in at break and draw a more ’soulful’ picture. She used that exact word, soulful.
The boy is now working in fields for some of his lessons, as he apparently can’t take part in school life. We don’t think it has anything to do with him having dark hair, but one never knows.
My experience with Steiner education is that it does not promote originality and in-fact stifles it, this view is shared by all the children I know who have left the school, and some who are still there.
I am still in full time education, studying for ten GCSEs, in spite of some of my previous “Schooling.”
Experiences vary. For some other examples
see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/WaldorfComments.htm
For some former Waldorf alumni and parents of Waldorf pupils:
see http://www.diewaldorfs.waldorf.net/listengl.html
Experiences vary but surely with schooling any bad experiences should not be ignored, or thought of as anomalies. Especially when they keep cropping up. I left the school at the age of nine, illiterate and without basic arithmetic. (I can think of many good things that came out of The Second World war.)Many of my friends still in the class are illiterate and without an understanding of the basic ideas of society outside their ‘madhouse’ (they commonly refer to the school in that manner.)
In fact one boy I know who recently joined my school stood up and complained of lies when we were looking at the Theory of Evolution. He had been taught one) that creation was fact and two) that evolution was evil myth. My science teacher had to spend hours with him persuading him that he was not lying.
Now, is that right? And is that an experience that should be allowed to have been on the wrong side of the variation?
I see that you appear, thebee, on forums for mothers discussing the experiences of their young families. Yet you yourself have no children and a vested interest in suppressing honest and open debate. Why do you do this? If you had confidence in the system you advocate you simply wouldn’t need to debase yourself in this way. What are you so afraid of?
Thank you, Staff Reporter, for opening this debate.
Experiences vary?
Thebee, I think you are having difficulty paying attention. You are only reading with one eye on the page. I asked for your professional qualifications and you have not answered.
I would also like to ask were you educated at a Steiner school?
Because whatever you say is surely meaningless without hearing about the students, the children on the receiving end of this education.
I would hope that not all Steiner Waldorf teachers are as ignorant and as rude as you. Listening to what people have to say here with a little more care and respect would be a great opportunity for you and your movement, but alas I think its too late.
http://www.waldorf-problems.com/basement
Thanks for everyone’s comments, particularly Achilles, who’s post illustrates the point that no one really knows how anthroposophical ideas, “truths” can get into the classroom.
Thebee ( and other anthroposophical protagonists would like us to believe there are a few, isolated experiences which are unfortunate,; in his heart of hearts, he must know this isn’t so.
It’s a shame that The Bee thinks it is a “twist” that parents expect to be told about anthroposophy before they enrol their children.
Why?
What on earth is “twisted” about that?
Once again, I ask, if anthroposophy has so little significance that it isn’t mentioned by the schools, and the schools aren’t trying to encourage children to absorb anthroposophical notions, what is its point?
The teachers are trained in it, the schools are “based” on it.
The curriculum is guided by it.
Why?
( I don’t expect a coherent answer, but one can always hope)
The Bee, if you follow anthroposophical forums on the internet, you would see that anthroposophists talk openly about “spirit” in the classroom, and anthroposophy in schools. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Aren’t websites like “Why Waldorf Works” trying to “sell” the education, and therefore “anthroposphical beliefs?
I noticed too, that TheBee hasn’t addressed the part of the article about white skin and dark skin in relation to spirituality, and that before the “universal human” is attained, degenerate, decadent, backward, lower, demonic, abnormal, evil races, which were an unfortunate mistake, and have to disappear, while the “higher”, normal” “perfect” races can absorb spirituality. Many people ( but apparently not that many anthroposophists, although some are coming round) believe this is racist.
It’s good, The Bee that you have tried to answer some points. Could you adress this one?
Now, why didn’t anyone tell me there was a ‘happening’ happening here!?
Firstly, I know those Brummies want to de-apostrophise our white and snowy land, but…come on Victor, how pejorative of you to call this a “devil’s” brew – you see apostrophising is more credible than anthroposophising – and how unchristian of you to tar CounterKnowledgers with “lies and distortions” and then slink away without any expostulation. Perhaps you’d care to answer my questionnaire at the end?
Now, Ms Penny, who conjures up the most oxymoronic image of a feminist Anthroposophist. Or perhaps ‘she’ transgendered into, well, the perfect Anthro….
Which leads me to……Thebee or as I’m beginning to think uncharitably of him as Thedrone.
Let’s start with his website – this is the bluffer’s guide to Anthroposophy. It starts with the proud exhortation that he has spent “35 years trying to understand and investigate anthroposophy”. Så intressant (as they say in Sweden). 35 years –highly commendable, old boy. You must be headed for a long-service fluffy gnome from the incubus of Racist Rudolf the Raving! 35 years!?!?! 35 minutes was more than enough for my polecat-sized brain to decipher the most concentrated amount of mumbo-jumbo, verbosity, drivel and irrationality dressed up as educational science. Is it possible that ANYONE would think of enrolling in Steiner-Waldorf after reading 35 minutes of Thedrone? I prefer to click on the ‘Till svensk version’ as I get damnably excited by all those crazy umlauts.
But there is more to Thedrone.
Notwithstanding his loopy website, it seems that he/she is a cyberstalker - redolent with Anthrobabble and endless links - but with a default position of vexatiousness if he/she cannot win arguments on sites. I gather that he/she appears on sites (Mumsnet and others) under various female guises and stalks anti-Steiner posters (usually women). Thedrone (and/or his legal chihuahua) then threatens legal bollocks against the site and ALL discussion is terminated and traces of the forum are destroyed. Jolly unsporting, I say.
So, let us raise any number of fingers in salute to Thedrone, the ‘idiot savant’ of Anthros and Anthrobabble.
Since I have a paramount interest in a happy and fulfilled education (for our young polecats) I happened upon the apparently credible Steiner-Waldorf alternative. And now I’ve spent the past month sleuthing a long, tortuous trawl behind the fluffy, earthy, smiley public face of Steiner-Waldorf and consulted widely and the truth is oh so different.
There may be some good aspects to the S-W curriculum but those are far outweighed by the delusional and deceitful aspects. For instance such ‘truths’ as karma, temperaments, astrology, gnomes, Atlantans, dragons, goblins, fairies, nymphs, undines, sylphs, spirit salamanders, clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis and many many more are all prevalent - all Steiner lunacy best left in the miasma of the 12th Century. It is apparent that some teachers can start teaching with minimal background qualifications and would be unsuitable to teach invertebrates. The art is execrable – Picasso would have gone black in the face! Bullying is tolerated as this is part of the child’s ‘destiny’ and ‘inferior race’ children are only tolerated so that they might re-eincarnate into higher (Aryan?) beings. What horror show is this?
What concerns me as a rationalist and free-thinker is that S-W (and ALL other faith) schools are not only antithetical to everything I hold dearly but that S-W does not limit itself to self-flagellation amongst its idiotic inner circle – instead it sets up schools to propagate and inseminate their insidious and pernicious ideas upon unsuspecting parents (and children); and it is the children who suffer most (as so eloquently evidenced by Achilles’s testimony) Go to the Hereford Steiner Academy website and check it out – the school looks enticing but it It is clear that it is not what IS said and written, but what is NOT…not a single word about the core principles of Anthroposophy. It is difficult enough dealing with the rigours of ‘faith’ indoctrination within some schools in Britland but now the unsuspecting taxpayer has to tolerate the Steiner lunacy as well.
Well, thank goodness there are some brave and good people here who are willing to expose the deceits, the delusions and dangers of Steiner by saying NOT IN MY NAME!
If it looks like a cult, if it smells like a cult, then, by all the tractable thunderbolts of Nietzsche, it IS a Cult!
Now to lighten everyone’s temperament (oops, sorry…mood), let’s end on a lighter note….my Anthro questionnaire. To make it simple, please…no Anthrobollocks, just answer YES or NO.
1. Would you ascribe the 4 temperaments within the education a children in your care? YES/NO
2.Do you believe in reincarnation in particular within racial stereotypes? YES/NO
3.If a child of yours died, say, because you hadn’t vaccinated him/her against measles would you say it’s because of karmic destiny? YES/NO
Now to sashay over to the Dawk’s site and find some pesky creationists against whom to cock my leg!
The Polecat (BSc, and more)
En passant dear CKer’s…Fab gear site!
Polecat - you are a joy to read!
Thank you for that.
Polecat had we known where to find you we would have drawn out the fulsome odour of your prose.
In my neck of the (gnome infested) woods they say of Steiner mothers at the peak of their feverish delusion: ‘There goes a woman who knits her own knickers!’
And really it can feel as if you did.
Good health to your polekittens
Welcome Polecat … clever, stealthy, slinky, killer of chickens….you live up to your name.
A wonderful piece, thankyou… :-)))
I think everyone has been suitably gushing toward you.
Thank you for your delicious post.
For a while I thought of here in detail deconstructing the outstandingly twisted anti-Steiner agitprop blog piece by “anonymous” to show in what way it distorts the original conceptual and argumentative meaning of the “quotes” she gives in the social, and specific historical context from which they are abstracted, as also the “summary’” of Waldorf ed. linked to by Private Eye.
But I decided not to do it, to not help Mr. Staudenmaier too much to polish his argumentation preparing for his final institutionalisation this summer as the David Irving of W(aldorf)C(critics),
I’ll just shortly indicate how twisted it is.
What did Evelyn Galinski, former Waldorf pupil and daughter of Heinz Galinski, Auschwitz survivor and for a number of years Chairman of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, have to say some years ago about her time as pupil at the Waldorf school her father had put her after WWII:
“I personally have had only good experiences during my school time; it was liberal, antiracist, tolerant of every faith and not missionary”
And how does Kenneth Chenault, African-American Chairman and CEO of American Express, former Waldorf student describe his time as pupil at the school he went to (Waldorf School of Garden City) :
“My parents were looking for a school that would nurture the whole person. They also felt that the Waldorf school would be a far more open environment for African Americans, and that was focused on educating students with values, as well as the academic tools necessary to be constructive and contributing human beings. …
“I think the end result of Waldorf education is to raise our consciousness. There is a heightened consciousness of what our senses bring us from the world around us, about our feelings, about the way we relate to other people. It taught me how to think for myself, to be responsible for my decisions. Second, it made me a good listener, sensitive to the needs of others. And third, it helped establish meaningful beliefs. In all the Main Block lessons — in history, science, philosophy — we really probed the importance of values and beliefs. In dealing with a lot of complex issues and a lot of stress, if that isn’t balanced by a core of meaningful beliefs, you really will just be consumed and fail.”
Somehow, the daughter of the Chairperson of the Jewish Council in Germany and the CEO of American Express must completely have misunderstood their education.
Did their schools make him or Evelyn into “anthroposophists”? I very much doubt they would describe themselves as such, if asked, something that would confirm that Waldorf schools consciously work at trying to implement Steiner’s expressed intention:
“As mentioned before, it is not at all our aim to teach an ideology in a Waldorf School, though such a thought might easily occur to people upon hearing that the anthroposophists have founded a new school. Our aim is to carry insights gained through knowledge of anthroposophy right into actual teaching.”
“The teacher is called upon to carry into his lessons the utmost respect for soul and spirit. Without it, he will succeed as little as if he were lacking an even fundamental artistic and scientific background. Therefore the first prerequisite of a Waldorf teacher is to have reverence for the soul and spiritual potential which each child brings with it into the world.
“When confronted with the child, the teacher must be imbued with the awareness that he is dealing with an innately free human being. With this attitude he will be able to work out educational principles and methods which will safeguard the child’s inborn freedom so that in later life, when a pupil looks back upon his school days, he will not find any infringement upon his personal freedom, not even in the aftereffects of his education.”
http://waldorfanswers.org/Injunction.htm
See also http://waldorfanswers.org/WaldorfFAQ.htm
What did Steiner himself have to say about the relevance today of racial characteristics:
1901: “Anti-Semitism is not only a danger to Jews, it is also a danger to non-Jews”
1908: “In regard to present humanity … it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of the races. In the true sense of the word this development of the races applies only to the Atlantean epoch (Ed comment: Cenozoic time.) … External physiognomies then differed so greatly that one could actually speak of different forms … In our own epoch the concept of race will gradually disappear along with all the differences that are relics of earlier times. Thus everything that exists today in connection with the [different] races are relics of the differentiation that took place in Atlantean (Cenozoic) times. We can still speak of races but only in the sense that the real concept of races is losing its validity.”
Thebee, you do love to spin a good yarn!
If you can put down your knitting for a moment and let me explain that your celebrity list may need a little tweaking.
I am sure Kenneth Chenault is a lovely warm human being, however as CEO of American Express, I don’t see how the green, holistic ethical stance that your movement loves to peddle empathises with the thrusting world of finance, especially now the world is in financial meltdown which began in America.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/news/companies/american_express/index.htm
While profoundly dazzled by the inventory on your celebrity Steiner list, discovering such gems as Melinda Messenger sending her children to one of your schools, you do seem to have overlooked our very own David Gilmore from Pink Floyd, here he is talking about his specially acquired knowledge here
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/TelegraphGilmour.html
So are you saying the academic and historian Peter Staudenmaier is actually David Irving? You could always ask him directly here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages he is incredibly patient explaining anthroposophy to the uninitiated.
As for your rather tenuous reference to Auschwitz, I can only pity your desperation.
I’m not sure I would be happy with any teacher dwelling on the soul and spiritual potential of my children. I think that’s the whole point. Please clarify: what is spiritual potential? Do you mean something incorporeal? Ethereal? Mystical? So that is what you intend to deal with, in these Steiner schools, after all, is it?
Or can a parent ask to opt out: in other words that their child not be meddled with in this presumptuous way?
Do Waldorf schools foster racist pupils as “anonymous” tries to insinuate, something one would expect if anthroposophy was racist and imbuing all teaching at Waldorf schools, as alleged by “critics”?
There are two empirical studies related to this.
One was done some years ago by a prof of education at Karlstad University (in Sweden). While he can be described as an anthroposophists in some sense, the study was reviewed by two independent prof of ed, one in Karlstad and one in Stockholm and a prof emeritus at the University of Karlstad.
The study among other things compared several hundred Waldorf students (grade 9 and 12) to corresponding students in public schools. (For a summary, see http://tinyurl.com/5jo8c9) Among other things the research showed that the majority of the pupils in both types of school repudiated Nazism and racism.
However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%).
The result is supported by another study, done in Germany some years ago by an independent research institute at the request of the German parliament, to find out among other things how wide spread racism is among German school pupils.
It showed among other things that the proportion of xenophobic pupils, hostile to foreigners, was by far the lowest among Waldorf pupils, 2.8%, compared to “Gymnasien” (High schools) 8.3%, “Gesamtschulen” 16.5 %, “Realschulen” 17.4 % and “Hauptschulen” (main schools) 24.7 %.
So, what is the blog piece at the top by a FTM (Fast Typing Mother)? Yet another of the many agitprop Hamas type of twisted word missiles she has sent into discussion forums and blogs on the internet territory in an endless anti-Steiner crusade since the end of 2007. Nothing else.
I just realized that the trio that makes up the editing board on this site all appear to be Roman Catholics!
And now the “guest post” from the “anonymous contributor” is seen in it’s true light!
There is a smile on my face now boys! I shall sleep well tonight.
Nobody call me a fast typing Catholic and gets away with it.
I throw my shoe at you, my quality handmade leather jesus sandal at you.
May you choke on your own lies.
A colleague has drawn my attention to this blog and the recent exchanges on Rudolf Steiner and Steiner schools. I’m the communications officer for the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship (SWSF), the membership organization for Steiner schools in the UK and Ireland.
It’s good to see some familiar Waldorf Critics people posting their usual stories here, though as is their normal practice, using a variety of different aliases. I don’t propose to get into a discussion of what Steiner did or didn’t say or the context in which he said it, because this truly would be to enter into a dialogue of the deaf. There are different world-views represented in these debates and there simply is no point in engaging in arguments with individuals who proceed from such totally different premises.
In connection with the schools, however, I wish to say the following:
1. Several people have reported on bizarre or disturbing experiences they say have occurred within Steiner schools. Now if these are schools in the UK and Ireland, they will be members of SWSF and parents have a clear procedure they can follow in the case of complaints. This procedure will be set out in the parents’ handbook issued to families when they enrol a child at the school. If you are unable to resolve the complaint within the school, you can then refer it to the SWSF. And, it should be needless to say, if you have the slightest concern about child protection issues, each school will have a designated person responsible for such issues. Again, the procedure is quite clear – and if you are dissatisfied with how the school has handled it, you should contact the designated officer in your local authority.
2. The SWSF has a comprehensive Code of Practice for its member schools, which is available in the Documents section of the SWSF website. Please have a look at it to get an idea of how schools in the UK and Ireland organise themselves in relation to parents, pupils and staff.
3. Anthroposophy is the name given by Rudolf Steiner to his philosophy and which has inspired many people throughout the world in fields as diverse as education, economics, agriculture, medicine, etc. It can be applied to all walks of life and provides guiding principles for the teachers’ work. Not all teachers in Steiner schools are anthroposophists but all of them are interested in teaching within a school system that recognizes the physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs of the developing child and aims to give each child what it needs at each stage of its development. It is quite true that Steiner’s insights came as a result of his clairvoyant, intuitive consciousness – I am sorry that this may come as shocking and unacceptable news to some people, but there it is. I suggest you open a bottle of good biodynamic wine and try to get over it.
4. If there are any people reading this blog with a genuine interest in finding out about the reality of Steiner Waldorf education, my advice would be to put aside for one moment the scare stories and distortions of the WC people and visit your nearest Steiner school on its next Open Day. There is a list of the schools on the SWSF website. Talk to parents, talk to pupils and teachers and make up your own mind.
Since it is my policy not to feed the trolls or further inflame the condition of those poor unfortunates with marked symptoms of OCD, I will not be making any additional postings on this blog. However, if anyone has a genuine concern about a UK or Irish Steiner school that they have been unable to resolve, please contact me via the SWSF office and I will do my best to help.
Kind regards,
Jeremy Smith
Jeremy, the difficulty here is that your best is very different to my best.
It will take more than a few of your sugar pills to right the wrongs of anthropsophy on my family.
Victor Morrow, I wrote the piece, ( I chose to remain anonymous because some anthroposophists get a bit worked up about having Steiner’s dirty laundry aired in public, and become threatening).
The article has nothing to do with any religion except anthroposophy.
I re-read The being of Man and his Future Evolution last night, and find myself appalled all over again:
“Those people, however, who had developed their ego being too little, and who were too exposed to the influences of the sun, were like plants: they deposited too many carbonic constituents beneath their skin and became black. This is why the Negroes are black. Thus both east of Atlantis in the black population and west of Atlantis in the red population we find survivors of the kind of people who had not developed their ego-feeling in a normal way. The human beings who had developed normally lent themselves best to progress.
..those are the peoples who denied their ego to such an extent that they went black, because the external forces coming from the sun to the earth made them so. Only those peoples that were capable of holding the balance with regard to their ego could develop into the future.
The last remnant of those human groups in which the nutritive system hardened too soon now forms the Negroid races. Then there are those who degenerated at too early a stage through the nervous system becoming hardened and not remaining soft long enough for it to become available as an instrument of higher thought; of these the Malays are the last relic. Therefore, among them are tendencies towards certain passionate and sensuous instincts….
So fundamentally we have two groups of people representing combinations: those on European soil, forming the root stock of the white population, who had predominantly developed the feeling of personality…….their inner character was strong and firm……
On the other hand there are those peoples in Asia with passive, self-effacing natures in whom just this passivity expresses itself in the highest degree. This makes the people dreamy, and the etheric body penetrates very deeply into the physical body. That is the fundamental difference between the European and the Asiatic peoples.
Thus we see that the peoples of Asia were given instruction of the kind to satisfy them in their passivity and self-effacement.
In ancient Atlantis, for instance, there were peoples who dropped out of the earth population so to speak, and they became Red Indians……they developed this ego so strongly that it affected even the colour of their skin, and that is how they became red. Their development led them into decadence..”
I also re-read The Mission of the Folk Souls
” Everything which gives the Ethiopian race its special characteristics comes from the fact that the Mercury forces seethe and surge in the glandular system of this people. What modifies the universal human form into the special form of the Ethiopian race with black skin and woolly hair and so on, is the result of their activity.”
There’s so much more… and more and more. He loved the sound of his own words …
Both these are available online at The Rudlf Steiner Archive I think, if anyone wants to check the source, read it in context; (the meaning doesn’t change, Steiner gives charateristics to races from the colour of their skin, (and how they acquired their skin colour) and arranges them higher or lower, normal or not, those who degenerate, those who can progress spiritually and those who can’t…..but that’s usually a criticism.)
What I would be interested in , particularly from Jeremy Smith, the representitive of Steiner waldorf schools, (who has told us here that anthroposophical belief, which the schools draw from and are rooted in, is derived from Rudolf Steiner’s clairvoyance) is what he thinks of these anthroposophical clairvoyant “truths” about race, skin colour, spirituality, normal races, degenerate races, Atlantis etc?
The Bee, don’t hold back, please, I’d be interested to see your “deconstruction” of the article; and interested to hear your views on Steiner’s teaching about race; far more interested than the people who came through the system unscathed; if you read the artcle carefully, I don’t ever say the schools are racist ( although one never really knows motives for behaviour)
The article clearly points out that the doctrine of anthroposophy is based on race belief, which many , including me, would call racist.
Jeremy Smith, these are important issues which need to be adressed, please don’t belittle them, avoid them, by crass suggestions that those affected “open a bottle of bio dynamic wine”.
Don’t you believe this is a serious issue?
I was listening to Any Questions this afternoon; they were discussing the use of the word “gollywog” used by Carol Thatcher. Her apparent defence was that she “was joking”, and didn’t mean it in a nasty way; the response from Afro Carribean listeners was interesting.
The schools break trust at the outset by deceiving people about anthroposophy, by not mentioning it atall; by denying there is anything religious about the schools atall; by concealing the anthroposophically led decisions about our children; by acting dumb when asked why the training is almost entirely anthroposophical; if they can be so dishonest, how can they be trusted to tell the whole truth in any instance? Look at the people who have said how they “close ranks” when their backs are against the wall.
Anthroposophy needs to take a long hard look at it’s doctrine, and how it sells itself to those who inadvertently get caught in its net.
It’s surprising to hear the communications officer of the umbrella organization of a reputable education system call its detractors ‘trolls’ or accuse them of suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder: a real condition disabling the lives of many for whom I would expect him to feel compassion and respect.
But I’m glad to see that the Steiner Fellowship of the UK are now honest and transparent about one important thing:
Rudolf Steiner, they admit, gained his knowledge through clairvoyance: in other words in a manner beyond the range of ordinary perception. One could say he imagined it, or made it up, at any rate its origin is plainly irrational. Not for him, to quote Richard Dawkins, ‘the rigours of logic, observation and evidence - in other words, reason’.
Fair enough if people want to believe this kind of thing. We can believe all sorts of silliness in private. And if parents taking their children to Steiner schools understand this and endorse it, they at least know what they’re letting themselves in for. What’s chastening is that they often do not, or at least not until now.
Mr Smith urges us all to get over this business of clairvoyance. I find it easy to ignore entirely until the State is asked to endorse it by funding Steiner schools with public money. Then I think we should not get over it.
Lets straighten things out and nail this racism issue.
First a cameo.
I recall with new understanding the distracted look on M’s face as she handled the black faceless doll in preparation for the new term. She held it a little at length and viewed it quizzically, not without pride. An experienced kindergarten teacher of decades this wonderful woman with great instincts, kindness and calm authority had never before introduced a black doll into her kindergarten’s play.
As staff reporter says TheBee’s report on racism in schools is irrelevant. The culture in these schools is not racist - most parents are less racist than most and the children are generally liberal and tolerant. J Smith provides the clue to the problem - that Steiner’s ‘Knowledge’ was gained through clairvoyance. Yes he was inconsistent in what he said and was quite possibly less racist than his peers, but this ‘knowledge’ is imbued with a very special meaning to anthroposophical teachers, because of its ’spiritual’ origins. While their personal instincts and understanding of the world may be anti-racist, the doctrine they hold as true has deeply racist threads and edifices. It’s a bind from which escape isn’t easy. And as a result children are put at risk.
Like Staff Reporter, I would like to know what JS thinks of these ‘thruths’ derived from clairvoyance.
Thetis:
“I’m glad to see that the Steiner Fellowship of the UK are now honest and transparent about one important thing:
Rudolf Steiner, they admit, gained his knowledge through clairvoyance: in other words in a manner beyond the range of ordinary perception.”
While that seems to be a possibly correct description of part of Steiner sources of knowledge, he also was very well read up on the psychological and pedagogical literature of his time and had extensive experience of teaching, his fellow student at school, teaching the children of others as a tutor, and later teaching adults at a workers school, except for his extensive experience as a lecturer to different types of audiences.
And he did study at the Technical University in Vienna and got a PhD at the University of Rostock
As for the differentiation of childhood development into three phases with special characteristics, that is described already by Aristotle as far as I remember.
For more on RS:
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/RudolfSteiner.htm
I’ll try to also again post the second part of RS on “races”, something that has failed to get thruogu for to my anknown reasons a number of times.
Yes Beit, Steiner appears to have been an acute observer, and might even be described as an empiricist. His propositions based on his reading and observation are what we would call hypotheses, or theories in waiting, ready to be tested. In other words, not doctrine, but part of a more general scientific and social sciences endeavour.
The problem comes with the mixing the half completed results of this empirical scientific method with ‘knowledge’ gained through clairvoyance (is it imagination, dreams, hallucinations?) - and then making it doctrine. ‘Believers’ in Steiner are then stuck with this conglomeration of ideas - sometimes proclaiming it as scientific (Beit) or of a higher metaphysical order (J smith). Steiner, the student of human nature, would I suspect have been appalled at how his conclusions have been stuck in time.
Steiner Fellowship:
You clearly say that Steiner’s insights are as a result of his clairvoyant, intuitive consciousness: what do you mean?
Please clarify.
“Enter Achilles.”
I thought that a quote from another ex student may be in order.
Luke, 15: “I got picked on quite a lot, the teachers didn’t care and all they seemed to want was the Steiner philosophy. The lessons were a bit y’know… well they don’t want to tell you the complete truth and always try to alter it to their own means. They even lie. I’m not sure wether they (the teachers) picked on me but they picked on other people. They had favorites, who got everything and I mean everything. When we did painting, it was not creative, they told you exactly what to paint in whichever weird colours they wanted. They made me do a lot of “cultish” things.. or I mean how’d I’d imagine a cult. All of it was odd, but it did not seem odd at the time only when I look back at it. That’s the strangest thing. It was like we were being conditioned… I’ve blocked a lot of it out, so I don’t have much else to say.”
I shall be back with another quote tomorrow, but please mull over this. And please, don’t tell me experiences vary again, because it is an insult to my intelect, if not yours as well. And I may be forced to spend a little more of my valuable coursework time ravaging your retreating ankles.
x
PS - Sorry I took such a long time replying, I was out in the snow with my friends. Were you Sune(sp)?
Oh and what does the Steiner fellowship think of the teaching of creationism as fact in Steiner classrooms?
I think it’s a little silly myself - even CoE schools aren’t so fucking ridiculous, they accept the theory of E.
Thanks Achilles, here are two articles explaining everything your friend needs to know about why he had to paint those weird colours but was maybe too afraid to ask:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombardART.html
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombard.html
Just to finish off my comments on RS on “race”
1917: “It is not possible to understand the present time if one does not know what kind of reversal has occurred particularly in the last third of the 19th century. Someone still of the 14th century, speaking of the ideal of races, of the ideal of nations, spoke out of developing qualities of human development.
“But someone who nowadays speaks of the ideal of races and nations and belonging to a clan, speaks of decaying impulses of humanity. And if he believes that these so-called ideals constitute progressive ideals, when speaking of them, he is saying something that is untrue. Because through nothing will humanity bring itself more into decay, than if the ideals of races, nations and blood were to continue.
“Nothing will be a greater hindrance for the further development of mankind than the conservation of the ideals held by earlier centuries, preserved [...] in declarations about the ideals based on nations. The true ideals for the future must be, not what is based on ‘blood’, but what we find solely in the spiritual world.”
and 1922: The blond and blue-eyed are a weak and perishing “race”, not the “race of the future”. (So, what time does the “quote” in the agitprop piece by “anonymous” actually refer to …?)
For more:
http://waldorfanswers.org/RSAgainstAnti-Semitism.htm
http://waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm and
http://waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm
And as for the continued “quotes”, they still fall in the category of twisted agitprop that I however will not deconstruct in public before Staudenmaier, heading for his “hero” role to critics as their very own David Irving (only in Staudenmaier’s case in relation to anthroposophy), has gotten his dissertation approved this summer, not to help him polish his with regard to anthroposophy twisted argumentation from what I’ve seen so far.
Regards,
There is an excellent, well researched and reasonable article about Rudolf Steiner at http://skepticdad.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/rudolph-steiner-anthroposophy-and-waldorf-woo/
I’d suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner as a more serious and well research article.
Many thanks. Through reading the Wiki article I found this:
http://www.skepticreport.com/newage/steiner.htm
which is even more serious.
“Even more serious”?
Nah, it’s a polemical and - in terms of objectivity - not very serious response written some years ago by the former chairperson of the Sceptics group in Sweden in response to criticism by me of the Sceptics publication of the repeatedly untruthful and twisted writings of Staudenmaier - http://thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.htm
For a perspective on the “sceptical” author’s reliability as author on anthroposophy, see http://thebee.se/comments/Hansson-commented.htm
Dear Rumpledsuneskin stop stamping your foot!
Nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep referring to yourself. Mr Hanson is a serious academic, you clearly are not. Instead you are a solipsistic self quoting, gnome bothering, mother stalking, flower crowned idiot.
You’re welcome.
Have just noticed an article on this very website by Matthew Hartfield:
Measles outbreaks: not just a British tragedy but a European one as well
Very cross pollination by the bee in evidence.
“And as for the continued “quotes”, they still fall in the category of twisted agitprop that I however will not deconstruct in public before Staudenmaier, heading for his “hero” role to critics as their very own David Irving ”
We wait with bated breath….for this public deconstruction of Staudenmaier’s work.
If you go to a thesaurus, you could find another word for “twisted”.
” To wind together”
“to interlock”
“to make one’s way in a tortuous manner”
“to pull break or snap by turning”
They fit well into a dicourse about Steiner and anthroposophy.
I see the highly regarded Butterflies and Wheels have picked up on this article.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/news.php
Looks like the clairvoyant cat is out of the anthroposphical bag….
Evil is a very strong word, Sune.
I’m very sorry that you had to descend to this level. However angry you are that your philosophy has been challenged, it doesn’t excuse you.
Someone else has posted the comments that use ?s as signature. Not me
Yes, you’re right. I thought for a moment there you were capable of irony. But someone else is being ironic.
I don’t want to see the C-word on this thread again - otherwise I’ll close comments and ban the lot of you, alright?
My comments were made in Jest, supposed to highlight the stupidity of the article I linked, I am sorry their were taken the wrong way, I should have made myself clear.
ooohh- it’s ok ???? that link is…strange… Hamas? Does that make Steiner Waldorf israel then?
better watch your backs though… don’t want to be banned by the editor….
That butteflies and wheels site is interesting
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/news.php
great they picked this up.
Many thanks to Polecat for the making such entertainment out of this sordid issue of waldorf (and Thebee…)
Achilles, I agree with you, in my view there was very little room for originality or creativity in waldorf–which is really odd, since that’s their main selling argument. The waldorf mileu is indeed stifling; they like to stress individuality and freedom, but those are the things you definately don’t get in waldorf. Or, well, I guess you get them if your own individuality aligns with anthroposophical ideals and your idea of freedom fits in with the anthrosophical framwork. Otherwise, no. For many children, who don’t fit in, waldorf is positively stifling; it crushes children’s individuality and robs them of their freedom. This is something waldorf schools seem very reluctant to acknowledge. For us who fail within the waldorf system, the explanation is either “bad luck” or entirely our own fault for being who we are. But, hey, they say they promote indivituality and freedom–isn’t it surprising that we’re guilty of being too individual or too eager to search for our own freedom?
It can all be explained by the anthroposophical double talk. Individuality and freedom just don’t mean the same thing for anthroposophists as they do for the rest of us.
-z
Thankyou Zooey, it is so unusual to hear the views of other literate Steiner students, and also so pleasing.
Milo! You do not have the honor or conviction to stand up for what you believe in, which is very saddening. I wish people would not profess to things that they hold up in mind, but cannot hold up in reality.
This thread has given this site more publicity then anything else, and yet you dismiss it as soon as it becomes too much of a challenge/no longer interesting to you. Are you 1) a man or 2) a mouse? Hm?
x
Achilles,
don’t insult the editor. He wants and tries to uphold the principle of protecting the identity of the author of the blog article, as the author has wanted anonymity.
That’s all. He has also been very relaxed and civil in my mail exchanges with him.
I see that I have not yet here mentioned one effort to give a clarifying overview of the issue of “race” in connection with anthroposophy in the blog article.
It is found at http://thebee.se/comments/comments1.htm
As the old saying goes: “This would be hilarious if it was happening to somebody else”, but alas we find Thebee seeing an opportunity in Achilles last comment attempting to climb into bed with the editor of Counterknowledge!
Anthroposophists are like children - make you laugh one moment and cry the next.
My comment was a purely human one, based on my personal experience of the editor.
I have no problem to personally discuss anything with anyone as long as they’re reasonably friendly, relaxed, reflecting, and reasoning - in short, British ;-), and not clarly hostile, aggressive or obsessive.
Milo has given the impression of being very British in the sense described;-)
Achilles, this is by no means the most popular thread in the history of Counterknowledge. It barely scrapes the top thirty.
That said, nothing pleases me more than to see energetic, honest, lively debate like (some of) the above. But I saw an explicit request for privacy and anonymity from a Counterknowledge contributor repeatedly violated and I acted accordingly.
Just to clarify: I won’t be ‘getting into bed’ with anyone from this thread, thank you
Finally, Achilles, how is it that you think you know what I believe in?
thebee
“I have no problem to personally discuss anything with anyone as long as they’re reasonably friendly, relaxed, reflecting, and reasoning - in short, British ;-), and not clarly hostile, aggressive or obsessive.”
Have you heard of the condition called “projection thebee?
“A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
” in short, British ;-)…….Milo has given the impression of being very British in the sense described;-)”
Are you attributing charateristics to nationalities? How very anthroposophical. :-))))
That’s a relief Milo.
How do you do those proper smiley winky faces btw?
Is that an editor’s priviledge?
Dear Mister Bee,
I deeply sympathize with your plight here, as you seem to be such a stalwart vigorous defender of Rudolf Steiner and his anthroposophy and you attract such contumely and derision in return for your loyal and faithful convictions. I, too, have read much of Rudolf Steiner’s work over the years, and I find him to be a singular and startlingly original thinker.
Yet something troubles me deeply and I wonder if you might be able to shed light upon this issue. I have the good fortune to speak German so I am able to read Rudolf Steiner in the original German.
Recently I received an English copy of the lectures that Rudolf Steiner gave to the workers at the Goetheanum in 1923. The particular volume I received was called “From Limestone to Lucifer.” And it is a compilation of 12 lectures that Rudolf Steiner gave. Yet when I read the German original, I discovered that there are 13 lectures. One lecture was missing from the English version, published by the distinguished Rudolf Steiner Press in London.
I wondered why they would leave out one lecture, as they gave no explanation of why they made this editorial decision. However, when I read the missing lecture, I was shocked, and then of course, I understood why the publishers would not want to put their name and good reputation on the line.
I’m sure you must know of the lecture. I took the liberty of translating the title and summary and also a most revealing paragraph from the beginning of the lecture.
The title of the lecture is “Color and the Human Races.” It was given to the workmen’s audience on March 3, 1923. When Rudolf Steiner gave this lecture, he was 62 years old and had two more years left to his life. So what makes this lecture extraordinarily shocking to me is that it is not a product of the beginning of his career, but rather appears to be the culmination of his magnificent and magnanimous life of thought and spirituality.
For the benefit of the readers here, most of whom, I assume, do not understand German, I provide a translation of the summary of this lecture and then the actual German text.
—————————————
“Color and Human Races”
Skin color and other characteristics of the black, white, yellow,
brown, and copper-red races of humanity. Malayans, Indians ["Indianer"= Native Americans], and Indians ["Inder" = Hindus]. The white population of America. The European proves, [while] the American asserts. The future of American civilization. Anthroposophy must be developed out of the spirit. In Europe anthroposophy is cultivated in a spiritual way; the American cultivates it in a natural way. Spiritism as an American product. On Wilson’s theories. The white race is the race of the future, the race of spiritual creativity. On the first chapter of “die Kernpunkte”.[Core Points of the Social Question]”
==============================
Farbe und Menschenrassen
Hautfarbe und andere Eigentümlichkeiten der schwarzen, der weißen, der
gelben, der braunen und der kupferroten Menschenrasse. Malaien,
Indianer und Inder. Die weiße Bevölkerung Amerikas. Der Europäer
beweist, der Amerikaner behauptet. Die Zukunft der amerikanischen
Zivilisation. Anthroposophie muß aus dem Geiste heraus entwickelt
werden. In Europa wird die Anthroposophie auf geistige Weise aus-
gebildet; der Amerikaner bildet sie auf naturhafte Weise aus. Der
Spiritismus als amerikanisches Produkt. Über Wilsons Theorien. Die
weiße Rasse ist die zukünftige, ist die am Geiste schaffende Rasse.
Über das erste Kapitel der «Kernpunkte».
==================================
Thus, Mister Bee, I wonder if you can explain why Rudolf Steiner gave such a lecture with such obvious and blatant racist content, specifically, his teaching that “the white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race”? Then in reading the lecture itself, I came across a shocking sketch of three racial figures, a Negro, an Asian and a Caucasian, showing clearly and definitely why it is that white skin signifies the Caucasian race as the more intelligent creative race, compared t the black race which, according to Rudolf Steiner, is literally wallowing in the over-heated fetid jungle-like forces of the inner metabolic processes, which makes the black race a race of astoundingly libidinous proclivities! I beg your pardon!
Here is a copy of the sketch as it appears in the original German text
http://tinyurl.com/ynw9vd
Now I understand why the Rudolf Steiner Press in London deleted the lecture, for its obvious odious racist content, but my question for you, Mr. Bee, is why did they, the publishers, not explain to their readers the reasons behind this act of self-censorship. One wonders if the people responsible for Rudolf Steiner’s literary legacy have censored other lectures and/or passages they deem to be too offensive of embarrassing for our modern sensibilities and sensitivities about racial judgments.
Thank you very much for your attention to this most troublesome matter.
Sincerely yours,
Imker
Hi Tom,
Welcome from the S-A group. Thought you might turn up here. Not going tom discuss that one here though. No further comments until after PS’ disseration. Then I’ll explain everything in another forum, both your agit prop and that of “Staff Reporter”.
Cheers,
Thanks Imker, for your post.
Would that illustration you link to, be Steiner’s clarification of this passage here ?
” In the Negro the rear-brain is therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal cord. And this is able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are inside a person. Therefore everything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives, powerful instincts. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. And because he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body surface, in his skin, his whole metabolism operates as if he were being cooked inside by the sun. That is where his instinctual life comes from. The Negro is constantly cooking inside, and what feeds this fire is his rear-brain.”
There are examples I posted earlier, where these ideas are translated and not “sanitised”. Some are on the Rudolf Steiner Archive- The Occult Significance of Blood, The Being of Man and His Future Evolution, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, The Mission of the Folk Souls, The Universal Human, I think all these lectures contain elements of Steiner’s evolutionary teachings about race, higher and lower races, “normal” races, skin colour and climbing the evolutionary spiritual ladder.
These beliefs can and do , seep into Steiner classrooms. Teachers tell stories about dark princes and blond princesses, related directly to children in their care; about dark dwarves and golden haired Queens.
Teachers divide and classify children according to the medieval temperaments, based on body shape and stance; this they are quite open about. It doesn’t take a giant leap of faith to wonder when hair and skin colour slips in.
Just again shortly on the relentless, never ending agitprop campaign by “Staff writer”, here and in numerous other places on the net:
http://thebee.se/comments/comments1.htm
http://waldorfanswers.org/WRacismMyth.htm
and the two empirical studies I have described above.
Pray tell, Mister Bee, what other forum would that be? And when you form it, will it be open to all to read? Yet why would you wait for the end of Peter Staudenmaier’s Ph.D. dissertation at Cornell University? His subject is the historical study of anthroposophy during the Nazi era in both Germany and Italy. Here we are specifically discussing the skin color issue, and that will be included in his dissertation, but actually, now that you have brought up the subject of Peter’s dissertation, I would like to announce to the readers here that the contents of his dissertation, though obviously not in the form necessary to fulfill the doctoral requirements, are all online in the archives of the Waldforf Critics Yahoo group, where Peter has graciously and generously shared the contents of his thesis, suitable for Internet group reading on that forum.
The archives are public. You need not subscribe in order to read them. I recommend that you take advantage of the good Yahoo Search Box facility in order to look up the hundreds of contributions Peter has made there over the past decade.
Here is the URL for the Message List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages
The Swedish Bee wrote:
Hi, Tom. Welcome from the S-A group. Thought you might turn up here. Not going to discuss that one here though. No further comments until after PS’ dissertation. Then I’ll explain everything in another forum, both your agit prop and that of “Staff Reporter”.
———————————–
Dearest Swedish Mister Bee:
Isn’t it marvelous how karma has a way of catching up to us, no matter where we go or what we do? Suffice it to say for those who do not understand German, that my handle “Imker” is the German word for “Beekeeper.” So, shall we start collecting the honey, honeybee?
For openers, I am quite baffled by your statement that you will be making no further comments until the publication of Peter Staudenmaier’s doctoral dissertation in history at Cornell University. (The subject of his thesis is the history of anthroposophy in Germany and Italy during the Nazi-era.)
Yet such a posturing is entirely unnecessary since Peter has graciously and generously already provided the contents of his dissertation and more on the Waldorf Critics Yahoo group site. Of course, such contents are not in the strict order, form or protocols that he must follow for the dissertation itself, but no matter. The archives of the WC list are public, and because of the handy Search Box feature, all of Peter’s historical research can be accessed by simply putting in his name and whatever keywords you desire.
Here is the URL for the WC list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages
Imker
Thebee, aka Sune Nordwall, wrote:
> …the relentless, never ending agitprop campaign by “Staff writer”
Pot, kettle, black. A quick search for “Thebee” confirms the diagnosis of projection.
——-
“Mrs Dawkins”, you are welcome to write to me if you’d like to compare notes on the cosy hippie-warren we both know and love. Address: t0tnesian at yahoo co uk , note the numeral 0 in my name. Steiner/Waldorf apologists/hippies, you are not welcome to write to me. If you do I will inform your ISP that you’re spamming.
Thebee, I’ve have been reading your websits and you hold great dedication and knowlege on Steiner’s writings, may I ask how you became interested in his work?
Here is the English translation of the 2008 “Frankfurt Memorandum” written and signed by many Anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers, concluding that there is no racism or Antisemitism in Steiner’s work. They at least acknowledge the exisitence of all the actual statements that are quoted, but their typical Anthro-dance of denial is a wonder to behold.
http://www.info3.de/ycms/download/memorandum_english.pdf
Thanks Imker, for your post.
Would that illustration you link to, be Steiner’s clarification of this passage here ?
” In the Negro the rear-brain is therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal cord. And this is able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are inside a person. Therefore everything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives, powerful instincts. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. . . .
Greetings Staff Reporter!
I’m glad your blog is back up online. I had submitted a post last weekend to answer you, but it never appeared due to whatever cyber trouble was afoot.
Yes, indeed, you are right about the sketch. It is part of that “forbidden lecture” which was deleted from the English edition of the lecture cycle published by Rudolf Steiner Press in London ten years ago.
Peter Staudenmaier just informed us this morning that the Frankfurt memorandum of 2008 was finally translated into English. I noted that in my previous post here. It is interesting to see that the Memo quotes this “forbidden lecture” in 4 places, but they did not refer at all to the most important quote of the lecture, which I will provide below.
If you go to that PDF file
http://www.info3.de/ycms/download/memorandum_english.pdf
and put “349” [the GA or Volume #] into the Search Box you will see the 4 quotes, including the one you cite above. They are footnotes #17, 18, 24, 26.
Now I will quote you from that lecture, right at the beginning, where Rudolf Steiner, as any good lecturer would at the beginning, tells the audience why it is so important to study the topic of the lecture, which here is the various skin colors of the various human races.
So while the sketch with the 3 figures, http://tinyurl.com/ynw9vd their various brain characteristics correlated with skin color and such is quite sensational and draws all the attention of all critics and some defenders not in denial, the very purpose of the study, i.e. the intention of the lecturer, is overlooked. In other words, why is it important for anthroposophists to be studying skin color in the first place?
After greetings and introduction to the audience of the workers at the rebuilding of the Goetheanum in the first paragraph, Rudolf Steiner then launches into the essence of the lecture, which is the reason why it is so important to study these diverse racial phenomena.
I put my translation first, followed by the German original.
————————————–
“But now, in addition to this European skin color, we also have four
other major skin colors. And we want to investigate that today a
little bit, because, in reality, we may only understand all of history
and the entire [past] social life, as well as today’s social life only
if we can really delve into the racial characteristics of human
beings. And only then will we be able understand everything spiritual
in the true sense [of that word], if we occupy ourselves first [and
foremost] with how this spiritual essence in human beings functions
precisely through skin color itself.”
————————————————
Nun haben wir aber außer dieser europaischen Hautfarbe noch vier
hauptsachliche andere Hautfarben. Und das wollen wir heute ein bißchen
betrachten, weil man eigentlich die ganze Geschichte und das ganze
soziale Leben, auch das heutige soziale Leben nur versteht, wenn man
auf die Rasseneigentumlichkeiten der Menschen eingehen kann. Und dann
kann man ja auch erst im richtigen Sinne alles Geistige verstehen,
wenn man sich zuerst damit beschäftigt, wie dieses Geistige im
Menschen gerade durch die Hautfarbe hindurch wirkt.”
———————————————-
You really can’t get any clearer than that statement. The reason anthroposophists need to study skin color is so that they can truly understand the spiritual essence of anthroposophy.
And in that vein, I see Steiner’s racism as very close to the typical idea of seeing the Negroes especially as the “white-man’s burden,” the idea that the Causcasian race is not superior in the Nazi sense, but more like a Chief Executive Officer, or even “parent-figure” of the other races, that is to say, the race that can manage society and take care of the more child-like races, especially the Negro race, and even show great “compassion” (read condescension, patronizing, white-liberal guilt tripping, etc.) for the present “elderly and dying” American Indian race.
Might I call Steiner’s racism, as well as my own as an anthroposophist, a form of “insular compassion?”
What say you, Mister Bee?
I think you and StaffWrites are obsessive in relation to anthroposophy in a similar way as some anti-Semites are in relation to everything related to Jewry and Judaism, never giving up in whqt they write and endlessly wanting to discuss things out of context. (And i won’t go into a discussion of that before Staudenmaier’s twisted and superficial dissertation argmentation with regard to anthroposophy, from what I’ve seen so far.).
From the German report:
“V. Summary and conclusions
? There is no racism in Steiner as defined by historical research, no systematically espoused “theory of race”, and no ideology of a “clash of races”. In particular, it does not exist as a theory or instructions on how to act for modern and contemporary humanity.
? There are, however, in Steiner’s works individual discriminating and some few racist remarks which must unequivocally be classed as historically obsolete. They can be explained historically in that Steiner took part in a discourse on questions of evolution, some of it tinged with racism, at a time of colonialism and Eurocentrism.
? One singular anti-Semitic remark from 1888 is countered by Steiner’s public opposition against anti-Semitism in the period around the turn of the century. However, there are also anti-Judaistic traits in some of his lectures.
? From a present perspective, Steiner did not always display a clear methodological awareness of the problems associated with seeing cultural developmental possibilities as being linked with biological characteristics. This creates models of collective discrimination through the assignment of decadence. On the other hand Steiner criticises the restrictions of developmental thinking in purely biological terms and locates the development of the individual as being independent of collective dependencies.
? Fundamentally, the subject of race is of no relevance to the anthroposophical structure of ideas either quantitatively or qualitatively. In other words, on thousands of book pages and in hundreds of lectures on spiritual, religious, educational, medical or political questions the subject of “race” does not crop up at all. Neither the anthroposophical literature of the present nor, for example, the curricula of the Waldorf schools contain any remarks like those investigated here. The social initiatives throughout the world based on anthroposophy, including in South Africa and Namibia, in the Philippines, Egypt and Israel, would not be plausible on the basis of a racist ideology.
? Steiner’s works in their overall stance reiterate over and again the universalistic development of a single humanity belonging together irrespective of differences in ethnic, national or religious origin. With his approach to social threefolding, Steiner wanted to create a social framework in which every individual is freely able to develop in equality and with the protection of his or her indigenous cultural characteristics. The spirit of these ideas coincides today 41 Helmut Zander: “Anthroposophische Rassentheorie”, in: S. v. Schnurbein and J.H. Ulbricht (eds.): Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne. Würzburg 2001, p. 322. still with key achievements of the modern age such as the Declaration of Human Rights and modern laws against discrimination and on equality.
© 2008 Ramon Brüll, Dr. Jens Heisterkamp
info3-Verlag, Kirchgartenstr. 1, 60439 Frankfurt, Germany
And just for a long term perspective on the WC-discussion, that you repeatedly recommend here as “info” on anthroposophy and where you and “StaffReporter” belong to most dedicated discussants together with and in support of Staudenmaier (http://americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html): http://americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html
Hi Beagle.
You write: ” I’ve have been reading your websites and you hold great dedication and knowlege on Steiner’s writings, may I ask how you became interested in his work?”
Sure. If you write to me using the email address you find under the “click here” link at the bottom of http://www.waldorfanswers.org/More.htm I’ll try to answer.
Best,
TheBee again shows us he can’t take these issues seriously. He does not care to adress the issues Imker raised. It’s quite odd that you, TheBe,e refer to Imker as being “obsessive” about anthroposophy. You know who Imker is. As for the “… twisted and superficial dissertation argmentation with regard to anthroposophy…” It’s funny they accept that sort of thing at Cornell (http://www.arts.cornell.edu/history/graduate-students-dissertation.php)–did you try to tell the people there about the twisting and superficiality? Oh, yeah, right….
Do you know what Steiner wrote (I guess you don’t; after all you spend all your time hunting critics!)? “We must seek–in all things around us, in all our experiences–for what can arouse our admiration and respect. If I meet other people and criticize their weaknessess, I rob myself of higher cognitive power. But if I enter lovingly into another person’s good qualities, I gather in that force.”
And: “Each moment that we spend becoming aware of whatever derogatory, judgmental and critical opinions still remain in our consciousness brings our closer to higher knowledge. We advance even more quickly if, in such moments, we fill our consciences with admiration, respect, and reverence for the world and life.”
(Both quotes from “How to know higher worlds.”)
Have you come as far as Steiner himself? I think not. And I’m not even one of his admirers! You don’t do a good job in promoting the sides of Steiner that even critics can find appeal in! It’s a pity that other Steiner supporters, silently standing by, let you carry out the task of defending the movement. Ironically, I think the critics are better at promoting Steiner than you are.
You’re a stolpskott.
-z
Dear Mister Bee,
Thank you for publishing the summary and conclusions of the Frankfurt Memorandum of 2008. Now to be fair and balanced, allow me to publish Peter Staudenmaier’s recent analysis of the Memo.
You may access the whole text here at the WC Yahoo forum site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/9458
Also Michael Eggert of the Egoisten German language Steiner blog has just published Peter’s analysis as well here:
http://www.egoisten.de/
I will quote from the beginning of Peter’s analysis and then skip down to his summary, as you, Mister Bee, gave us the summary of the Memo itself.
Peter Staudenmaier writes:
——————————–
“As promised, here is my analysis of the recent ‘Frankfurt Memorandum’ on Steiner’s racial teachings. I’d like to reiterate that the text is the product of a genuine effort by anthroposophists to come to terms with Steiner’s race doctrines, and as I mentioned yesterday in introducing the memorandum, its authors are among the more progressive and historically interested anthroposophists in Germany today. My personal interactions with Info3 and with Jens Heisterkamp, one of the two authors of the memorandum, have been positive, respectful, and fruitful.
For reasons I explained last year, however, when we first discussed the memorandum in its original German version, I have many criticisms of the general approach that the memorandum takes toward Steiner’s ideas about race. From a historical perspective, much of the memorandum remains constrained by a series of unexamined and unwarranted assumptions about Steiner and his teachings, as well as misperceptions about the historical and intellectual contexts of these teachings. These assumptions and perceptions, which are widespread among anthroposophists today, present a major obstacle to the otherwise admirable aims of the memorandum itself. I will do my best to summarize here my central concerns.
———————
———————-
To sum up the issues at stake, from my perspective as a non-anthroposophist historian of anthroposophy:
The Frankfurt memorandum gives extensive attention to a series of irrelevant legal matters and simultaneously neglects many central historical matters. From the point of view of public discussion, the pertinent question is not whether some of Steiner’s statements about race are offensive or discriminatory, but whether they are racist. The question is not whether readers today might be offended by some of Steiner’s statements; the question is what Steiner’s statements say about the spiritual significance of race and what these statements have to do with anthroposophy as a whole.
The memorandum authors prevent themselves from even asking this question, however, by positing from the outset that there simply is no racial doctrine to be found in Steiner’s work. This will immediately strike non-anthroposophist observers as preposterous, particularly if they are familiar with the existing scholarship on Steiner’s racial teachings. Nor is this approach likely to help anthroposophists themselves deal with the subject in a meaningful way.
In this regard, against the evident aims of its authors, much of the memorandum represents a case of retrenchment, of circling the wagons, of deflecting external scrutiny and of re-assuring other anthroposophists that the problem has already been dealt with after all. Like the Dutch report that forms its chief frame of reference, the memorandum insists that Steiner’s work contains no racial doctrine and that any racist statements by Steiner are extraneous to anthroposophy as such. The Memorandum also characterizes public discussion of Steiner’s racial theories as “attacks” on anthroposophy, and declines to engage substantively with the various critical analyses of these views that have been put forward by non-anthroposophist scholars. This stance underscores the defensiveness that still characterizes anthroposophist responses to external inquiry, even after years of effort by outsiders to get Steiner’s followers to take his racial teachings seriously.
Thus my concern is that the Frankfurt memorandum, having reduced itself to an annotation of the gravely flawed Dutch report, will in large measure serve to keep anthroposophist heads in the sand regarding Steiner’s race theories, and the history of racial thinking as such, despite its authors hopes to the contrary. What is particularly disconcerting is that the authors of the memorandum belong, in general, to the more open and progressive strand of internal anthroposophical culture. If even these comparatively reflective and informed anthroposophists still have not succeeded in grappling head-on with Steiner’s doctrines on race, it is a dire warning sign for the movement as a whole.
Steiner’s complex racial doctrines are a topic on which anthroposophists in general have even farther to go toward a meaningful historical understanding than on the similarly charged topic of the anthroposophical movement’s history during the Nazi era. Steiner’s statements about race contain all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions, but there is no reason not to characterize them collectively as a set of racial doctrines. Disputing the very existence of the object of inquiry is not a helpful way to begin the inquiry itself.
By focusing their assessment on judicial factors rather than historical contextualization, the memorandum ends up adopting an ahistorical perspective. For external observers, it is hard to see why it would matter whether some of Steiner’s pronouncements could be liable to prosecution today. Steiner is dead. Current discrimination laws did not exist in the times and places he lived. We do not look at Hegel’s racial doctrines, for instance, in order to see if they might violate Dutch legal codes in 1999 or 2009; we look at them to see what Hegel taught about race. Anthroposophists today would do well to attempt the same thing with Steiner’s works.
The memorandum’s focus on legal opinion is decidedly misplaced, in my view. It is apparently a response to the various legal challenges that anthroposophist publishers have faced recently, challenges which would not have arisen if there were a critical anthroposophical discussion about the content of Steiner’s teachings. That sort of discussion will be hindered as long as anthroposophists engage in special pleading regarding Steiner’s status as a historical figure. ”
—— Peter Staudenmaier
=============================
Imker
The Bee, your behavior is peculiar. Why play all coy until Peter Staudenmaier’s dissertation is published? Why are you waiting for this particular event? And why are you suggesting to people writing on this public blog that you can only explain yourself further in private?
I have read PS’ comments on different issues since very long:
- http://thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html (see also for example his way of describing Steiner’s vay of describing for example two Germans during the 19th century; Treitschke and Langbehn, documented and analyzed at pages linked to from the page, in the section “Staudenmaier as ‘Protocol of Steiner’ inventor”.)
- http://americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html
I have zilch trust in his actual honesty and seriousness as “scholar” on anything, also after having discussed with him in private, beyond as word- and mind gambler, seemingly wanting and trying to impress people for some to me unknown reason/s.
I can understand that he wishes to if possible resurrect his reputation after having played “historical scholar” and been exposed as someone who based his “historical scholarship” on a B.A. in German literature up to 2004 and hanging out with pals at the history department of a university, using word- and mind games as his primary tool in his discussions of anthroposophy. Word- and mind games are the primary tools of all con people.
I have also read his comment on the Memorandum. What he writes is of little to no relevance for actual work today in different senses based on or related to anthroposophy, like Waldorf education, beyond as tools for anti-anthroposophical and anti-Waldorf agitprop, like that of the WC-group, that is his main forum and dedicated support group, in a similar way the works of the historian David Irving are used as tools by anti-Semites in their campaigns.
“Word- and mind games are the primary tools of all con people”
Yep. That’s what critics reveal of the Anthroposophical movement’s publicity. Sometimes we chuck in a few indicators od the movement’s denial too.
It’s nearly a year since I asked you, but what was it the parents who withdrew their kids fron the Edinburgh Steiner School didn’t understand?
What Peter Staudenmaier writes is obviously of relevance to actual anthroposophical work today–anthroposophists’ inability to deal with certain parts of their own history is quite a warning sign. Is their reading and interpretation of Steiner’s works and texts about education as flawed as their reading and interpretation of Steiner’s ideas on race? It’s a legitimate question.
The rest of Thebee’s post is hard to make sense out of. Let’s just conclude that it’s appropriate to have zilch trust for Thebee’s honesty… whatever Thebee’s primary tool is, it isn’t honesty, decency or reason.
What Staudenmaier writes and discusses is of little relevance to other than “critics” in their anti-Waldorf agitprop.
Oh… you know that’s not true, it’s not even close to being true.
Mr. Bee, were you planning to answer my question? What’s with this new angle that no further questions can be answered until after Peter Staudenmaier’s dissertation is published? Were the links to your web sites supposd to be an answer to my questions? I didn’t find answers to my questions on your web sites. You would do the movement more credit by taking on straightforward questions without dancing in circles.
Breaking news headlines from Germany!!!
GERMAN WALDORF STUDENT
WRITES BEST-SELLING
EROTIC NOVEL!!!
Dear Mister Bee,
Be sure to add Rebecca Martin to your list of famous Waldorf graduates. Though she is still only 18, she has written a novel that has become a runaway best-seller in Germany — first edition was 50,000 copies last October, and they are already starting the FOURTH printing!!! (Another source says the first run was 100,000 copies!)
The book is an erotic novel called “Fruehling und so” (“Spring, etc.” or “Spring and so on”). The girl who wrote it is an 18 year old Waldorf student named Rebecca Martin, who uses her Waldorf-inspired imagination to write about the sexual exploits of her heroine starting at the age of 15.
Here is the publisher’s page, the Anais division of Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf Publishing in Berlin — which specializes in wholesome new erotic literature for youth. I kid you not. (some pun intended!)
http://www.anais.de/
Notice how Rebecca is their #1 author, leading their stable of 8 female writers in this division. Click on her photo to see the book cover and blurb.
I translate here:
—————————-
Rebecca Martin, born in 1990 in Berlin, comes from a British-Australian family of artists. Her interest in culture began early and she has done internships in film and theater. As a young journalist, she was a jury member of the Berlin Generation.
“I write about whatever comes to me during the day, what happens, and what doesn’t happen, and whatever goes through my head. I try to pour the characters and experiences written down in my diaries into a fictional form. I dream more than I write. I like to go to the supermarket and observe people between the toothpaste tubes and the cans of cat food. I like happiness. I like men. I don’t like to explain.“—- Rebecca Martin
—————————————–
Here is a report form Spiegel-Magazine online
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/0,1518,592429,00.html
Schulmädchen-Sexreport
Liebe, Sex & Zärtlichkeit: Die Waldorf-Schülerin Rebecca Martin ist dem “Bravo”-Alter noch nicht ganz entwachsen, und hat mit “Frühling und so” bereits einen Erotik-Bestseller geschrieben - urban, sexy und authentisch.
Mit 13 Jahren hat Rebecca Martins Protagonistin Raquel ihren ersten Freund, mit 15 beginnt ein Reigen der sexuellen Abenteuer. Mit 17, im Frühling ihres Lebens, verliebt sie sich unsterblich in Julian. Doch sie verbirgt ihre Gefühle vor ihm und beginnt Liaisons mit Männern um die 30, von denen sie weiß, dass diese sie nicht lieben werden.
——————
Schoolgirl Sex Report
Love, sex and tenderness: the Waldorf student Rebecca Martin isn’t yet old enough for the „Bravo“ Age, and yet with her [novel] „Spring, etc.“ she has already written an erotic bestseller — urban, sexy and authentic.
At age 13, Rebecca Martin’s protagonist Raquel makes her first friend. At 15, she begins a “roundelay” [merry-go-round] of sexual adventures. At 17, in the springtime of her life, she falls madly in love with Julian. But she hides her feelings from him and begins liaisons with men around 30 years old, men whom she knows she will never love.
================
Here’s a report from a Berlin newspaper
http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/kultur/article1001669/Schulmaedchen_Romantik.html
————————
Schulmädchen-Romantik
Rebecca Martin ist 18 Jahre alt, und ihr Gesicht rundlich, fast kindlich. Sie ist pünktlich, ungeschminkt, irgendwie süß und ein bisschen müde. Es ist halb fünf, sie kommt gerade aus der Schule zum Treffpunkt im Café: Im Juni macht sie ihr Abitur an der Kreuzberger Waldorf-Schule. Doch vorher hat sie noch schnell ein Buch geschrieben. In dem Lockenkopf ist eine Figur herangereift, die von einer Zeit im Leben erzählt, in der so vieles noch so neu ist.—
—————————
Schoolgirl Romantics
Rebecca Martin is 18 years old and her face is round, almost child-like. She is punctual, not made up, somewhat sweet and a little tired. It is 4:30 PM and she has come right from school to meet here in the café. In June she makes her Abitur [graduation] from the Kreuzberg Waldorf School. But before then, she wrote a book in a short time. Inside her curly head, she conjured up a figure who tells about a time in life when so much is still so new.
—————————
Here is a YouTube interview with Rebecca Martin. Even if you don’t understand German, it’s worth listening to a bit of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_TA10MbSQw
Imker
If another comment is left here identifying - or attempting to identify - the post’s author, after (s)he has explicitly elected to remain anonymous, and after my previous warnings, I will delete this post and all associated comments and I will ban any IP address associated with anyone who has commented here. This is the absolute final warning.
I am not out to stifle debate but I absolutely will not tolerate harassment of one of our writers - even a one-off contributor.
Sadly, that’s exactly what they wanted, and that was the reason the commentator earlier today wrote what s/he did. I hope you reconsider the deletion, and at least leave the article and the comment thread, even if you close it for further comments.
That commentator was an anthroposophist/Steiner fan masquerading as someone critical of Thebee, precisely because s/he knew outing the contributor again would close the thread. Yet the person didn’t want to appear to be an anthroposophist in a too obvious manner, thus the fake praise of the writer and a few others who had commented here.
I know it’s nuts, but it’s true.
Please consider closing the comments but leaving the thread. Zooey is right that this was done by an anthroposophist hoping to achieve exactly what you are now threatening - removal of the entire affair from public view. Counterknowledge.com exists to spotlight this sort of thing - not only the misinformation, but the tactics of promulgating it and stifling the feedback. The tactics you have seen at work here are malevolent. Anthroposophists cannot stand this type of web site and they enjoy nothing more than seeing efforts such as this go up in smoke - later, no trace it ever even happened. Please don’t accommodate them. The fact that they would expose someone’s young children in this manner, and then laugh about it because it took the heat off of them - these tactics are malevolent. The evidence needs to remain here.
Incoming links from other sites