The Insidious Pervasiveness of the Cult of Rudolf Steiner

The person at HET wrote: ‘I do appreciate your vigilance and concern about the influence of Nazism in UK schools, however having read extensively through the sources you provided, I must say that the assertions made about Steiner-Waldorf do not appear to be from reputable sources.’

That this person says that Peter Staudenmaier is not a reputable source is utterly inappropriate. It also pretty much proves that this person relies on highly biased sources for this judgement, in particular perhaps the writings of the anthroposophist you mentioned earlier in the post, Andy, the one who has been accusing Peter of being a con-artist for years now. It should make us question this person’s knowledge and competence. Unfortunately, too many people within the waldorf and anthroposophical movement don’t bother to make an effort and rely instead on the accuracy of positive messages that there is no problem and that anthroposophy was always on the ‘good’ side doing good things and that there is no problem with racism in the philosophy itself, even though it contains a theory on racial hierarchies.

This topic should be important for the HET, or at least not be brushed away like that. Not because, for example, anthroposophists today bear responsibility for what other anthroposophists did during the nazi era (they don’t), but because anthroposophists today are so eager to justify, ignore or even outright deny these ethically compromised elements of the movement’s past. That is the troubling thing. It’s about how the past is dealt with, not that it contains some not so pretty and nice thing.

My guess is that the HET person probably found one of the various Steinerite “debunkings” of Dr. Staudenmaier (here’s a typical one in that it doesn’t actually debunk anything Staudenmaier said or wrote: http://www.uncletaz.com/peterbull.html ) and since he trusts his fellow Steinerites more than anyone else decided that Staudenmaier was somehow dodgy without bothering to look further into the matter.

It would be one thing if the Steinerites acknowledged their founder’s follies but made it crystal clear that they had moved away from those follies. Planned Parenthood acknowleges that Margaret Sanger, as did nearly the entire scientific community of her time, held what are now considered racist views. This fact, carefully and deceptively shorn of historical context, is used by hypocritical anti-contraception conservatives who are often themselves racists to bash Planned Parenthood. I suspect that many of the Waldorf enthusiasts don’t know that much about the writings and actions of Steiner and his key disciples, and so suspect that attacks on him are of the same deceptive right-wing kind as attacks on Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

Just to be clear, Peter Staudenmaier is a Cornell-trained historian and a professor at Marquette University in Wisconsin. The lunatic who runs around the Web trying to “debunk” him is a Steiner zealot named Sune Nordwall. He has actively tried to derail Dr. Staudenmaier’s career, including accusing him of “forgery,” and continues to repeat bizarre allegations today. When he finally understood that the “forgery” charges were not going to stick, he backed off and said he meant that Peter’s work is a “spiritual forgery.”

Peter Staudenmaier’s CV:
http://www.marquette.edu/history/documents/StaudenmaierCV2011.pdf

Some of his recent activities – includes a blurb w/more professional info:

http://marquettehistorians.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/holocaust-remembrance-day-at-marquette/

In other words, that’s who they’re saying is not a “reputable source.”

Alicia wrote:

“Not because, for example, anthroposophists today bear responsibility for what other anthroposophists did during the nazi era (they don’t), but because anthroposophists today are so eager to justify, ignore or even outright deny these ethically compromised elements of the movement’s past.”

And because anthroposophy today is attractive to holocaust deniers. The vast majority of anthroposophists certainly are not holocaust deniers, but the movement is reluctant to publicly disassociate from holocaust deniers, because in so doing, they would call attention to the aspects of Steiner’s writings that holocaust deniers and other racists continue to find sympathetic.

Anthroposophy’s survival is quite remarkable. Other neo-esoteric traditions of the nineteenth century have fallen by the wayside or become transformed into something else. It is important to be clear that anthroposophy did not emerge out of a vacuum and is very much a product of the Occult revival of the period, especially in Germany and Austria. Ariosophy was a contemporary but very much darker yet anthroposophy can be seen as part of a continuum with it. If it were not for Steiner’s interest in Judaism, anthroposophy would have been regarded as much more völkisch. Oh, and the lack of runes and Odin didn’t help either.

Interesting article – thanks for all the links to back it up. Except you haven’t provided evidence for this statement:

” It turns out that the person responsible was actually paid by a Steiner organisation to ‘monitor the web’ for criticisms of Steiner schools”

I’d love to see that one as it would be one heck of a smoking gun!

I’ve heard of Sune Nordwall before, but by putting this statement up (which he flatly denies), you may be making him look more important than he actually is.

Keith,
the information about Sune’s employment was found in the minutes from a meeting of the Swedish waldorf school federation (the Swedish equivalent of the Steiner Waldorf School Fellowship). I have blogged about it here:

http://zooey.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/supervising-the-attacks/

The document was swiftly withdrawn after its existence had been discovered (still available elsewhere via a link on my blog post). They have never denied they employed him, but they have never actually admitted it either. Other than in that document which was probably not meant for public consumption but which I found by accident.

Sune Nordwall does not, to my knowledge, deny that he was employed by the Swedish Waldorf federation. (He does not want to answer questions, but that’s another thing.) He has written, however, that his employment ended in the end of 2011 (I assume lasting the year). I’m sorry I don’t have a link to this. I think it was on my blog somewhere but can’t find it, so maybe it was elsewhere or I’m not searching the right alias (he has several). Maybe he’ll clarify things, as I’m pretty sure he’s reading this.

Sune has, at times, indicated there’s a distinction between when he’s speaking as an individual and when he’s speaking as an employee of the SWSF. Whether or not the “distinction” part is true, the statement is indeed acknowledgement of having been employed by them to misinform. Who are these people – that they need their own propaganda machine?

Alicia writes about me and my employment as part-time media consultant for the Swedish Federation of Waldorf schools from 2008 to 2011:

“He has written, however, that his employment ended in the end of 2011 (I assume lasting the year). I’m sorry I don’t have a link to this.”

The link is: http://excalibor.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/interview-with-zooey-ambivalent-former-steiner-waldorf-pupil/

Diana Winters writes:

“The vast majority of anthroposophists certainly are not holocaust deniers, but the movement is reluctant to publicly disassociate from holocaust deniers” …

See http://waldorfanswers.org/AAntisemitismMyth.htm

If a great many people in the best institutions of our age — the HET, a first rate newspaper, a socially responsible bank — are interested in a theme, I begin to wonder if this might reflect something interesting that is going on there, rather than that it is a conspiracy. That a representative of HET has her children at a Steiner school speaks volumes.

As historical anchoring: The Society of Friends (“Quakers”) was from the first and often still is termed a dangerous cult. Many of my friends have their children at the Friends schools, which appear to be great places, despite the radical and unconventional ideas of their sponsors. One generation’s dangerous cult (e.g. Christianity, secular humanism) is another generation’s conventional thinking.

A few replies to the sordid pronouncements of the Nordwall misinformation machine:

Steiner quote, displayed prominently atop the page to which Sune linked:

“Value should be attached solely to the mutual exchange between individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German … This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!”

In other words, some of Steiner’s best friends were Jews.

There’s no doubt Steiner felt friendly toward some individual Jews. So do most antisemites. Anthroposophists aren’t Nazis, for the most part, and neither was Rudolf Steiner.

In anthroposophy, reincarnation means that you alternate “incarnations” in different races. You might be Jewish this time, and Hindu next time – all a question of your personal spiritual development. You can go backwards or forwards, alternate in “advanced” or not so advanced races, many times. Anthroposophists will not hold your present race or your present incarnation in a less advanced group such as Jewry against you. We are all said to be “striving.”

More Steiner:

“Evil will be openly present in a large number of people as an attitude, a way of thinking, not any more covered up or hidden. The evil ones will praise the evil as something especially valuable. A certain sensual pleasure in this evil, this demony … can already be seen in many people … Nietzsche’s ‘blond beast’ is for example only a spectral premonition, pointing to it.”
I find this quote unpleasant, but I don’t think it relates to antisemitism. You seem to think by placing it prominently at the top of a page about Steiner and antisemitism, we’ll read it as a denunciation of antisemitism?
Sune continues:
“What was Steiner’s view of Jewry and Judaism and their role in human culture, and how is Judaism treated in Waldorf education and Waldorf schools?” with some bizarre material titled:

STEINER: THE MAIN POST-GLACIAL CULTURES OF HUMANITY ORIGINATE WITH NOAH
This is intended to show that Steiner thought highly of the ancient Hebrews and their contribution to the advancement of civilization. That’s true. You fail to note that Steiner also said that that time was PAST:
“It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and that it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above
all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking.” (Rudolf Steiner, ‘Robert Hamerling: Homunkulus’, Deutsche Wochenschrift 1888 vol. VI nos. 16 and 17; reprinted in Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur
Literatur, pp. 145-155; quotes at 148 and 153.)
So, Waldorf education and Judaism. Yes, we know third graders study the Old Testament and Hebrew culture – because it is thought to “correspond” to their own level of development, spiritually. Jews are in third grade, spiritually. They study this BEFORE ancient Greece and Rome etc. because those civilizations are thought to have superseded Judaism. Spiritually. Karmically. The child is thought to “recapitulate” the spiritual development of humanity through the course of cosmic eons. This “spiritual” framework is superimposed on the timeline that is taught as history in Waldorf schools. In anthroposophy, it’s always about spiritual progress, whether of individuals, nations and races, or humanity as a whole. You have the less spiritually advanced coming before the more spiritually advanced. This is a basic principle and a basic structure of thought in anthroposophy. It’s juvenile, of course, but mistaken for “deep” by anthroposophists.
And no – changing the theosophical term “root race” to the preferred term in anthroposophy -“Earth epochs”- makes no difference. This is lipstick on a pig. It’s not the terminology that matters, but the actual concepts. The concept is spiritual development by race. Later, more spiritually evolved races are supposed to replace older, less spiritually evolved races. That is why you can have pronouncements such as Steiner’s that the continued existence of Jewry is a “mistake of world history.”
“Anthroposophy completely rejects and condemns everything that Nazism developed in these contexts.”
‘Tis good to hear … but never mind the Nazis, it is not really that impressive to run around shouting that you reject Nazism. You don’t say?
What critics ask is that you reject the antisemitic things that STEINER taught. Clean your own house and you won’t find Nazism so worrying. Help those in your midst who don’t necessarily “reject everything Nazism developed in these contexts” get the message that anthroposophy doesn’t want them around. So far, that hasn’t happened and some holocaust deniers somehow still feel they’ve found a comfortable niche in anthroposophy.

“A historical anchoring: The Society of Friends (“Quakers”) was from the first and often still is termed a dangerous cult. Many of my friends have their children at the Friends schools, which appear to be great places, despite the radical and unconventional ideas of their sponsors. One generation’s dangerous cult (e.g. Christianity, secular humanism) is another generation’s conventional thinking.”

Sorry, but as someone whose child attended Quaker schools, I cannot let this pass. Nobody says Quakerism is a dangerous cult today. Or would you like to produce some evidence of someone today who calls Quakerism a dangerous cult?

I have observed closely at length in both Waldorf and Quaker schools and the differences could not be more stark. I have written often advising Waldorf to take a page from Quaker schools in their PR practices – the Quaker schools are entirely honest and forthcoming in their promotional materials and their recruiting methods.

Yes, we could say that Quakerism espouses some “radical and unconventional” ideas, assuming you mean pacificism. The Quaker school my son attended has a huge sign out front, placed strategically to maximize its visibility to passing traffic on a busy road:

PEACE IS THE WAY.

They aren’t hiding this. They will tell you about it until you are ready to scream No More! The children are practically pounded with it, in weekly “meeting” and in the classroom as well.

I look forward to the day Waldorf schools promote themselves with the same honesty, the same self-scrutiny and humility. I want to see a big sign out front the Waldorf school:

KARMA IS THE WAY.

Isn’t that what they believe? Why then aren’t parents told this proudly, up front, every day? Why isn’t it printed in the brochures and flashing in a pretty Waldorf font on the welcome page of every Waldorf school web site?

Just an aside, really. Years ago, about 1980 I think, in the course of my work I had to visit a Steiner school on behalf of a local authority. Before the journey, I was browsing in a newsagents, looking to purchase a copy of “New Society” (which folded a few years later). That week’s headline, which remains engraved in my grey matter, was “The Image of Benign Dottiness” – about our friend Rudolf. With hindsight, “benign” was no doubt far too indulgent, while “dottiness” something of an understatement.

The single greatest selling for us at the Quaker school, after we took our son out of the Waldorf school, was their absolute and total, nonnegotiable, assurance that physical violence would not be tolerated at the school. Your child is as safe as humanly possible in a Quaker school.

There is a significant difference in philosophy on this point, between Quakerism and anthroposophy. In a Quaker school there is no hesitation to stop physical violence, and absolutely no doctrinal fuzziness over its wrongness at all times; no mulling over privately whether “karma” is involved in interpersonal conflicts.

It seems a common practice among anthroposophists and their organisations to try and “out” critics, pathologise their actions, deliberately strike in a very personal way, rather than actually the discuss the criticisms themselves.( I’ve even been in contact with people who have had death threats made against them.) I find all this quite arbitrarily irrational, and quite chilling.

Cathy wrote: “I’ve even been in contact with people who have had death threats made against them.”

That, I could have handled. When a Waldorf teacher made threats against my CHILDREN if I didn’t stop my criticism within the school community, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I became (arguably) the world’s most outspoken Waldorf critic (the Anti-Sune?). I know I’m not the only angry dad, but I very well may be the angriest.

Pete, six hours after I gave a link (July 6, 2012 at 10:09 am) to a description of the specifics of my relation to the Swedish Federation of Steiner Waldorf schools in 2008-2011, telling that it has not paid me to write anything on their behalf on the net, only and purely inform them about what was published in the net durint the period in uestion, you write that I have “verified, at least, that Waldorf DOES pay people to misinform readers and derail critical discussions on the internet.”

If you had read the link I gave, you’d see that it does not tell what you write.

Greetings,

Sune

Sune, why would anyone follow your links down your personal rabbit hole? Just answer honestly, were you working in your official capacity for the SWSF when you threatened mumsnet with a lawsuit if they didn’t remove critical discussion? Was Percy Bratt your personal lawyer or was he working for the SWSF?

You weren’t expecting Sune to reply to any of this, were you, Pete?

After he was debunked as a pseudo-skeptic, one could expect that Canard would produce another collage against the anthroposophy. Well, he has produced two collages within a short period of time. I don’t want to spend many words to it. In fact two words will do: cheap populism. When you want to damage a person or a movement you accuse them of racism. Further, you don’t give a definition of racism but leave it open, so you can manipulate with that concept.

There is however something else I want to say here.
In my opinion there are two great people who deserve a statue (and this time I don’t mean you, Pete Karaistos).
The first one, as you may be expect from me, is Albert Memmi. His great theory and definition of racism is the solid wall protecting Steiner against all accusations of racism, no matter how thick the books are German professors are writing or what American anti-anthroposophy- gurus are saying.
What again was the definition of racism by Albert Memmi?
Memmi: “racism offers overall and final validity to the idea of biological differences, real or imagined — all to the advantage of the dominant party or to the detriment of the victim, in order to legitimate an act of aggression or certain privileges.”

In his article “What is racism” Alain de Benoist comment this definition. (http://alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_is_racism.pdf)
“ In this case, racist domination is no longer seen as a result or as a potential consequence of theory. On the contrary, theory is seen as resulting from the intention to dominate or exploit. Thus, racist ideology turns into a theory forged to justify an act of aggression or to legitimate a relation of domination from which one would expect to profit. Racism,
then, becomes a belief which justifies behavior. This is not unlike the idea
that class consciousness is the driving force of proletarian action. It is also
similar to so-called “conspiracy” theory, a pseudo-explanatory construct
occasionally used by victims of racism. Close to Memmi is Colette
Guillaumin, for whom racism is not so much a theory or an opinion but a
social relation. She writes: “This is a very particular relation, one of domination,
which is seen as completely natural.” More broadly, racism is
generated from the “normalization” of a relation of domination. This idea is frequently espoused by authors who see an intimate relation between racism, colonialism, imperialism, etc “

It is clear that we do not find ”the intention to dominate or exploit” in the work of Rudolf Steiner. His theory is NOT ” forged to justify an act of aggression or to legitimate a relation of domination from which one would expect to profit”.

I recommend Memmi’s book “Racism” to all opportunistic critics and adversaries of anthroposohy.

The second person who deserves a statue is Marcello Truzzi. He made me see that many skeptics who have prejudices towards the existence of a supersensible world and who attack the anthroposophy are in fact pseudo-skeptics.
They betray the original skeptic principles of being non-dogmatic and non-prejudiced.
They claim that it is certain that there is no spiritual world. Pseudo-skeptics cultivate the prejudice against Anthroposophy, not seeing they are destroying their own reputation.

Show me then, Pete Karaistos, that Steiner has developed his general theory about races with the intention to dominate or to exploit, or has forged his theory to justify an act of aggression or to legitimate a relation of domination from which one would expect to profit.
But don’t come up with loose standing, separate quotations it is about the theory as a whole, and please leave the “hierarchy of races” because this is a fabrication of Ralf Sonnenberg and not a concept of Steiner.

Well, firstly, Jan, Steiner doesn’t have to fulfill ANY of those criteria to be a racist – those are only Memmi’s criteria (under which almost NOBODY is a racist)… but you’re also quite mistaken here. The “hierarchy of races” is absolutely Steiner’s concept. Steiner put everything into hierarchies. He went into great detail about spiritual hierarchies, cherubs, angels, archangels, seraphim, thrones and so forth. He put the plant kingdom into hierarchies too – with the rose representing the most highly evolved plant (according to Steiner). The mineral kingdom too had hierarchies – and at the top, Steiner placed diamonds. Steiner described human racial characteristics in great detail – as derived from spiritual science. While one group had characteristics like “intelligence” and had achieved the “highest” physical form, other racial groups were “degenerate” and “regressing”. The truth of the matter is that Steiner was indeed a racist, spiritual science did little more than simply exploit a lot of racial stereotypes of the day for its readers. And anything you can say positively about Steiner with regards to racism falls apart when the notion of “reincarnation” isn’t applied to his teachings. His idea of not being a racist was encouraging people to work harder to become WHITE!

A very weak reaction Pete.
You come up with all kind of hierarchies that are not relevant here. Steiner never talked about a hierarchy of races. Like I said it was Ralf Sonnenberg who invented this concept in one of his articles. It was a concept the adversaries could use but it has nothing to do with Steiner.
The characteristics you mention and which Steiner brought in connection to different races are not brought by Steiner as an instrument to “justify an act of aggression or to legitimate a relation of domination from which one would expect to profit” and you know it.
I really think the game is over Pete.
The above definition of Albert Memmi is not standing alone. I will always use this definition and it is an accepted and leading definition. Guru Peter Staudenmaier might say differently, and his followers will say “yes Peter “and “of course Peter” and “amen”. But still Albert Memmi has a greater reputation than Peter Staudenmaier, his definition is in the Encyclopedia Universalis and more scholars are thinking like him.
Peter Staudenmaier has disappointed me. I had to read on yahoo Waldorf Critics that anthroposophists did not come up with a definition of racism. He knows and you know that that is not true.

Boy, talk about your weak arguments… You’re kidding right? The following quote is from STEINER, nobody else.

“The relation between soul-development and race-development is preserved to us in a wonderful myth. Let us imagine race following race, civilization following civilization. The soul going through its earth mission in the right way is incarnated in a certain race; it strives upward in this race, and acquires the capacities of this race in order next time to be incarnated in a higher one. Only the souls which sink in the race and do not work out of the physical materiality, are held back in the race by their own weight, as one might say. They appear a second time in the same race and eventually a third time in bodies in similarly formed races. Such souls hold back the bodies of the race. This has been wonderfully described in a legend. We know, indeed, that man progresses further in the fulfillment of the mission of the earth by following the great Leaders of humanity who point out the goals to be attained; if he rejects them, if he does not follow them, he must remain behind with his race, for he cannot then get beyond it. Let us think of a personality who has the good fortune to meet a great Leader of humanity, let us suppose such a personality confronting Christ Jesus himself, for example; he sees how all his deeds are evidence for leading humanity forward, but he will have nothing to do with this progress, he rejects the Leader of humanity. Such a personality, such a soul would be condemned to remain in the race. If we follow this thought to its conclusion such a soul would have to appear again and again in the same race, and we have the legend of Ahasuerus who had to appear in the same race again and again because he rejected Christ Jesus. Great truths concerning the evolution of humanity are placed before us in such a legend as this.” (Rudolf Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 80-81)

Jan, you’re trying to redefine racism as requireing “aggression”. That doesn’t fit the rest of the world’s understanding – but still, since you’ve fallen down Sune’s rabbit hole… do we need to redefine “aggression” too? Telling people they don’t belong on your continent is “aggression”… It’s VERY AGGRESSIVE. Steiner said this about blacks publicly in articles. That activity falls firmly within Memmis definition and YOU know it. Um… the game was over the last time I explained this to you but you don’t get it. I’ll keep explaining it to you for the other readers who do. Steiner was a racist. This is rather obvious by what he believed and espoused. If you need further proof, a commission of Dutch ANTHROPOSOPHISTS found his writings to be racist! Get it? Even Anthroposophists had to admit Steiner’s writings are racist. But YOU certainly don’t have to admit this – denial of this obvious fact is quite common among Anthroposophists.

Hey, why not help Anthros invent their own definition of racism now that you know Memmis’ still fits Steiner? After all, they’ve redefined “medicine”, “education”, “gardening”, “banking”, even stuff like “honesty” and the relationship between parent and child. They got the idea of “redefining” stuff right from Steiner. You’re doing the same.

How many people have to explain this to you before you get it… let alone declare victory? Show me ANYTHING written by Steiner that suggests he believed in the equality of people of all races and you can declare victory. Short of presenting that statement, you’ll have a lot more definition-twisting to do. If Steiner believed all races are equal he could have mentioned it in over 40 books and 6000 lectures. He DIDN’T – because he didn’t.

I was curious about gnomes and found this authoritative web site which has copies from the German book, “The Big Gnome Book”. 😉
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/49767

This was published in the 70’s, but I assume the material was available from other sources in RS lifetime.

Anthroposophy is an anagram for Harpoon Typos, whatever that means.

Pete writes:

“While you were monitoring the internet from 2008 to 2011 under the employ of the SWSF, were you also posting on the internet?”

I have never been employed by the SWSF. The link to the posting at http://excalibor.wordpress.com that I have given above give the details of my relation to the Swedish Federation of Waldorf schools 2008-2011.

Sune

Pete writes:

“If Steiner believed all races are equal he could have mentioned it in over 40 books and 6000 lectures. He DIDN’T – because he didn’t.”

http://waldorfanswers.org/WRacismMyth.htm

Above, Diana Winters on July 6, 2012 at 1:44 pm quotes from a page a WaldorfAnswers, but does not give the link to it.

It is http://www.waldorfanswers.com/AAntisemitismMyth.htm

She also quotes from a comment by the 27-year-old Rudolf Steiner in an 1888 literary review of the drama “Homunculus” by the poet Robert Hamerling.

The quote is commented on at http://waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html#Anti-Semitism

For an intro to the Dutch study mentioned at a page linked on to from the page mentioned above, see http://waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm#Netherlands

For more on the study and its background, see http://thebee.se/comments/Holland/

For some comments on anthroposophy in the time of Nazi Germany, se http://www.waldorfanswers.com/AnthroposophyDuringNaziTimes.htm

Pete: “When the boys come out to play, Sune Nordwall runs away.”

And you get banned as editor from Wikipedia for foul play and an uppercut to the chairperson of the Wikipedia arbitration committee that you did not like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education

Did Sune Nordwall run away?

C’mon Sune, you’ve got LOTS of pages you haven’t linked to yet… Don’t you want to advertise your website here anymore? Are you thinking it may be better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to provide more links and remove all doubt.

Readers should know that Sune is also the author of the Americans4Waldorf website (is he representing himself as an American now too?).

I have never come across a forum so rich with disinformation and chock with attempts to mould opinion – all based on lies, huge generalisations or half truths. There is a distinct pattern to the structure, arguments and attitude of internet trolls regardless of topic and I hope people can see it for what it is as I do now.

There is quite clearly an attempt to destroy Steiner’s wok. The oldest trick in the book Anti Semitism, if that fails then hell lets go for Nazis and if that doesn’t work we will play on the fears of parents. Anything as long as Steiner teachings disappear along with Christianity in general.

How is Steiner a racist?

Any progression or technological advances of the European race have come at a cost of spiritual powers and knowledge so one is only higher than the other depending on what your OWN values are. When most of the planet is mindlessly consuming and waging war to consume even more I think Native American Indians and the harmony with which they lived in nature is immensely more mature and “evolved”

Does this make me racist towards Europeans?

The Nazis hated Steiner and all he stood for. They did though, in the exact same manner as some posters here, twist occult teaching to suit their own needs and make it appear as if one race was superior.

Throughout Steiner’s books and lectures he is consistently pointing out the fact it is easy to misunderstand what is being said and that it is no question of one thing being better than the other or more valuable than this or that as each is essential to progress, therefore showing his own thorough understanding of such things at the same time as revealing the lack of any understanding on the part of the naysayers.

Now ….

What is the difference between Anti Semitism and Racism?

“I brought this point up because it is a perfect example of how people like you and Pete go around calling people racists for comments which you take out of context or manipulate.”

What was taken out of context in what you said? The entire context is here for everyone to read. You obviously don’t understand what being a racist entails – since you apparently don’t believe Steiner was a racist. I didn’t call you a racist, btw, I asked you to gain a better understanding of what you’re talking about. That advice still holds.

“My comment bears no malice, hate or prejudice toward Africans yet it is used by you to assert I am a racist.”

Yep. That’s the way it works… sorry. Did you think “racism” and “bigotry” mean the same thing? The dictionary is your friend here. Maybe *you* should provide a definition of racism that you feel somehow excludes Steiner. Lots of people have tried that before – without success – but hey, maybe you can come up with one. Start with Albert Memmi – his definition sounds closest to your confused position. Steiner was a racist by ANY definition. That shouldn’t be a big problem – except for the fact that Steiner schools follow his racist teachings to the letter.

There is far more evidence for Steiner being anti Racist than pro Racist.”

That’s an interesting statement. I’d like to see you back that up. Anything? Do you, perhaps have quotes that are NOT taken out of context that would suggest this?

Your comments are so uninformed Rob… come on making bizzare connections between Waldorf teachers and catholic pedophiles….weird!!

For your information… I AM very ‘well read’ having spent 25 years as a anthroposophist then as a Waldorf teacher, I was a member of the Anthroposophical society , in fact a member of the spiritual class…and I am of mixed ethnicity too; you need to do the reading Rob!!

Steiner was a racist, many anthroposophist acknowledge this…Maria Steiner was appalling in her letter to Hitler, end of story. I am fluent in German so can read EXACTLY what was said, without needing a translation, and your weak argument that maybe Maria Steiner was ‘trying to appeal to Nazis/Hitler’ is JUST AS DISTURBING; why would any half decent well balanced human-being even ‘contemplate’ appealing to a facist political movement, to keep a school open; I’d close the door instead as a strong form of protest against it.

the largest problem within anthroposophy, is that is is completely self referencing thus biased

I know as I have come from the inside of its highest levels

I went to a Steiner school that my parents founded. My mum went all the way through Steiner education and my dad was a biodynamic farmer. To say i have anthroposophical roots would not be an understatement!

As an adult i have read a number of books and lectures by Steiner including his lectures on education to see for myself what it’s all about.

But what matters most, i think, is my experience.

My experience at school fundamentally was that a love for learning and a reverence for life was nurtured. I entered high school (conventional public education) and was immediately topping my class in subjects like English and Maths. That love for learning however, that ‘doing the work because i WANTED to’, not just because i might pass or fail, went on a fast decline as my years at the public school progressed.

I found an alternative creative outlet in social situations, in partying and other such things (none of which i regret) to compensate for that lack of creative expression that permeated each class at the Steiner school.

I cherish the Steiner education i have had, for the richness it nurtured in me and the holistic abilities that it enabled me to develop.

In terms of what i have read of Steiner, and by no means am i a Steiner scholar, the themes that a find underpin Anthroposophy and Steiner education are a unlocking of the free spirit which is within everyone and the ideas of truth, beauty and goodness as they relate to the human being and the greater world.

The Steiner education was certainly not ‘perfect’ (whatever that might mean), and i have found it to contrast strongly with the everyday culture in some respects. But to feel a connectedness with all of life, to feel inwardly enriched and inspired simply by virtue of being alive, this i have to thank the Steiner education for (at least for nurturing this in me), and what an invaluable gift this is that i will take with me through the rest of my life.

I hear there may be Steiner survivor camps, but i have certainly witnessed kids who have been through the public education system and have not fared well. Kids at my public school were smoking bongs at the age of 13 and coming to school stoned off their faces. Art and beauty (something which was a part of every class at Steiner) wasn’t present at the public schools, and this, i believe, contributed to the lack of respect for each other and the natural world.

In terms of the cult like nature of Anthroposophy, that has more to do with his followers, He would say repeatedly that his philosophy (Anthroposophy) should not be sectarian in any was but open to all.

In terms of the apparent racism, from what i have read Steiner emphasised the ‘universal human being’, something beyond race, sex and creed. He did talk about the different races, but what he said is only applicable to the generics of the race, and not to the individual which transcends (and includes) it.

Alll in all, i find it pretty remarkable that one man one hundred years ago brought something into the world that had deeply benefited my life and continues to impact the world today and will do in the future. Whether his views were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, i admire him for what he did in the face of all the criticism (which he had during his lifetime, and obvioulsy afterwards as well) i truly believe if everyone had the guts to bring their unique gifts to the world we would live in a radically different and inspired world.

“I went to a Steiner school that my parents founded. My mum went all the way through Steiner education and my dad was a biodynamic farmer. To say i have anthroposophical roots would not be an understatement!”

Do you think that may have contributed to the positive outlook you have? Mom and dad confirming the universal importance of whatever you learned each day?

“In terms of what i have read of Steiner, and by no means am i a Steiner scholar, the themes that a find underpin Anthroposophy and Steiner education are a unlocking of the free spirit which is within everyone and the ideas of truth, beauty and goodness as they relate to the human being and the greater world.”

Truth? That’s a word I never really associate with Steiner. Steiner was about dishonesty, not truth. You know he instructed teachers to lie to parents, right? And you know Waldorf associations like AWSNA and SWSF lie to the public – and post Steiner quotes out of context suggesting they are saying something which is the opposite of what they actually say. Have you read Waldorf’s endorsement of racism – “Overcoming Racism through Anthroposophy” yet? Please, please don’t use the word “truth” when describing Steiner’s attributes… it just isn’t so.

“Whether his views were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, i admire him for what he did in the face of all the criticism (which he had during his lifetime, and obvioulsy afterwards as well) i truly believe if everyone had the guts to bring their unique gifts to the world we would live in a radically different and inspired world.”

So, right or wrong, Steiner’s unique gifts inspire the world? I find that to be an amazing statement that I can’t imagine coming from someone not immersed in Steiner.

LMAO! You either don’t understand Steiner, or you think I don’t. “Freedom” is not the highest spiritual form “for the sake of argument”… sorry! Here’s Steiner talking about the Spirits of Form – and how they have worked to diminish the human form for the races that aren’t white:

“With a progressively more definite and concrete conception of this racial distribution you will develop an inner understanding of the racial characteristics peculiar to the peoples spread over the Earth, an understanding of this unique cooperation of the normal and abnormal Spirits of Form.”

“Now how do we look upon a member of the Ethiopian race, of the Mercury race? We see him as one who was originally chosen, who was predestined by the Elohim to express the quintessence of the all-human. But from the Mercury Centre the potent influences of the abnormal Spirits of Form intervened and modified the form of man to such an extent that the Ethiopian race arose. And such was the case with each individual race.”

Steiner was very specific about how this took place:

“Now how do these Race Spirits work in and upon man? They work in a very unique way; they permeate his vital energies, they penetrate even down into his physical body. Now you know that the four fundamental members of man find their impress and are reflected in corresponding parts of the physical body: the ‘I’ finds its impress in the blood, the astral body in the nervous system, the etheric or life body in the glandular system. Only the physical body is self-sufficient; it is a reflection of its own inner being which for the man of the present is subject to its own fixed laws. Now those spiritual Beings who are stirring in man and determine his racial character cannot at first work directly into his higher vehicles. They are active first of all in these reflections of the higher vehicles in the physical body. They cannot as yet enter directly into the physical body, but they are active in the three other members, in the blood which is the reflection of the ‘I’; in the nervous system, the reflection of the astral body; and in the glandular system which is the reflection of the etheric body. The Race Spirits, the abnormal Spirits of Form, are active in these three systems, which are part of man’s organic system, but are reflections of the higher vehicles. Thus the physical body of man is determined from within. These various spiritual Beings invade those members of the physical body which are the preliminary drafts, the suggestions of the higher vehicles. Now where, for instance, does Mercury make his influence felt? Under Mercury, I include all the abnormal Spirits of Form to be found in Mercury. He makes his influence felt by cooperating with others, especially in the glandular system. He is active in the glandular (or lymphatic) system where are manifested the forces born of that preponderance of the Mercury forces which are present in the Ethiopian race. Everything which gives the Ethiopian race its distinctive character sterns from the ferment of the Mercury forces in the glandular system of this people. What transforms the undifferentiated universal human form into the distinctive Ethiopian typewith his black pigmentation and woolly or frizzy hair is the consequence of their activity.

“Consequently the various peoples may assume the most diverse forms. According as the eye or the ear or one of the other senses predominates, so will the different peoples respond in this or that way to the particularnational tendency within the racial character. In consequence of this they are faced with quite specific tasks. The particular task of the Caucasian race is to find the way to the spirit through the senses, for this race is orientated chiefly towards the sense-world. Here is disclosed something that introduces us to the deeper secrets of occultism; it shows how, in those peoples who are subject to the Venus forces, the initial steps in development, even in occult development, must be concentrated on the respiratory system. Amongst the peoples living more in the Western Hemisphere, on the other hand, the initial steps must start from an enrichment and a spiritualization of the life of the senses. This is experienced by those peoples inhabiting countries more towards the West in their stages of higher cognition, in Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition, in so far as the Jupiter Spirit originally modified the character.

“Finally, the abnormal Spirits of Form who have their centre in Saturn work indirectly via all the other systems into the glandular system. In the Saturn race, therefore, in everything to which we must ascribe the Saturn character, we must expect to find the combination of the forces leading to the twilight of mankind, forces which set the seal upon its development and sow the seeds of its ultimate decline. This action and its effect upon the glandular system can be seen in the American Indian race and was the cause of its ultimate extinction. The Saturn influence finally works via all the other systems into the glandular system which secretes the hardest parts of man. This slow decline is characterized by a kind of ossification which is clearly reflected in the external form. If you look at the pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification described above is evident in the decline of this race. In a race such as this everything pertaining to the forces of the Saturn evolution has become realized in a special manner; then Saturn withdrew into itself, abandoned man to his bony system and thus hastened his decline.”

“On the one hand there is the black race, which is the most earthly. When this race goes toward the West, it dies out. Then there is the yellow race, in the middle between the earth and the cosmos. When this race goes toward the East, it turns brown, it attaches itself too much to the cosmos and dies out. The white race is the race of the future, the race that works creatively on the spirit.”

So sorry… you can talk about “freedom” and pretend that you have answered the question in the affirmative – but that wasn’t the question AT ALL was it? The “highest spiritual form” is not allowed to non-white people because the “Spirits of Form” have ensured that non-white races have declined. You can read it above – or deny what everyone here already knows about Steiner. Please – no more baloney about “freedom” – for the sake of argument.

i’ve read a few theosophy books. they don’t communicate too well but the content is amazing. religion or atheism can’t compare. (western) religion is just depressing & dull. & atheism isn’t anything. its just non-belief & has nothing to offer. theosophy actually explains stuff – the cosmos, why we’re here, the evolution of consciousness, etc, etc

whether its right i dunno. but the answers sure sound like they make a lot of sense

Whoop what a thread. I’m voting against sending my kid to school at a Waldorf site, just because the racist stuff is still part of training. You know Steiner was not the only racist educator or founder. There are lots here in America, but the “cover up” aspect of the Steiner philosophy and the explaining away is uncomfortable. I’m a Quaker too and our religious organization I currently rehashing racism within itself publicly. So, my girls may attend the day camp but long term I think not. I am excited about the stuff that works bit bummed about the quak ideas that do not make any common or science sense.

First, Matt great to hear your words. Thank you for sharing from your heart.

Everyone else: Rudolf Steiner was not racist. He was a free, systematic thinker. I’m just going to throw that in the mix as is rather than try to prove it here.

Up to each of us to find our own truth.

Yes Anthroposophy has probably lost his way some in the last hundred years. That is not a criticism toward them–what organization doesn’t drift?

There is an abundance of information available on the roots of on Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy. The hundreds of volumes of Rudolf Steiner’s books and transcribed lectures are easily found if you take a moment to look.

Alrighty, take care, all.

Surely what’s important here is the children who are being taught in Steiner schools? Instead of justifying our own beliefs we should be first asking ‘what is best for the children?’. If your belief system is so rigid that you always believe you are right or superior then you are a dangerous person to be around children. Children do not exist to be manipulated or controlled. It is a very sad and weak individual who simply has to say ‘my beliefs are absolutely right..follow them’. With that out in the open I will now say that I have chosen the wrong place to work. I was not fully informed of these beliefs or asked if I was happy to follow this ‘religion’. I am not prepared to adhere to the culture of secrecy that surrounds Steiner education and I will not accept that I am spiritually inferior to the Steiner elite who look down on us mortals from their ivory tower. When I am ready and I have gathered my facts ( very non-steiner! ) then I will spill the proverbial beans because I actually care about the vulnerable children in my care and want what is best for them, not what is best for the memory of a flawed individual. We are all flawed and so was Rudolph Steiner and all is cronies.

“And its adherents either don’t want to know this themselves and most definitely do not want you to know this.”
My guess is that adherents mostly aren’t aware of the weirder ideas or are not sold on them themselves. Just as some Christians are jettisoning ideas of homophobia, hell and a 6000-year-old universe, so Anthroposophists seem to be quietly abandoning the more awkward parts of their baggage.

Steiner schools were a great innovation at the time, and still offer substantial benefits over a lot of mainstream schools, for those who want more emphasis on creative and social/emotional growth. I personally prefer a more child-led approach, which is why my children are in Montessori, but I believe they would also flourish in Steiner. From my investigations and my connections with parents of Steiner-educated children, I don’t believe children are being taught racial superiority or spurious geology.

Any Christian institution could be criticized just as much or worse: “They believe the world is going to end at any moment and anyone who hasn’t bought into the cult will be tortured for eternity in a pit of fire!” This doesn’t prevent many Christian institutions operating quite sensibly and being a real force for good in the world.

If Steiner is so bad, where are the Steiner neo-Nazis?

You mention “an incident in which children were taught that the blood of Europeans is more evolved than the blood of Africans and Asians”. I don’t doubt that this happened, but I also imagine that parents and teachers would have rallied to put a stop to it. Just as if a teacher at a Christian school announces that Jews will all go to hell, there’s probably going to be disciplinary action (even though that idea comes from core Christian doctrine).
Yes there’s cognitive dissonance involved in revering Steiner but finding some of his teachings inappropriate. Inconsistency is a universal human trait, of which we’re all guilty at times. You yourself say “not one person has been able to provide evidence that might support Steiner’s teaching methods”, apparently without having sought any evidence for your own statement. Benefits of Waldorf education are well documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_Waldorf_education.

I realise some slightly odd things are taught in Steiner schools, but really, they can’t teach anything too obnoxious because it all gets back to the parents and creates a stink. Steiner schools have struggled to maintain their legal right to operate the way they do; they’ve come under a lot of scrutiny over the years and are very sensitive to controversy.
Which brings me to your other point: You say “If Steiner is so good, why do the schools hide his teachings from parents?” — as I suggested in my earlier post, probably because the bits they don’t talk about are embarrassing and they have no wish to perpetuate them.

“I don’t doubt that this happened, but I also imagine that parents and teachers would have rallied to put a stop to it. ”

No – did you read my links? The teachers rallied to DEFEND it! The offending teacher remained at that school for two more years before moving to another Waldorf school where she continues to teach. During those two years, however, the very same teacher was TRAINING OTHER WALDORF TEACHERS. If anyone “rallied” put a stop to it – it was ME – and me alone – by making her and the school famous for what they did and what they believed and continue to believe! The philosophy underlying Waldorf education is racist. There is no denying this.

Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia article. All articles on Wikipedia regarding Waldorf education are controlled by by Harlan Gilbert a Waldorf teacher – do you see a conflict of interest here? He was a teacher who worked at a school that allowed a known pedophile to roam their halls for decades! Anyway, anything you read about Waldorf on Wikipedia is filtered through the lens of Mr. Gilbert. Check the edit history of any Wiki article about Waldorf if you don’t believe me. Check DEEPLY into the studies and you will discover they aren’t what they appear to be. Did you think nobody here was aware of Wikipedia?

“I realise some slightly odd things are taught in Steiner schools, but really, they can’t teach anything too obnoxious because it all gets back to the parents and creates a stink. ”

No, it doesn’t necessarily get back to the parents. Read about Green Meadow Waldorf school and the scandals there – that were hidden from the parents again for decades. It all created a “stink” when a STUDENT came forward many years later. Kids don’t already understand what they are being taught (that’s the basis of teaching, right). When a teacher talks about blood being “evolved” – most kids don’t even mention stuff like this to their parents. Why would they?

“Steiner schools have struggled to maintain their legal right to operate the way they do; they’ve come under a lot of scrutiny over the years and are very sensitive to controversy.”

Again, you are wrong. They are absolutely insensitive to controversy. They put weasel-worded statements about racism on their websites but never actually refute Steiner’s racism. They hide their underpinnings in an attempt to AVOID controversy – not to be sensitive to it. They could have easily addressed the controversy of not telling parents about Anthroposophy – by simply telling parents about Anthroposophy. They still don’t do this! Why not? The controversy about this has been raging for decades.

“Which brings me to your other point: You say “If Steiner is so good, why do the schools hide his teachings from parents?” — as I suggested in my earlier post, probably because the bits they don’t talk about are embarrassing and they have no wish to perpetuate them.”

And we’re supposed to TRUST Waldorf teachers (and trainees) to determine which of those bits to add in or leave out, right? Their BIGGEST WISH is to perpetuate Anthroposophy in its ENTIRETY. Parents aren’t on board with that – so they don’t tell them. It’s really that simple.

What mainly astonishes me, as a long-time reader of Rudolf Steiner’s lectures, are the claims about racism. In over thirty years I haven’t never found a single word remotely disrespectful of human beings, instead considered by him as whole. Had I found the least impression of racism, I would have avoided of wasting my time. So, those who claim seem uninformed, and probably haven’t read anything, because whichever criticisms could arise in one’s opinion after reading one or more lectures, except that Steiner could have been an advocate of racism.

I have found some mistakes in my writing and I wanted to correct them.

Errata corrige:

“What mainly astonishes me, as a long-time reader of Rudolf Steiner’s lectures, are the claims about racism. In over thirty years I have never found a single phrase or concept remotely disrespectful of human beings, instead considered in his vision as a whole. Had I found the least impression of racism, I would have avoided of wasting my time. So, those who claim seem to be uninformed, and probably haven’t read anything, because whatever criticism could arise in one’s opinion after reading one or more lectures, except that Steiner could have been an advocate of racism”.

They are there. read the education of the child and towards the end of how to no higher worlds steiner explains his theories on evolving through racial groups over life times to a higher pure form of spiritual man…yep African at the bottom and European at the top actually aryian !! Sorry to share this news …it’s very upsetting for many people at first. I was personally greatly shocked

While adding new matter on the side of your point of view, you are losing of sight that the original words don’t prove your claims about no feelings for the killed student or disrespect to the parents, that seem most likely untrue.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/amravin-de-schur/rudolf-steiners-lack-of-sensibility/10156176811010424

Hello every one I just want to say I’m am in year 9 in a Steiner school in Australia and I know he had some views that were controversial, but the real controversial I dead are not told or taught to us. This is where I think people have the wrong idea. I think that people see what others say about Waldorf education and only see the criticism and don’t really understand what is taught at the schools. I agree every one is in titled to there own opinion, but please before you criticise learn what is the real philosophy behind now days Waldorf education.

It’s no surprise at all to be frank. Race theory of the day was les politically correct. Since Africans mean IQ’s are lower this would have a dysgenic effect on the European population. This does not assume anything innate about the African race. Please provide empirical data to disprove this or accept that reality is not politically correct. Depending on your definition of racism I would argue the truth is never racist.

Steiners teachings provide a sense of community. He understood the power of ethnocentrism, an evolutionary strategy that is lost on currently popular philosophies.

As Durkheim predicted people yearn for community as we are homo duplex and biology teaches us in-group preferences is closely related to ethnicity. Hence the dichotomous nature of the anthroposophical movement; people being afraid to be called ‘racists’ vs holocaust deniers.

The problem of the movement I think is the efforts of people trying to hide behind excuses about bad science of Steiner yet pretending he did not say things about race that are actually scientifically correct. This leaves them defending lies and excusing facts.

Rudolf Steiner is a difficult man- absorbing much study and attention. His quest is remarkable as he had so many steps to climb. I admire his continued efforts to go ever further.
Steiner changed so often his intellectual position as a chameleon. There is no STEINER as such. Those who claim themselves as STEINERS pick from his encyclopedia selectively whatever they please- like any honest Christian does from his own private copy of his special edition of his Word of the Lord…Steiner becomes a universal Ideology, which justifies the personal interpretations. Those exploiting this ideology are not loyal to their Master teacher Steiner. They pursue their own interest. The real question is, how much harm they do. As does any Cult.

About the unfounded claims of racism of Rudolf Steiner.

When I was preparing my examination on General Biology, I learned that human beings all share the same hemoglobin. Also the histological structure of organs and the biochemistry are perfectly the same. What vary are the superficial appearances (phenotypes), as the different fingerprints of identical twins, the skin colour, the eyelid shape, etc. These facts were not so clear, not say unknown at the time of Steiner. Nonetheless, in a lecture of May,30, 1908, he clearly said that to talk of races hasn’t sense anymore, since the human bodies don’t differ among themselves. Divisions can exist only on cultural basis. Below is attached the first paragraph:

“Above all we must remember that in the course of the last lectures, it was made clear that the post-Atlantean humanity falls into seven sub-divisions. It is, in fact, that humanity to which, strictly speaking, we, ourselves belong and which developed after the Atlantean Flood. I intentionally avoided the idea of “sub-races,” because the concept “race” does not fully coincide with the idea we are considering. What we are considering are cultural periods of development and what we still experience as racial laws in our present humanity is, in fact, an echo of the Atlantean evolution. The human evolution which preceded the Atlantean Flood, which took place for the most part upon a continent lying between present Europe and America, upon ancient Atlantis, can also be divided into seven successive groups. To these seven groups the expression “racial evolution” is applicable, for these seven successive stages of humanity upon ancient Atlantis differed widely from each other bodily, both internally and externally. We include in the external body also the inner configurations of brain, blood and other fluids. But it cannot be said that the earliest humanity of the post-Atlantean age, the Indian, differed sufficiently from ourselves for us to be able to employ the expression “race” for it. We must always hold fast to the continuity of Divine Wisdom, therefore it is often necessary to form a connection with this ancient concept of the race. Yet false ideas can very easily be created by this word “race” through our failing to see that the reason for the division of humanity of the present is something of a much more inner character than the idea usually attached to the word race. Race can no longer be used for the culture that will replace our own after the seventh subdivision, because then humanity will be divided according to quite different fundamental laws.”
from The Gospel of St. John – lecture X – May, 30, 1908 (first paragraph).

Great site! Love it! I am a Biochemist Ph. D from Germany, and allergic against all sorts of quackery, that even infiltrates all sciences from the magic underground…But you fight in vain! As any Quackery you may silence, which I doubt, as Quacks are immortal, no quack here! It helps much more to study WHY we so ready to fall for any absurd quackery. I love to contribute on that, if you let me…

It has been over 5 years now since I graduated from a teaching program of Rudolf Steiner. I am only now starting to feel as if I can think for myself! It has taken me a long time to realize that I was in a cult! It brainwashed me and I realize now that it made me think of the world in an anthroposophic way which is not healthy. It is not healthy to feel like only anthroposophy has the solution and that “all the other people” just don’t know what’s best for them. They pulled me in because it was so pretty, so beautiful, clean, pure. But really the philosophy is isolating and distorts the bible. That is what cults do, they take the bible and they fuck it up and use it to control your mind and therefore making you dependent on their thought process, you find yourself not being able to think for yourself!

It does piss me off when people try to talk shit about homeopathy though. Not all homeopathic medicine is anthroposophic medicine. I was cured of a very messed up skin disease that no other line of medicine had been able to cure other than homeopathic vaccines. Homeopathy can be beneficial, just like chiropractors can be beneficial and so can acupuncture.

Most of the Steiner’s stuff isn’t even all from him, it comes mostly from Theosophy and all that messed up devil worshiping Madame Blavatsky. He just took it and added his stuff to it.

This website has no neutral opinion about Steiner but only Quack opinion. Public schools will produce robots for industrial society. Where in Steiner school every pupil is treated as individual and not a mass of faceless people. I do not understand why Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy is misunderstood. This must be an american website that does not understand any of European culture.

The problem I have encountered with the people I know who were Waldorf educated, in Stuttgart, at the first Steiner school, and raised in families devoted to Steiner teachings, is that they have an innocent quality to them that makes them perpetually naive. They want to believe in fantasy. They like to dream, they seem to live in an altered reality, their own reality. It is difficult, if not impossible, for them to acknowledge truth, scientific truth, indisputable fact, staring them in the face. I am sorry for them. Waldorf teaching may not be a cult, but it is cult-like. As adults, the Steiner devotees I’ve known are the quintessential sucker. They’re not bad people, on the contrary they’re kind and sincere. They’ve been duped. Used. And now they’re disciples of a dated, obsolete, faulty belief system that they can’t think their way out of. It’s sad.