return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
By murielthemom hotmail.com
Re:
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:38:14 +0000
From: "Muriel Johnson" (murielthemom hotmail.com)
I am trying to prevent my 4 1/2 year old daughter from being forced to go to
Waldorf in San Diego. My abusive and controlling exhusband is fighting to
get custody of her. The judge gave him the power to choose a fulltime
preschool for her--never mind that I have raised two daughters, and he has
raised none, and he has misdemeanors for theft and domestic violence, and
that I can be a fulltime mother to her. But he comes across as so nice, that
the judge seems to believe he's really a victim of mean little old me.
My childless sister likes Waldorf. Her husband (my daughter's biological
father by artificial insemination) is controlling and wants to take the
child away from me. So they took my ex into their home and told the court
that he is wonderful and that I am a terrible mother and that the child
should live with them. My ex doesn't care about my daughter or her
education, he wants to control her and me and get revenge on me. He sucks up
to them by choosing Waldorf. He uses them and they use him. No, this is not
a soap opera plot, it is my innocent child's life.
I objected to Waldorf on religious grounds at the court appointed mediation,
with much of the written documentation you provide online, and I was
ignored. We will be in court on Wednesday, Sep 3, where I will be
protesting his decision of Waldorf, and he will be trying to get full
custody.
Any advice anyone can offer me? I've downloaded many of your articles and
testimonies already.
Keep up the good work.
Muriel
_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:27:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:
Muriel Johnson, you wrote:
)I am trying to prevent my 4 1/2 year old daughter from being forced
)to go to Waldorf in San Diego.
The private school or the charter school?
)My abusive and controlling exhusband is fighting to get custody of
)her. The judge gave him the power to choose a fulltime preschool
)for her--never mind that I have raised two daughters, and he has
)raised none, and he has misdemeanors for theft and domestic
)violence, and that I can be a fulltime mother to her. But he comes
)across as so nice, that the judge seems to believe he's really a
)victim of mean little old me.
)
)My childless sister likes Waldorf. Her husband (my daughter's
)biological father by artificial insemination) is controlling and
)wants to take the child away from me. So they took my ex into their
)home and told the court that he is wonderful and that I am a
)terrible mother and that the child should live with them. My ex
)doesn't care about my daughter or her education, he wants to control
)her and me and get revenge on me. He sucks up to them by choosing
)Waldorf. He uses them and they use him. No, this is not a soap opera
)plot, it is my innocent child's life.
Waldorf is involved in too many child custody disputes. I wish
Waldorf schools would make a rule to only accept children with the
consent of both parents.
)I objected to Waldorf on religious grounds at the court appointed
)mediation, with much of the written documentation you provide
)online, and I was ignored. We will be in court on Wednesday, Sep 3,
)where I will be protesting his decision of Waldorf, and he will be
)trying to get full custody.
)
)Any advice anyone can offer me? I've downloaded many of your
)articles and testimonies already.
I'm sending you a list of expert witnesses. There won't be time to
arrange anything by Wednesday; perhaps your lawyer can ask for a
continuance.
)Keep up the good work.
Thanks
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1125
-- Topica Digest --
9/11 happened because Anthroposophists were unfaithful?
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:56:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: 9/11 happened because Anthroposophists were unfaithful?
An example of arrogance and spiritual guilt-tripping on the
Anthroposophy Discussion Forum:
"Some of you know that the life of Anthroposophical Society is
governed by 33-year cycle. According to that, in 1989 (1923+2*33) the
new and important period in Anthroposophical Society was supposed to
have begun. Yet it seems that for more than 10 years anthroposophists
abandoned their responsibilities and in effect abandoned
Anthroposophy, allowing the untruth spread like a cloud of dust over
our heads. Now if you realize that Anthroposophy carries a very
important mission, that it is in fact the most important spiritual
movement of our time, you will understand me when I say that if
anthroposophists, along with many other people, did not abandon their
spiritual responsibility, the event of September 11 - which clearly
had a spiritual dimension and implications on a global scale - would
not have happened."
[Bondar, Vadim. "Review of Catherine MacCoun's 'Work On What Has Been
Spoiled'" http://members.tripod.com/Vadim_Bondar/_disc/00000018.htm,
downloaded 9/1/03.]
Bondar also makes an interesting statements about democracy being "in
direct opposition to anthroposophical spiritual impulse":
"...she says that we need to focus on building "horizontal"
relationships, where everyone is equal and kept in check by others -
"inner democracy". Even if we leave aside the authors peculiar view
on spiritual investigation,...the second part of the proposition is
no less harmful. If it became a reality for Anthroposophical Society,
if political (equal among many) relationships became dominant, it
would mean the end of the Society as we know it, for it would mean
instituting something that works not only in contradiction, but in
direct opposition to anthroposophical spiritual impulse. This has not
happened as yet but there are certain tendencies. Remember the
committee which decided whether Anthroposophy is racist? Or more
recent news about forming a public relations department? Just like in
our story - does a person have dignity because of an underlying
spiritual reality or just because he is "equal"? After all you can be
equal in stupidity too, you know. Or should we vote on that?"
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1126
-- Topica Digest --
A romantic world for plus-size dating
By bella108pierre yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 01:19:13 +0000
From: Bella Pierre (bella108pierre yahoo.com)
Subject: A romantic world for plus-size dating
Date Hundreds of Thousands of BBW, BHM, Admirers. Free Registration.
http://www.LargeFriends.com/i/2
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1127
-- Topica Digest --
Re: 9/11 happened because Anthroposophists were unfaithful?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: 9/11 happened because Anthroposophists were unfaithful?
By diana.winters verizon.net
Earthquakes
By marjadornach netscape.net
Re: Earthquakes
By Gary goodwinter.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:16:01 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: 9/11 happened because Anthroposophists were unfaithful?
Dan forwarded:
) An example of arrogance and spiritual guilt-tripping on the
) Anthroposophy Discussion Forum:
)
) "Some of you know that the life of Anthroposophical Society is
) governed by 33-year cycle.
Sounds "scientific." Almost.
According to that, in 1989 (1923+2*33) the
) new and important period in Anthroposophical Society was supposed to
) have begun.
Doubt creeps into the "cycle."
Yet it seems that for more than 10 years anthroposophists
) abandoned their responsibilities and in effect abandoned
) Anthroposophy, allowing the untruth spread like a cloud of dust over
) our heads.
"Untruth" enters the equation....
Now if you realize that Anthroposophy carries a very
) important mission, that it is in fact the most important spiritual
) movement of our time, you will understand me when I say that if
) anthroposophists, along with many other people, did not abandon their
) spiritual responsibility, the event of September 11 - which clearly
) had a spiritual dimension and implications on a global scale - would
) not have happened."
Incredible. "Follow Steiner and save the world." Ouch.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:06:53 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: 9/11 happened because Anthroposophists were unfaithful?
Walden wrote:
Incredible. "Follow Steiner and save the world." Ouch.
If anthroposophists want to make amends for failing to prevent 9/11,
there are many trouble spots in the world where they could be helping
out, like the Middle East, Iraq, the Congo. Or even just predicting a
flood or earthquake now and then - didn't Steiner say to put spiritual
talents like clairvoyance to practical use?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:41:15 +0000
From: Marja Dornach (marjadornach netscape.net)
Subject: Earthquakes
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) If anthroposophists want to make amends for failing to prevent 9/11,
) there are many trouble spots in the world where they could be helping
) out, like the Middle East, Iraq, the Congo. Or even just predicting a
) flood or earthquake now and then - didn't Steiner say to put spiritual
) talents like clairvoyance to practical use?
Doctor Steiner has told that anthros with clairvoyance talents must not
tell in advance about earthquakes (or other chatastrophes).
Nation¥s karma will be disturbed if people will not die at earthquakes.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:12:56 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Earthquakes
on 9/3/03 2:41 PM, Marja Dornach at marjadornach netscape.net wrote:
) Diana Winters wrote:
))
)) If anthroposophists want to make amends for failing to prevent 9/11, there
)) are many trouble spots in the world where they could be helping
out, like the
)) Middle East, Iraq, the Congo. Or even just predicting a flood or earthquake
)) now and then - didn't Steiner say to put spiritual talents like clairvoyance
)) to practical use?
)
) Doctor Steiner has told that anthros with clairvoyance talents must not tell
) in advance about earthquakes (or other chatastrophes). Nation¥s karma will be
) disturbed if people will not die at earthquakes.
GARY:
Klaudia posted a Steiner source discussing this last November, which was
followed by some insightful comments by others. Look at the November 2002
archives on www.waldorfcritics.org to follow the thread.
) ------------------------------
) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:13:43 +0000
) From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
) Subject: Earthquakes
)
)
) Earlier today I mentioned about earthquakes. This is not the same book, but
) also here is told that occultists are allowed to tell sometimes about coming
) earthquakes. How many times they have done it?
)
)
)
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0107/19090101p01.html;mark=704,36,46#
) WN_mark
)
) End of this message is a quote by Doctor Steiner:
)
) A question was handed to me this morning about earthquake catastrophes. The
) question runs as follows: "What is the occult explanation of earthquakes? Can
) they be foreseen? If particular catastrophes can be foreseen, why should it
) not be possible to give some warning beforehand? Such a warning
might possibly
) be ineffective the first time but certainly not on another occasion."
)
) You may remember something of what was said at the end of the lecture on the
) interior of the earth about the possibility of earthquakes. We will not
) consider that now but enter directly into this question. In reality
it has two
) sides. The one is: Whether from the occult connections which can be
discerned,
) earthquakes can be foreseen? The answer to this is that the knowledge of such
) matters belongs to the deepest realm of occult science. In respect of a
) particular event on the earth, an event with roots as deeply laid as those
) described to-day, and connected with causes extending widely over
the earth --
) in respect of such an event it is absolutely correct to say that even in a
) particular case an indication of time can be given. It would certainly be
) possible for the occultist to give such an indication. But the other side of
) the question is: whether it is permissible for such indications to be given?
) For one who confronts the occult secrets from outside it will seem almost a
) matter of course that the answer will be "Yes!" And yet the truth is that in
) regard to such events it is actually only twice or three times in any one
) century -- at the very most, twice or three times -- that any prediction can
) be announced from the centers of Initiation. For you must remember that these
) things are connected with the karma of humanity as a whole and if, for
) example, they were avoided in one instance they would inevitably
occur in some
) other place and in a different form. The prediction itself would alter
) nothing. And just think what a terrible encroachment it would be into the
) karma of the earth as a whole if human measures were adopted to prevent such
) happenings. The reaction would be so fearful, so violent, that only in very
) rare and exceptional cases would a high Initiate, foreseeing an
earthquake, be
) able to make use of his knowledge to help himself or those near
him. With full
) knowledge he would have to face his end, as a matter of course! For these
) things that have been implicit in the karma of humanity for thousands and
) millions of years cannot be paralyzed by measures adopted during one brief
) period of evolution. But there is still more to add.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1128
-- Topica Digest --
Future steiner teacher
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Gods of the Blood
By sgroth efn.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:47:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: tate.chambers studentmail.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Future steiner teacher
--posting removed by request of the author--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:38:34 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Gods of the Blood
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) A couple of times previously on this list I've recommended the work of
) Mattias Gardell, a Swedish historian of religion whose research
) focuses on the United States. When I returned from my summer travels a
) few days ago, Gardell's latest book was waiting for me: Gods of the
) Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism (Duke University Press).
) It's a study of Aryanist alternative religious groups in the US today,
) based on extensive fieldwork within the racist subculture that forms
) around these groups. I highly recommend the book for anybody who is
) looking to put the racist aspects of anthroposophy into a broader
) contemporary perspective.
Thanks for mentioning Mattias. One thing I will point out regarding his
studies is the method he uses, the approach between himself as observer
and the groups he describes - because it somewhat comply to Steiners
ideas about scientific approach to human issues differing from natural
sciences methods of studying objects.
Mattias uses what I call participatory objectivity (about Steiners idea
of unprejudiced judgement based on meeting the other without sympathy or
antipathy, and involving oneself in the process of study) - he
participates in the activities he is studying. He lived among these
groups. Though not sympathising, he keep an open mind, and don't
distance himself to an extend that the other simply becomes a study
object. He gets to know them personally, stays in their homes, take part
of their lives.
Gardell also know quite some antroposophists in person, at least
undersigned, as we have worked together on several occasion within the
syndicalist trade union SAC, and he is familiar with the discussion
about anthroposophy that has been going on within that union, where
several workers within anthroposophical entities have organised themselves.
) Gardell's book provides a good overview of several themes that have
) arisen on this list over the past few years, from the legacy of
) Theosophy and its offshoots to the esoteric factions within the Nazi
) movement. He mentions anthroposophy a couple times, but doesn't go
) into detail
Perhaps because he don't find Steiner playing a significant role as
promoter of nazist ideals - Steiner was very aware of the groupings
arising from the legacy of Theosophy that inspired the esoteric wing of
the nazi party, and gave specific warnings about the dangers in
interpretating theosophy the way they did. The birth of antroposophy was
in many ways also a result of this, a change of view on several
theosophical concepts, ie the root-races. Steiner prefer to talk about
cultural epochs, and clearly dissassociate this from a biological view
on spirituality - Steiner emphasize linguistics as basis for ethnicity
where the nazis put biological race ideals. I find Steiner more as an
opposer than a competitor with the esoteric ideals that gave birth to
nazism -
Soren
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1129
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Future steiner teacher
By resolver uniweb.net.co
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 22:34:01 -0500
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pretel&Ram=EDrez?= (resolver uniweb.net.co)
Cc: (tate.chambers studentmail.newcastle.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Future steiner teacher
Hi James
First: My english is awful, so, please, excuse me
I joined the survivors list just few moths ago.
About racism: I live in Colombia, South America. Here the people is mostly
that tipical dark skinny that you see in movies. My daughter(7yrs) is a
tipical Colombian girl. She loves to draw. She used to draw at the morning,
at noon, afternoon, and frecuently at night(when something special
happened).
I have been colected her paints from years. She studied last academic one
year at a Waldorf School (september 2002 to June 2003), here in Cali,
Colombia.
Her painting became to change day per day. She wanted to draw exactly like
her teacher. In this draws she wanted to wear blonde hair, blue eyes. The
perception of her self change. She told me "I wanted to have blond hair"
"øAm I white, isn't ?".
In the past, she was proud of being like her father, uncles, grandparents
etc.
This is just one thing that I begun to note that I don't like. Her teacher
has had more than 20 years in this school.
I am just an ordinary mom. I hope it help you something.
Best regards from Cali, Colombia,
Julieta RamÌrez
resolver uniweb.net.co
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Cc: (tate.chambers studentmail.newcastle.edu.au)
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Future steiner teacher
) James, you wrote to us. I'm replying to you on our public discussion
) list, waldorf-critics, with a copy to you. Please subscribe to
) waldorf-critics if you want to participate in any subsequent
) discussion. You can subscribe at:
)
) http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/critics.html
)
) ) From: TATE JAMES CHAMBERS (tate.chambers studentmail.newcastle.edu.au)
) ) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:54:38 +1000
) ) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
) ) Subject: Future steiner teacher
) )
) ) Hello 'Webmaster'
) ) My name is Tate Chambers, I live in New South Wales in Australia. I am
) ) currently studying to be a teacher and I plan to undergo Steiner
) )training in a
) ) couple of years from now.
)
) You've come to the right place to talk about that.
)
) ) I have close family ties with a Steiner school in Victoria and my
experience
) ) with Woldorf education has been very positive. However, I am aware that
their
) ) are certain Waldorf schools (particularly the ones mentioned in your
wedsite)
) ) that display value systems that distcriminate against people with
) ) African-Amercan backgrounds and people with disabilities. I found this
very
) ) distressing. I hope that these examples of desrimination are due to the
) ) ignorance of the peolpe running those particular schools and not a
reflection
) ) of Waldorf education in general. I refer to part of the quote from
Haward
) ) Gardner that is presented in your website: "...it is a mistake to judge
an
) ) entire movement by only its worst, or only its best, instantiations".
)
) It's rare to see any explicit racism at a Waldorf school. The problem
) is not with individual teachers or school cultures; it's with racism
) that's inherent in Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy leads people to a
) false understanding of phenomena like race and disabilities. This is
) a consequence of Steiner's version of the Theosophical doctrines of
) evolution and karma.
)
) If you believe that black-skinned people, for example, represent a
) child-like stage of human evolution, you will treat the black-skinned
) children in your care differently. Although you may treat them with
) love, it is still racism to treat them differently because of a false
) theory. I call that ignorant racism.
)
) ) Because I plan to become a Steiner teacher, I am trying to gain as much
) ) information as I can in order form an opinion on Waldorf education. I
would
) ) like to believe that I am approaching my study of Rudolf Steiner and
) ) Anthroposophy objectively. That is why I'm making an effort to read up
on the
) ) critical viewpoints of Waldorf education (such as the views expressed
in your
) ) website). I know that I still have a lot of learning to do before I
) )can make a
) ) solid opinion.
)
) An objective study of Steiner and Anthroposophy should be very
) helpful to your career plans. It might lead you to change them.
)
) ) I would like to assure you that if and when I do begin teaching at a
Steiner
) ) school, I will maintain values in the classroom that are inclusive and
) ) celebrate diversity.
)
) I am sure that nearly every Waldorf teacher holds that high ideal. I
) question whether it can actually be realized while following Rudolf
) Steiner's teachings.
)
) ) I would like to here from you soon. Tate.c
)
) I'll be pleased to continue this dialogue.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1130
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Gods of the Blood
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Gods of the Blood
By sgroth efn.org
Steiner and the Nazis
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Gods of the Blood
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:20:36 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Gods of the Blood
Hi Soren,
I'm glad to see that you know Gardell and his work. You're quite right about
his reliance on participant observation, a method he borrowed from
anthropology and has transferred, successfully in my view, to the history of
religions. His fieldwork provides crucially helpful information on the
internal self-understanding of the groups that he studies. I can't agree, on
the other hand, that this method has much in common with Steiner's naive
notions about 'unprejudiced judgement', and I must point out that Steiner
was rather hostile toward judgement as such, and critical analysis in
particular, while Gardell's work certainly does not shy away from offering
intellectual, political, and ethical judgements and critical analyses.
The last paragraph of your message deserves special comment, I think. It
recapitulates a number of the most persistent anthroposophical myths about
Steiner and the Nazis. I would very much like to know why you believe the
claims you made in that paragraph -- where did you get these claims from,
what evidence have you encountered that might support them, what makes them
seem plausible in your eyes? I have been trying for years to understand why
so many Steiner fans believe these things. I will offer my own views in a
following post. Thanks,
Peter S.
)Thanks for mentioning Mattias. One thing I will point out regarding his
)studies is the method he uses, the approach between himself as observer and
)the groups he describes - because it somewhat comply to Steiners ideas
)about scientific approach to human issues differing from natural sciences
)methods of studying objects.
)Mattias uses what I call participatory objectivity (about Steiners idea of
)unprejudiced judgement based on meeting the other without sympathy or
)antipathy, and involving oneself in the process of study) - he participates
)in the activities he is studying. He lived among these groups. Though not
)sympathising, he keep an open mind, and don't distance himself to an extend
)that the other simply becomes a study object. He gets to know them
)personally, stays in their homes, take part of their lives.
)Gardell also know quite some antroposophists in person, at least
)undersigned, as we have worked together on several occasion within the
)syndicalist trade union SAC, and he is familiar with the discussion about
)anthroposophy that has been going on within that union, where several
)workers within anthroposophical entities have organised themselves.
)
))Gardell's book provides a good overview of several themes that have arisen
))on this list over the past few years, from the legacy of Theosophy and its
))offshoots to the esoteric factions within the Nazi movement. He mentions
))anthroposophy a couple times, but doesn't go into detail
)
)Perhaps because he don't find Steiner playing a significant role as
)promoter of nazist ideals - Steiner was very aware of the groupings arising
)from the legacy of Theosophy that inspired the esoteric wing of the nazi
)party, and gave specific warnings about the dangers in interpretating
)theosophy the way they did. The birth of antroposophy was in many ways also
)a result of this, a change of view on several theosophical concepts, ie the
)root-races. Steiner prefer to talk about cultural epochs, and clearly
)dissassociate this from a biological view on spirituality - Steiner
)emphasize linguistics as basis for ethnicity where the nazis put biological
)race ideals. I find Steiner more as an opposer than a competitor with the
)esoteric ideals that gave birth to nazism -
)
) Soren
_________________________________________________________________
Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95.
https://broadband.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:44:18 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Gods of the Blood
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hi Soren,
)
) I'm glad to see that you know Gardell and his work. You're quite right
) about his reliance on participant observation, a method he borrowed
) from anthropology and has transferred, successfully in my view, to the
) history of religions. His fieldwork provides crucially helpful
) information on the internal self-understanding of the groups that he
) studies. I can't agree, on the other hand, that this method has much
) in common with Steiner's naive notions about 'unprejudiced judgement',
) and I must point out that Steiner was rather hostile toward judgement
) as such, and critical analysis in particular, while Gardell's work
) certainly does not shy away from offering intellectual, political, and
) ethical judgements and critical analyses.
)
) The last paragraph of your message deserves special comment, I think.
) It recapitulates a number of the most persistent anthroposophical
) myths about Steiner and the Nazis. I would very much like to know why
) you believe the claims you made in that paragraph -- where did you get
) these claims from,
They are the result of me reading Steiner after I'd spent several years
in other context than anthroposophical - While I was working at an
anthroposophically inspired home for developmentally disabled for 12
years, I didn't study Steiner much, it was more an interest of my
ex-wife. I did enjoy the study of philosophy of freedom though, but of
course was also somehow in conflict with the leading persons, as I was
active in adressing questions about the working conditions - at thatr
time we were a group that worked with these issues through SAC
(anarcho-syndicalist union), but we found similarities between
statements about organisational principles from the antrhroposophists
and those we nurtured within SAC - as I see it today, it is the
orphanage of Social Threefolding within antrhroposophy that put up the
biggest hindrance for a dialogue. Later I've been helpful in other cases
where SAC has been in conflict with anthroposophical workplaces in
pointing to how to formulate goals with reference to Social Threefolding
that match those of the workers at the workplace. (sidetrack)
At some point I read your article, and some of the apparently racist
statements from Steiner is true I've heard and at the time I was at
Salt even reacted to. However I found your description as being
theoretically true - it is possible to read and interpret Steiner the
way you do. ( hehe I read you the Steiner way, without critical
approach, trying to see the issue the way you do, first afterwards did I
made my own evaluation) However my impression from 12 years of
particapatory observance leaves me with an impression that Steiner
inspired to something else than the picture you paint. So I started
reading Steiner - and reach the conclusion many other anthroposophists
according to your statement below even have reached, that Steiner
clearly adress dangers dormant in Germany - though in another way than
by trying to rationalize the irrational away - if you don't believe
occultism has any power in itself, only in the sense that belief in
occultism in itself is dangerous, you points make total sense - as I see
it Steiner tries a) to make public, what else have been kept in secret
circles .. (a tue scinetific approach, the discoveries of spiritual
science is no secrets, the findings is common property. ) b) to put it
in a context of ethical individualism c) to stress the necessity of
focusing on the I, the other as an unique beiong rather than the generic
qualities d) clear warnings about ideals of blood e) a dismantling of
the strong state aso aso
Just the idea to keep science, art, education aso totally seperated from
the political state and economical interests is essential. The nation as
a political structure must be demysitified, the rigths sphere only deal
with what is equal between one human being to another human being. The
fundamental idea in fascism/nazism to subordinate the cultural and
economical life in a nation under a mystified political authoritharian
leadership is totally opposed to the ideas put forward in Social
Threefolding - The problems in smaller sense, in ie an
antrhoposophically inspired group active in some field, may it be a
Waldorf School, a Currative Home or whatever have more similarities with
group dynamics present in other NGO's working out of ideals - all groups
I've known had declared principles of non-hierarchical structure, total
inclusiveness of all participants in weekly big meetings - and of course
with the problem known as "tyranny of structurelesnes" -
Decisions is not taken by "vote" - but mature - this is ideally closer
to the idea of consensus, than to pyramidical commandostructure. Steiner
as opponent to democracy is in the sense 51% can decide over 49%
parliamentarism in questions regarding visions aso in a group. It
reminds me a bit abouyt the way we make decisions in the Quaker church (
as I'm not member of the Christ Community, but a Quaker)
) I will offer my own views in a following post. Thanks,
)
) Peter S.
)
))
))) Gardell's book provides a good overview of several themes that have
))) arisen on this list over the past few years, from the legacy of
))) Theosophy and its offshoots to the esoteric factions within the Nazi
))) movement. He mentions anthroposophy a couple times, but doesn't go
))) into detail
))
))
)) Perhaps because he don't find Steiner playing a significant role as
)) promoter of nazist ideals - Steiner was very aware of the groupings
)) arising from the legacy of Theosophy that inspired the esoteric wing
)) of the nazi party, and gave specific warnings about the dangers in
)) interpretating theosophy the way they did. The birth of antroposophy
)) was in many ways also a result of this, a change of view on several
)) theosophical concepts, ie the root-races. Steiner prefer to talk
)) about cultural epochs, and clearly dissassociate this from a
)) biological view on spirituality - Steiner emphasize linguistics as
)) basis for ethnicity where the nazis put biological race ideals. I
)) find Steiner more as an opposer than a competitor with the esoteric
)) ideals that gave birth to nazism -
))
)) Soren
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:03:50 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner and the Nazis
Hi again Soren,
In our last exchange I tried to explain what I think would be an appropriate
way for progressive anthroposophists to deal with the legacy of racism in
Steiner's works. Since you didn't reply to that post, I'm taking the liberty
of repeating my viewpoint. I wrote that I would like to see some serious
self-reflection on the part of progressive anthroposophists, exploring the
question of why there has been such a consistent racist strand within
anthroposophy for one hundred years now, and what that might tell us about
anthroposophy as a worldview and as a movement.
It seems to me that your post from a few days ago dodges this issue
entirely. Instead of grappling honestly with those aspects of classical
anthroposophy that align it directly with other variants of occultist
racism, you offered a sanitized version of Steiner's teachings, and provided
no substantiation whatsoever for this version. To try to clarify what I
think is at stake here, I'd like to review your claims one by one.
In reply to my observation that Gardell's new book mentions anthroposophy on
occasion but doesn't go into detail, you wrote:
)Perhaps because he don't find Steiner playing a significant role as
)promoter of nazist ideals
That is an unlikely reason. A more plausible explanation is the one I
offered: Gardell's book focuses on explicitly anti-christian pagan groups,
not on alternative spiritual tendencies in general; anthroposophy thus falls
outside its purview. Whatever Gardell's perspective may be on
anthroposophy's relationship to other forms of spiritual racism, it isn't
especially relevant to his book. But if you'd like to get in touch with him
and ask him for a more detailed account of his views on this topic, I would
be very interested to learn them.
Just to avoid confusion: the claim that I and a number of other historians
have made about Steiner's relationship with the German far right is not
necessarily that he played a significant role in promoting Nazi ideals. Your
formulation is ambiguous, so I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not,
but to my ears it sounds both too strong and too simple. Steiner played a
significant role in promoting ideals that were simultaneously taken up by
the Nazis and their direct precursors. In the decade following Steiner's
death, many of his closest followers attempted a sort of synthesis of Nazi
ideals and anthroposophical ideals, and a number of powerful Nazis attempted
to put aspects of this synthesis into practice.
You also wrote:
) Steiner was very aware of the groupings arising from the legacy of
)Theosophy that inspired the esoteric wing of the nazi party, and gave
)specific warnings about the dangers in interpretating theosophy the way
)they did.
That isn't true. Steiner praised the work of people like Lagarde and Wagner,
the initiators of this ignominious ideological tradition. And in stark
contrast to your claim, he paid very little attention to Ariosophy and other
voelkisch variants of Theosophy, and did not issue the kind of specific
warnings you mention. On the contrary, his rare references to other
instances of esoteric racism generally reinforce and re-assert his own
racial and national teachings. You only need to consult Steiner's officially
sanctioned texts to see that your claim is false.
The two founding fathers of Ariosophy were Guido List and Joerg Lanz von
Liebenfels, both of them very much active during Steiner's lifetime. In all
of Steiner's massive published works, there are exactly two references to
List and one to Lanz, all of them very brief. Let's look at each one:
In GA 21 p. 111, and again in GA 176 p. 94, Steiner makes dismissive
reference in passing to "the peculiar race mysticism of Guido List". This is
part of Steiner's angry response to a book by Max Dessoir, which Steiner
felt had misinterpreted and misrepresented his own doctrines. In both of
these cases Steiner vigorously defends his essay "Blood is a very special
fluid", better known in English as "The Occult Significance of Blood", which
is itself a racist text. It thus makes extremely little sense to conclude
that Steiner's mild disdain for List indicates a rejection of esoteric
racism as such. Indeed, in the reference to List in GA 176, Steiner says a
number of nice things about List's early book Carnuntum, a nationalist novel
published at the height of Steiner's involvement in the Austrian pan-German
movement. List's book played an important role in galvanizing and
consolidating German nationalist sentiment in late nineteenth century
Austria, which in turn was the source of much of the most virulent racist
thinking for Germanophone Europe as a whole at the time. Moreover, Steiner's
complaints about Dessoir and List were groundless, as we'll see in a moment.
The sole reference to Lanz von Liebenfels is in GA 34 pp. 500-501, Steiner's
comment to a favorable article about Lanz written by another Theosophist,
which Steiner published in the theosophical journal he edited. It strains
credulity, to say the least, to hypothesize that Steiner was fundamentally
opposed to Lanz's doctrines, since he saw fit to publish a friendly summary
of them in his own journal. In his comment to the article, Steiner merely
chides Lanz for being excessively materialist in his approach; not a word
about Lanz's fanatical racism. None of these references, needless to say,
includes anything at all about the esoteric wing of the Nazi party.
I don't know whether you're familiar with these Steiner texts, but you
probably should be; it seems to me that they disprove your claim above.
Steiner's attitude toward Ariosophy was inconsistent at best. He wrote an
enthusiastic Afterword to the 1913 book Theosophy and Christianity by his
student Max Seiling, one of several early anthroposophists who were also
avid ariosophists. Seiling's book praises List's ariosophical work and calls
him a "highly esteemed investigator of Aryanism" (p. 31). This is just a few
years before Steiner's dismissive reference to List in GA 21. The simplest
explanation is that Steiner changed his public stance toward Ariosophy
according to the needs of the moment. In any case, there is no evidence for
the attitude you ascribe to Steiner.
Seiling was not the only one of Steiner's contemporaries and followers who
attempted a fusion of anthroposophy and Ariosophy. In 1908, the Theosophist
Harald Graevell, a leading voelkisch agitator, published an essay that drew
on Ariosophy as well as on Steiner's own favorite article "Blood is a very
special fluid" in order to propagate yet another theosophically inflected
version of Aryan supremacy. In other words, while Steiner may have preferred
at times to distance himself from List or Lanz, his readers did not follow
suit. Taken alongside the striking similarities in detail between Steiner's
system and those elaborated by List and Lanz, not to mention the overlap in
personnel between Ariosophy and anthroposophy, the overwhelming impression
from the available textual sources points to pretty much the opposite of the
conclusion you reached. I'd like to ask you once again how you reached that
conclusion in the first place, and whether you think it is worth revising in
light of the evidence I've just presented.
You also wrote:
)The birth of antroposophy was in many ways also a result of this, a change
)of view on several theosophical concepts, ie the root-races.
That is completely mistaken. Steiner's wholehearted embrace of the root-race
doctrine was itself an essential part of the birth of anthroposophy, as I
pointed out in our earlier exchange. If you have some reason to dispute that
simple fact about anthroposophy's origins, please state it. When Steiner
broke away organizationally from the rest of the Theosophical movement, he
did not change his views on the root-race doctrine. You don't need to take
my word for this; it is very well established in the literature on Theosophy
and anthroposophy, including the sympathetic literature. Here is one recent
example: In 1999 the editors of Gnosis magazine published a book titled
Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Esoteric Tradition. The whole book is
incurably credulous, and their section on Steiner (pp. 278-81) is naturally
quite positive. They point out that particularly in regard to cosmology,
Steiner's later anthroposophical doctrine stayed true to its theosophical
roots, and they note that "The complex esoteric system he [Steiner]
described has much in common with Theosophy: their basic views of the Root
Races, for example, are quite similar." (p. 279) Or you could take a look at
Bruce Campbell's book Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical
Movement, which is similarly friendly toward Steiner. Campbell affirms that
anthroposophy inherited the root-race doctrine from Theosophy and still
promotes it. He writes: "Anthroposophy teaches that the evolution of man
takes place in seven stages -- including Hyperborean, Lemurian, Atlantean,
and Aryan races" (p. 158).
Your contention above also fails to account for the striking continuities in
anthroposophical racial thinking after Steiner's death. It is imprudent to
suppose that Steiner at some point in his anthroposophical career had a
basic "change of view" on race when so many of his closest followers
continued to promote racist, nationalist, and antisemitic ideas as part of
their conception of anthroposophy. Uehli, Karutz, Wachsmuth, Thieben,
Stibbe, Rittelmeyer, Geelmuyden, Heise, Bartsch et al. cannot be dismissed
as marginalia to an otherwise upstanding movement. These leaders of the
anthroposophical movement didn't just happen to hold some deeply repugnant
views; their racist, nationalist, and antisemitic beliefs were integrally
woven into their anthroposophical convictions. The founder of this
unfortunate entwinement was Steiner himself. If there is ever going to be a
"change of view" among anthroposophists, it will require a good deal more
historical accuracy and intellectual probity than we've seen so far.
Resolutely ignoring the basic facts about your own heritage won't do the
trick.
)Steiner prefer to talk about cultural epochs, and clearly dissassociate
)this from a biological view on spirituality
Wrong again. Steiner consistently mixed these elements together; culture,
biology, and spirituality were inseparable for him. He taught that the level
of a given soul's spiritual advancement determined which race it would
incarnate into; indeed the cosmic function of "lower races", according to
anthroposophy, is to accomodate the needs of "less developed" souls.
Steiner's term "cultural epochs" was simply a counterpart to the
theosophical category of "sub-races", and his use of the term "people" or
"nation" ("Volk") played the same cultural-biological role -- indeed the
connection is so close that in some instances, the editors of Steiner's
Complete Works simply changed the word "Rasse" to "Volk". The whole idea
behind the theory of successive "cultural epochs" is that each of them
stands under the hegemony of a specific racial-national group. Steiner
couldn't possibly be more explicit about that basic identification of
ethnicity and spiritual maturity, under the rubric of biological
determination and racial differentiation (it isn't some sort of coincidence
that Steiner repeatedly calls racial character "hereditary").
This element of anthroposophical race theory persists to this day, as you
can see from the work of Pietro Archiati, Tarjei Straume, our very own
Percedol, and numerous others. In light of your interest in Social
Threefolding, I'd like to point out that latter-day Threefolders still
openly promote Steiner's racist teachings; for one example, see Joachim
Luttermann, Dreigliederung des Sozialen Organismus (1990), which recommends
Steiner's tome Cosmic Memory, along with Wachsmuth's Evolution of Mankind.
Obviously a lot of anthroposophists have a long way to go before they can
"clearly disassociate" themselves from Steiner's racism. I'm glad to hear
that you are personally skeptical towards this aspect of Steiner's thinking,
but I get the distinct impression that you are having trouble sorting out
the levels of argument here. It seems to me that all you are doing, Soren,
is laying out your own views, which you then mistakenly project onto
Steiner. That is a major error.
)Steiner emphasize linguistics as basis for ethnicity where the nazis put
)biological race ideals.
I'm not sure what that distinction is supposed to mean in this context, but
I think you are very much missing the point. The distinguishing feature of
the Aryan myth is that it systematically conflated linguistic and biological
concepts; this is its hallmark within the pantheon of modern racist
fantasies. Even the briefest discussion of Aryanism wiil point that out.
Steiner's version of the Aryan myth, contrary to your assertion, was very
emphatically *racial*: he taught that the Aryans are a racial group, not a
linguistic family. This is clear from every single word he said and wrote
about the Aryans. He also tied in his claims about language to his claims
about race; see, for example, his egregious remarks about the French
importing black people into Europe. There are quite literally dozens of
counterexamples in Steiner's published works to each of the claims you've
made here; wouldn't it make more sense to focus on what Steiner actually
said and wrote? If there are passges that you believe support your view, why
not quote them here?
)I find Steiner more as an opposer than a competitor with the esoteric
)ideals that gave birth to nazism
Yes, I can see that. I think that's because you haven't looked into the
matter very thoroughly; instead, you've fallen for the standard
anthroposophist legends and apologetics. If you start looking for the real
Steiner, instead of the Steiner you are hoping to find, you might discover
that he was simultaneously an opponent, a supporter, and a competitor to the
multitude of other esoteric racists and reactionaries of his time. In that
sense, he fit the voelkisch mold perfectly. Anthroposophy's "esoteric
ideals" cannot be neatly separated from those that gave birth to Nazism,
either on a conceptual level or a historical level. Trading in a
non-critical approach for a critical one, on the other hand, could offer a
chance to filter out the racist residue from anthroposophy at long last.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:03:48 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Gods of the Blood
Hi once more Soren,
sorry, I hadn't noticed your new reply. I still don't think it addresses my
concerns, though. I asked where you got the claims about Steiner and the
Nazis from, and you said:
)They are the result of me reading Steiner after I'd spent several years in
)other context than anthroposophical - While I was working at an
)anthroposophically inspired home for developmentally disabled for 12 years,
)I didn't study Steiner much, it was more an interest of my ex-wife. I did
)enjoy the study of philosophy of freedom though, but of course was also
)somehow in conflict with the leading persons, as I was active in adressing
)questions about the working conditions - at thatr time we were a group that
)worked with these issues through SAC (anarcho-syndicalist union), but we
)found similarities between statements about organisational principles from
)the antrhroposophists and those we nurtured within SAC - as I see it today,
)it is the orphanage of Social Threefolding within antrhroposophy that put
)up the biggest hindrance for a dialogue. Later I've been helpful in other
)cases where SAC has been in conflict with anthroposophical workplaces in
)pointing to how to formulate goals with reference to Social Threefolding
)that match those of the workers at the workplace. (sidetrack)
I'm still wondering which specific texts by Steiner lead you to the
conclusions you laid out a few days ago. Where do you think Steiner's
warnings about esoteric racism and/or Nazism appear, where do you think his
change of view on root races can be found, and so forth. Even just a general
hint might help clarify which books or lectures you have in mind.
)At some point I read your article, and some of the apparently racist
)statements from Steiner is true I've heard and at the time I was at SaltÂ
)even reacted to.
Why the adverb "apparently"? Do you think these statements are racist in
appearance only, while their essence is non-racist? What would legitimate
this sort of reading?
)However I found your description as being theoretically true - it is
)possible to read and interpret Steiner the way you do.
It certainly isn't necessary to read and interpret Steiner the way I do to
recognize that much of what he said on the topic of race was plainly racist.
)( hehe I read you the Steiner way, without critical approach, trying to see
)the issue the way you do, first afterwards did I made my own evaluation)
I'm not asking you to see the issue the way I do, I'm asking you to take a
good long look at what Steiner actually wrote and said, and try to
understand it within its historical context. If you think that the notion of
"higher races" and "lower races", for example, is only "apparently" racist,
and if you think that this notion had nothing in common with the substratum
of racist assumptions upon which Nazism drew, then I'd like to know *why*
you think those things.
)However my impression from 12 years of particapatory observance leaves me
)with an impression that Steiner inspired to something else than the picture
)you paint.
I think there are two big problems with that sentence. First, from your own
description of your involvement with the anthroposophical movement, it is
highly inaccurate to characterize your role as participant observation.
Second, I don't see the point in pretending that we can guess what Steiner's
aspirations were. What we can do is examine his actions, including his
writing and public speaking, along with examining the consequences that his
followers drew from those writings and speeches. Speculating about
aspirations is a red herring, in my view.
)So I started reading Steiner - and reach the conclusion many other
)anthroposophists according to your statement below even have reached, that
)Steiner clearly adress dangers dormant in Germany -
Okay, what part of your reading supports this conclusion? What dangers
dormant in Germany do you think Steiner addressed, and where did he address
them?
)though in another way than by trying to rationalize the irrational away -
)if you don't believe occultism has any power in itself, only in the sense
)that belief in occultism in itself is dangerous, you points make total
)sense
I'm not sure I follow you. I agree that irrational beliefs have real-world
consequences.
)- as I see it Steiner tries a) to make public, what else have been kept in
)secret circles .. (a tue scinetific approach, the discoveries of spiritual
)science is no secrets, the findings is common property.
I think you're missing half the picture. Steiner frequently insisted on the
need for secrecy and restricted access to the core esoteric truths. This
back-and-forth of publicity and concealment is a commonplace among occult
groups and self-appointed initiates, and helps account for their elitist
nature. Why ignore one side of that dialectic?
)) b) to put it in a context of ethical individualism
Sounds to me like you're mixing up Steiner's pre-1900 philosophical views
with his anthroposophical doctrines.
)c) to stress the necessity of focusing on the I, the other as an unique
)beiong rather than the generic qualities
I've tried to point out before that this premise (assuming for the moment
that Steiner even held this premise) is quite compatible with racism. Lots
of people manage to combine a focus on unique individual qualities with a
background belief that some races are more advanced than others. That belief
is racist, plain and simple. When such a belief is complented by detailed
descriptions of the degenerate nature of lower races and the spiritual
maturity of higher races, the racist aspects quickly move from the
background to the foreground. That is exactly the case with Steiner's
anthroposophy.
)d) clear warnings about ideals of blood
...always accompanied by insistence on the spiritual significance of blood,
not to mention the fact that these 'warnings' constantly fixate on the Jews,
and sometimes the Slavs, as the chief culprits, all the while celebrating
Germans as disinterested and objective arbiters and the closest
approximation to the Universal Human...
)e) a dismantling of the strong state aso aso
I think that last point is irrelevant. If you want lots of examples of
inveterate racists who reject a strong state, read Gardell's book.
)Just the idea to keep science, art, education aso totally seperated from
)the political state and economical interests is essential. The nation as a
)political structure must be demysitified, the rigths sphere only deal with
)what is equal between one human being to another human being. The
)fundamental idea in fascism/nazism to subordinate the cultural and
)economical life in a nation under a mystified political authoritharian
)leadership is totally opposed to the ideas put forward in Social
)Threefolding
I think you're relying on a very narrow understanding of fascist thinking
about economics and politics; this sort of thing is not at all "totally
opposed" to any number of varieties of fascism. Threefolding bears many
similarities to the theories of a corporative social order that were
extremely popular among fascists in many countries.
)- The problems in smaller sense, in ie an antrhoposophically inspired group
)active in some field, may it be a Waldorf School, a Currative Home or
)whatever have more similarities with group dynamics present in other NGO's
)working out of ideals
You don't think fascists worked out of ideals??
)- all groups I've known had declared principles of non-hierarchical
)structure, total inclusiveness of all participants in weekly big meetings
Sounds great. What does it have to do with Steiner's teachings about
threefolding? He explicitly rejected such democratic forms for two of the
three spheres.
)Steiner as opponent to democracy is in the sense 51% can decide over 49%
)parliamentarism in questions regarding visions aso in a group.
No, that wasn't at all Steiner's complaint against democracy. I think you
are once again mixing up your own ideas with Steiner's. I keep trying to
steer our discussion back to some sort of foundation of evidence, instead of
trading free-floating hypotheses about what Steiner might have meant or
aspired to or really truly believed in his heart of hearts. I invite you,
one more time, to offer your own preferred evidence in support of your
version of Steiner's views. Thanks as always for your openness to discussion
on these topics,
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1131
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Earthquakes
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:43:44 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Earthquakes
Then what is the use of the clairvoyance?
) From: Marja Dornach (marjadornach netscape.net)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:41:15 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Earthquakes
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
))
)) If anthroposophists want to make amends for failing to prevent 9/11,
)) there are many trouble spots in the world where they could be helping
)) out, like the Middle East, Iraq, the Congo. Or even just predicting a
)) flood or earthquake now and then - didn't Steiner say to put spiritual
)) talents like clairvoyance to practical use?
)
) Doctor Steiner has told that anthros with clairvoyance talents must not
) tell in advance about earthquakes (or other chatastrophes).
) Nation¥s karma will be disturbed if people will not die at earthquakes.
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
) --^----------------------------------------------------------------
) This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
)
) EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
) Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
)
) TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
) http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
) --^----------------------------------------------------------------
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1132
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Steiner and the Nazis
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By sgroth efn.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:02:03 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Nazis
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) This element of anthroposophical race theory persists to this day, as
) you
) can see from the work of Pietro Archiati, Tarjei Straume, our very own
) Percedol, and numerous others. In light of your interest in Social
) Threefolding, I'd like to point out that latter-day Threefolders still
) openly promote Steiner's racist teachings; for one example, see Joachim
) Luttermann, Dreigliederung des Sozialen Organismus (1990), which
) recommends
) Steiner's tome Cosmic Memory, along with Wachsmuth's Evolution of
) Mankind.
) Obviously a lot of anthroposophists have a long way to go before they
) can
) "clearly disassociate" themselves from Steiner's racism.
P:
Ad libitum.
There is nothing to dissociate from. So, don't hold your breath.
Also, there are races, but in our time we have to consider nations, not
races.
But you don't want to understand this, because you need it to continue
to attack A., that is your agenda.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:25:07 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
P wrote:
) Also, there are races, but in our time we have to consider nations, not
) races.
) But you don't want to understand this, because you need it to continue
) to attack A., that is your agenda.
This statement (above) adds nothing to the discussion. I have been enjoying
this thread - the comments by Peter and Soren are insightful. There was a
time when I defended Waldorf *and* Anthroposophy. My defence included
attacking those I suspected of attacking W/A. "Best defence is a strong
offence," my football coach used to say. I suppose that was "my agenda."
In those days I thought I understood Waldorf Education and I knew enough
about Anthroposophy to defend it as a "much needed form of social renewal."
It was only when I took time out to stop attacking the attackers (so to
speak) that I realized how misinformed I really was. I realized I was
trying to shape W/A to fit my own values. It takes courage to stop shooting
the messenger and it takes something else (inner work?) to spark the flame
of rational thought and utter the words..."I might have to rethink my
position."
Why not deal with substance? It makes the experience more real.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:48:14 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hi again Soren,
)
) In our last exchange I tried to explain what I think would be an
) appropriate way for progressive anthroposophists to deal with the
) legacy of racism in Steiner's works. Since you didn't reply to that
) post, I'm taking the liberty of repeating my viewpoint. I wrote that I
) would like to see some serious self-reflection on the part of
) progressive anthroposophists, exploring the question of why there has
) been such a consistent racist strand within anthroposophy for one
) hundred years now, and what that might tell us about anthroposophy as
) a worldview and as a movement.
) Just to avoid confusion: the claim that I and a number of other
) historians have made about Steiner's relationship with the German far
) right is not necessarily that he played a significant role in
) promoting Nazi ideals.
YOU: Rudolf Steiner played a crucial role in propagating the notion of
Germany's special mission to redeem the world from the corruptions of
materialism and linked this supposed mission to a vision of national
regeneration and spiritual renewal. For those of us who believe that
such ideas are dangerous and deplorable as such, Steiner quite plainly
qualifies as a major figure responsible for spreading these ideas within
pre-Nazi Germany.
) Your formulation is ambiguous, so I'm not sure whether I agree with it
) or not, but to my ears it sounds both too strong and too simple.
) Steiner played a significant role in promoting ideals that were
) simultaneously taken up by the Nazis and their direct precursors.
) You also wrote:
)
)) Steiner was very aware of the groupings arising from the legacy of
)) Theosophy that inspired the esoteric wing of the nazi party, and gave
)) specific warnings about the dangers in interpretating theosophy the
)) way they did.
)
)
) That isn't true. Steiner praised the work of people like Lagarde and
) Wagner, the initiators of this ignominious ideological tradition. And
) in stark contrast to your claim, he paid very little attention to
) Ariosophy and other voelkisch variants of Theosophy, and did not issue
) the kind of specific warnings you mention. On the contrary, his rare
) references to other instances of esoteric racism generally reinforce
) and re-assert his own racial and national teachings. You only need to
) consult Steiner's officially sanctioned texts to see that your claim
) is false.
)
) The two founding fathers of Ariosophy were Guido List and Joerg Lanz
) von Liebenfels, both of them very much active during Steiner's
) lifetime. In all of Steiner's massive published works, there are
) exactly two references to List and one to Lanz, all of them very brief.
Though active in Steiners lifetime, we must also consider that at the
time it was not known what role they were to play. At this point
ariosofi was an obscure phenomonen - however Steiner in several lectures
specifically speaks against interpretating esoteric knowledge in the way
it is done in ariosofi and points to several motive forces in national
chauvinism, hate against other people aso which shows an awareness of
possible dangers. His warnings is therefore not presented as specific
critique against specific groups or persons in these matters, but
against ideas and motive forces in general, which later manifested in
nazism.
ie
Die Erregungen nationaler Art, die insbesondere stark unbewuþt wirken,
wenn sie nicht ins Ich-Bewuþtsein heraufgeholt werden, indem
man die Frage zu einer Karmafrage macht, so wie ich das neulich
charakterisiert habe, sind sehr verwandt den sexuellen Erregungen. Man
darf ¸ber solche Dinge nicht dadurch hinweggehen, daþ man aus gewissen
T”uschungen und Sehnsuchten heraus eine emotionelle Art des
Nationalempfindens zu einer recht vornehmen Empfindung machen m–chte,
und die Sexualempfindung zu einer recht wenig vornehmen;
GA174, S.142-143, 11966, 14.1.1917, Dornach
The excitations of national kind, which in particular work strongly
unconsciously, are very related to sexual excitations, if they are not
brought up in I-consciousness, by making the question a Karmaquestion,
as I recently have characterized it. One may not pass over such things
by the fact that out of certain deceptions and longings from an
emotional kind it since long have been tried to wish to make the the
national feeling into a quite distinguished feeling, and the sexual
feeling into a quite lessser disitinguished;
Niemals wird der kosmopolitische, der internationale Sinn durch eine
solche geistig-seelische Liebe zu Sprache und Volkstum verk¸mmert.
Wenn aber der Mensch mehr automatisch in seine Sprache hineinw”chst,
wenn er dadurch mit seinen Instinkten, mit seinen Trieben eine
¸berhitzte, organische,
animalische Liebe zu Sprache und Volkstum entwickelt, dann entsteht
dasjenige, was falscher Nationalismus, was chauvinistische Gesinnung
ist, was in einer
”uþerlichen Weise auf das Volkstum pocht!ª
Liebe statt Zwang zu Sprache und Volk
GA209, S.28-43, 11968, 27.11.1921, Kristiania
The cosmopolitan, international sense is never diminished by such a
mental-soul love for language and nationality. If however man grows more
automatically into his language, if it thereby with his instincts, with
its impulses develop an overheated, organic, animalistic love for
language and nationality, then it develops that which is wrong
nationalism, which is chauvinististic convicition, which in an outward
way insist upon the nationality!"
Love instead of obligation to language and people
GA209, S.28-43, 11968, 27.11.1921, Kristiania
"A man who speaks today about a racial, national, or tribal community as
an ideal, is describing impulses leading to humanity's destruction
"(...) Not through anything else do human beings get nearer to the
threat of decadence than when the ideals of race, folk, and blood are
spread abroad."
GA 177, p. 205
) Let's look at each one:
)
) In GA 21 p. 111, and again in GA 176 p. 94, Steiner makes dismissive
) reference in passing to "the peculiar race mysticism of Guido List".
) This is part of Steiner's angry response to a book by Max Dessoir,
) which Steiner felt had misinterpreted and misrepresented his own
) doctrines. In both of these cases Steiner vigorously defends his essay
) "Blood is a very special fluid", better known in English as "The
) Occult Significance of Blood", which is itself a racist text.
Why not provide the link, and let folks judge by themselves
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/OccBld_index.html
) It thus makes extremely little sense to conclude that Steiner's mild
) disdain for List indicates a rejection of esoteric racism as such.
) Indeed, in the reference to List in GA 176, Steiner says a number of
) nice things about List's early book Carnuntum,
"then he [ Dessoir ] put forward the Racemysticism of Guido von List. I
have no other relationship to Guido von List , than that I once at the
time, when I still published the "Luzifer Gnosis", in the beginning of
the eighties, when he, as far as I knew, was still just another
reasonable human being and had written his novel "Carnuntum", got a
paper from him; I had it sent back as useless and dilettantic. That is
the onliest relation I have to Guido von List
Menschliche und menschheitliche Entwicklungswahrheiten. Das Karma des
Materialismus,
Vortrag vom 26. Juni 1917 in Berlin, GA 176, Dornach 1964, S. 94.
As far as I read it, he says nothing about the quality of the book,
neither negative or positive, but the pretty obvious that Steiner at
this point no longer regard von List as being a reasonable person - it
is not the issue for discussion here, it is Dessoirs claims that
Steiners views in "The occult significance of the blood" present ideas
similar to von Lists - a point he pursue in the other reference to von List
P. 74 "Dessoirs criticism is in that sense not differering from many
others "answers", to which the anthroposophy represented by me is
exposed to. It is not productive to argue with them, because they do not
criticize what is presented to them for judgement, but a distorted image
arbitrarily formed by them, against which it then becomes quite easy for
them to critisize. To me it appears completely impossible how someone,
who sees, what anthroposophy as far as I'm concerned is about, can match
it as Dessoir does with an automatic literary Burleske like the fist
books by J. A. Louvier, with Guido Lists peculiar Racemysticism, with
Christian Science even with all that, which Dessoir calls "new Buddhism"
Quelle: Von Seelenr”tseln, 1. Aufl. Berlin 1917, GA 21, Dornach 1976
all for today - will reply to your other points later
best regards and thanks for an interesting discussion Soren
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1133
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:15:02 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Hi Soren, thanks for your reply. You began by juxtaposing several quotes
from me:
))the claim that I and a number of other historians have made about
))Steiner's relationship with the German far right is not necessarily that
))he played a significant role in promoting Nazi ideals.
and:
))Steiner played a significant role in promoting ideals that were
))simultaneously taken up by the Nazis and their direct precursors.
and:
)Rudolf Steiner played a crucial role in propagating the notion of Germany's
)special mission to redeem the world from the corruptions of materialism and
)linked this supposed mission to a vision of national regeneration and
)spiritual renewal. For those of us who believe that such ideas are
)dangerous and deplorable as such, Steiner quite plainly qualifies as a
)major figure responsible for spreading these ideas within pre-Nazi Germany.
I am quite puzzled by this juxtaposition. Do you think that these quotes say
different things, that they somehow contradict one another? All of them say
exactly the same thing, namely, that Steiner propagated an ideology of
spiritual regeneration and national mission, and that this ideology was also
a crucial source for those social forces that eventually coalesced within
the National Socialist movement. These ideals were not in and of themselves
"Nazi ideals", for the simple reason that many non-Nazi right-wingers
believed in them. Some of us think that these ideals are deplorable whether
they show up draped in swastikas or draped in spiritual science. But even
people who do not share that evaluation recognize that these ideals played a
central role in preparing the ground for the rise of Nazism. It isn't clear
to me which part of what I've written you disagree with.
Regarding the Ariosophists List and Lanz, you wrote:
)Though active in Steiners lifetime, we must also consider that at the time
)it was not known what role they were to play.
That is incompatible with the argument you advanced a few days ago. You
claimed, if I understood you correctly, that Steiner was "very aware" of
these tendencies and "gave specific warnings" against them. Which is it? Was
he aware or wasn't he? The point of your earlier post was that Steiner had
opposed those who "inspired the esoteric wing of the nazi party"; now you're
saying that Steiner couldn't have foreseen this development. At least one of
your claims must be untrue.
My argument, in contrast, is that Steiner paid very little attention to
Ariosophy and certainly issued no warnings against it; he seems to have
viewed List and Lanz condescendingly, as less worthy heirs of the
Theosophical tradition than himself. Since Steiner's own racial theories
were similar in structure and in content to those of the Ariosophists, and
since he went to the trouble of explicitly repeating and defending his own
racial theories on the rare occasions when he did mention the ariosophists,
your conclusions seem to me obviously untenable.
)At this point ariosofi was an obscure phenomonen
Why do you say "at this point"? It remains an obscure phenomenon today. What
does that have to do with the argument you put forward last week?
)however Steiner in several lectures specifically speaks against
)interpretating esoteric knowledge in the way it is done in ariosofi
Yes, because he preferred the way it is done in anthroposophy. How did you
manage to leap from this banal fact to the notion that Steiner rejected the
root-race theory, for example, or abjured racism on principle? Steiner
disagreed constantly with nearly all the other theosophists and
post-theosophists of his era, for obvious reasons; this scarcely means that
his own doctrines do not share profound affinities with theirs.
)and points to several motive forces in national chauvinism, hate against
)other people aso which shows an awareness of possible dangers.
Aha! You think, I take it, that Steiner's warnings against nationalism were
directed against German nationalists. If so, you are completely mistaken.
They were overwhelmingly directed against the Slavs, the French, the
English, and especially the Jews. Excoriating other people's nationalism is
an extremely frequent feature of nationalist thought. The "possible dangers"
that Steiner saw involved such awful things as Polish sovereignty and Jewish
self-defense against antisemitism. Need I add that it would be foolish to
confuse this sort of thing with a warning against the dangers of Nazism?
)His warnings is therefore not presented as specific critique against
)specific groups
Oh yes it is. Come on, Soren, take a closer look at some of those passages
you admire. Over and over again, Steiner's number one example of "blood
bonds" and "national egoism" is the Jews. Every once in a while he'll blame
nationalism on Napoleon or on Ahriman, but by far his favorite whipping boy
is the atavistic and insular spirit of Jewry. Try reading his harangue
against "The Specters of the Old Testament in the Nationalism of the
Present" in The Challenge of the Times, among dozens of others.
)but against ideas and motive forces in general, which later manifested in
)nazism.
)
)ie
)
)The excitations of national kind, which in particular work strongly
)unconsciously, are very related to sexual excitations, if they are not
)brought up in I-consciousness, by making the question a Karmaquestion, as I
)recently have characterized it. One may not pass over such things by the
)fact that out of certain deceptions and longings from an emotional kind it
)since long have been tried to wish to make the the national feeling into a
)quite distinguished feeling, and the sexual feeling into a quite lessser
)disitinguished;
How did you get the idea that this passage is a critique of nationalism? All
he says here is that we need to bring our national impulses into
I-consciousness. He says the same thing in Knowledge of Higher Worlds, where
he insists that the esoteric pupil "must knowingly collaborate in the tasks
of his nation and his race". I think you got this one backwards.
)The cosmopolitan, international sense is never diminished by such a
)mental-soul love for language and nationality. If however man grows more
)automatically into his language, if it thereby with his instincts, with its
)impulses develop an overheated, organic, animalistic love for language and
)nationality, then it develops that which is wrong nationalism, which is
)chauvinististic convicition, which in an outward way insist upon the
)nationality!"
)
)Love instead of obligation to language and people
)GA209, S.28-43, 11968, 27.11.1921, Kristiania
Sounds nice, but you might want to take the context into account. Recall
that the title of GA 209 is Nordic and Central European Spiritual Impulses;
Steiner absurdly held Germanic culture to be the least nationalistic and the
farthest advanced toward the Universal Human of all the cultures of his day
(that's why the present cultural epoch is the Nordic-Germanic epoch, after
all).
)"A man who speaks today about a racial, national, or tribal community as an
)ideal, is describing impulses leading to humanity's destruction
)"(...) Not through anything else do human beings get nearer to the threat
)of decadence than when the ideals of race, folk, and blood are spread
)abroad."
)GA 177, p. 205
Oy vey. You don't really think this is a warning against the Nazis, do you??
It's a warning against the Jews, the Slavs, and the Americans! Read the
whole lecture, for goodness sake: chapter 12 in The Fall of the Spirits of
Darkness (Rudolf Steiner Press 1993). Here is how the passage appears in
this authorized translation:
"A fourteenth-century person who spoke of the ideals of race and nation
would have been speaking in terms of the progressive tendencies of human
evolution; someone who speaks of the ideal of race and nation and of tribal
membership today is speaking of impulses which are part of the decline of
humanity. If anyone now considers them to be progressive ideals to present
to humanity, this is an untruth. Nothing is more designed to take humanity
into its decline than the propagatiopn of the ideals of race, nation, and
blood. Nothing is more likely to prevent human progress than proclamations
of national ideals belonging to earlier centuries which continue to be
preserved by the luciferic and ahrimanic powers. The true ideal must arise
from what we find in the world of the spirit, not in the blood." (p. 186)
The next paragraph goes on to explain how Yahweh has given way to the Christ
and how spiritual bonds have taken the place of blood bonds since 1879 (how
handy that national aspirations fell out of cosmic favor just after German
unification...), and ends with yet another denunciation of "Wilsonianism".
In the following paragraph Steiner complains that "almost the whole world is
resisting the true progress of humanity, and the phrase 'freedom of nations'
is used for something which goes against the stream of evolution." (p. 187)
But of course the steadfast Germans have held out against this regressive
tide, lead by Goethe and Schiller (pp. 188-190); they are moving with the
stream of evolution and the true progress of humanity. Not so the benighted
and anachronistic peoples arrayed against German spirituality. "In
everything connected with heredity," says Steiner a few pages before the
quote you seem to like, "we must therefore see ourselves connected with the
entities which are under the leadership of Yahveh or Jehovah." (p. 182) What
you have taken for a warning against German nationalism, Soren, is in fact a
tirade against the national rights of smaller peoples (remember the
historical context of late 1917, when this lecture was delivered), whose
sponsorship by Wilson deeply threatened German hegemony on the continent.
That puts Steiner squarely in line with, not in opposition to, the folks you
think he was warning against.
When I noted that Steiner's 1906 essay "The Occult Significance of Blood"
is a racist text, you remarked:
)Why not provide the link, and let folks judge by themselves
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/OccBld_index.html
I have provided that link several times in the past, and we've discussed the
essay thoroughly here; for recent examples, see the exchanges on this list
from November 2002 (subject heading: "Occult Significance of Blood"); as
well as:
http://pub21.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=10.topic&start=1&stop=20
Judging for oneself is always a good idea. But people who fail to discern
the racism in this essay are poor judges of racism. If you think otherwise,
might I ask why? Can you offer a non-racist reading of Steiner's paragraph
on the "question of race" and colonialism, for example? Last but not least,
the version of this essay that you linked to is of course a whitewashed
translation; it simply omits the reference to black people (directly prior
to the phrase "utterly barbaric savage"). I'm happy to give you the benefit
of the doubt and assume that you were unaware of that fact, but I must
admonish you to be more careful in the future; this sort of tampering with
the text in order to soften the racist aspects is a common feature in
English translations of Steiner.
)Steiner at this point no longer regard von List as being a reasonable
)person - it is not the issue for discussion here, it is Dessoirs claims
)that Steiners views in "The occult significance of the blood" present ideas
)similar to von Lists - a point he pursue in the other reference to von List
Indeed, that is the issue at stake here. You have yet to explain your own
position on this; are you saying that you find Steiner's indignant response
to Dessoir persuasive? Why? If all Dessoir said is that Steiner's racial
theory and List's racial theory have much in common, who could genuinely
dispute that? Their account of the succession of root-races, to choose one
central example, is identical. A number of their followers, from Heise to
Seiling to Schwartz-Bostunitsch to Graevell, had no trouble drawing the
obvious connections between their two systems. Same goes for Lanz von
Liebenfels; look at their respective narratives about Manu as the leader of
the ancient Aryans, for example, or their mutual interest in figures like
Heise or the author Friedrich Lienhard, a prominent voelkisch writer and
leading light of 'idealistic antisemitism'. Or for that matter look at the
way that each of them tempered their appropriation of Theosophical concepts
with an emphasis on Christian traditions. It really isn't that hard to
perceive the similiarities between Steiner and the Ariosophists. Why is it
difficult for you to see that Steiner was blowing smoke in this case?
In my view, even relatively obscure old debates like this one between
Steiner and Dessoir aren't just arcane matters from the past. The latest
missive from Percedol shows just how much work people like you still need to
do, Soren. If you keep trying to hide behind a scattering of quotes that you
think show the kinder gentler side of Steiner, you'll never reclaim your
movement from the legions of anthroposophists who insist that "There is
nothing to dissociate from." When you come right down to it, it's a little
odd that I'm the one you're arguing with. I don't dispute that Steiner
sometimes said nice tolerant things and upheld a number of premises that are
worth pursuing today. Your fellow Steiner fans, on the other hand, seem very
intent on denying that Steiner ever said a dubious word in his entire life.
Progressive anthroposophists aren't going to salvage what is worthwhile in
Steiner and his doctrines by blocking out the parts that deserve a decent
burial at last.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:27:06 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Percedol wrote:
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
))This element of anthroposophical race theory persists to this day, as
))you
))can see from the work of Pietro Archiati, Tarjei Straume, our very own
))Percedol, and numerous others. In light of your interest in Social
))Threefolding, I'd like to point out that latter-day Threefolders still
))openly promote Steiner's racist teachings; for one example, see Joachim
))Luttermann, Dreigliederung des Sozialen Organismus (1990), which
))recommends
))Steiner's tome Cosmic Memory, along with Wachsmuth's Evolution of
))Mankind.
))Obviously a lot of anthroposophists have a long way to go before they
))can
))"clearly disassociate" themselves from Steiner's racism.
))
))
)
)P:
)Ad libitum.
)There is nothing to dissociate from. So, don't hold your breath.
)
I will disagree - In praxis antroposophy of today have included a
north-south perspective, at least there's good attempts to include this
perspective, but I absolutely think Steiner totally missed to present
anything valid in regard to a north-south perspective, and in several
occassions express opinions I think antroposophists of today do well in
clearly dissassociating themselves from - even without excuses. Steiner
was very eurocentric - and expose total ignorance about ie Africa and
express views on negroes that is totally unacceptable - This however
doesn't necessarily mean you have to dissaccociate yourself from
antroposophy - but in several cases from Steiner - not all sayings from
Steiner is coming out of spiritual insigth - and in many cases he talks
about things he simply didn't knew anything about.
This means that there's a whole area of parralell evolution of
cultural-historical-spiritual developments in important civilisations
that antroposophy of today need to explore with spiritual science and
complement the eurocentric view with. Neither as segregation nor
assimilation, but in a creative process of mutual understanding and free
integration.
)Also, there are races, but in our time we have to consider nations, not
)races.
)But you don't want to understand this, because you need it to continue
)to attack A., that is your agenda.
)
The attacks is partly justified. I think antroposophy suffer somewhat
from an attitude of exclusion. There's a tedency to build an ivory
tower, where communication requires from the other to understand
antroposophy and Steiner. Why not adapt the following advise from RS: "
When we meet adversity, we should not indulge in negative judgement, but
accept the inevitable and try as best as we can, to turn it into good.
Similarly instead of considering the opinions of others only from our
own standpoint, we should try to put ourselves into their position" (How
to know higher worlds p 121) I don't find it productive to speculate in
PS's motives - and it is interesting to step outside your own image of
and see it from an outside view. It may turn out that the others lack of
understanding is a direct result of your own failure to communicate, and
cast ligth upon "blind spots' in your own view
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:31:11 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
walden wrote:
)P wrote:
)
)
))Also, there are races, but in our time we have to consider nations, not
))races.
))But you don't want to understand this, because you need it to continue
))to attack A., that is your agenda.
))
))
)
)This statement (above) adds nothing to the discussion. I have been enjoying
)this thread - the comments by Peter and Soren are insightful. There was a
)time when I defended Waldorf *and* Anthroposophy. My defence included
)attacking those I suspected of attacking W/A. "Best defence is a strong
)offence," my football coach used to say. I suppose that was "my agenda."
)In those days I thought I understood Waldorf Education and I knew enough
)about Anthroposophy to defend it as a "much needed form of social renewal."
)
)It was only when I took time out to stop attacking the attackers (so to
)speak) that I realized how misinformed I really was. I realized I was
)trying to shape W/A to fit my own values. It takes courage to stop shooting
)the messenger and it takes something else (inner work?) to spark the flame
)of rational thought and utter the words..."I might have to rethink my
)position."
)
)Why not deal with substance? It makes the experience more real.
)
)-Walden
)
)
)
Hihi so you stopped being a sheep in the flock following habitual
thougths, kicked in you I-Consciousness and based your judgement on
living experience - COOL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:12:33 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Soren wrote:
) Hihi so you stopped being a sheep in the flock following habitual
) thougths, kicked in you I-Consciousness and based your judgement on
) living experience - COOL
Something like that though I never really followed the sheep. I was
considered a black sheep. There came a time when I realized I could no
longer pick and choose my Steiner quotes according to my own values. I
reverted back to my days of thinking critically. Then, I no longer needed
any excuses to avoid those parts of Anthroposophy I had conveniently
ignored. All I ever really needed could be found in my ability to be...
human.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1134
-- Topica Digest --
North-South Perspective in Waldorf Teacher Training
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By sgroth efn.org
RE: S. and the Nazis
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:01:32 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: North-South Perspective in Waldorf Teacher Training
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010707050805030901060509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Soren Groth Petersen wrote:
) I will disagree - In praxis antroposophy of today have included a
) north-south perspective, at least there's good attempts to include
) this perspective,
ie the Rpogram Director for The waldorf teacher training at Rudolf
Steiner College has written a book on african mythology, history and culture
*Program Director *
Betty Staley, M.A., a Waldorf educator for over thirty years at the
kindergarten, elementary, high school, and teacher training levels. She
also directs the Waldorf High School Education Program and the public
school programs at Rudolf Steiner College. Author of /Between Form and
Freedom: A Practical Guide to the Teenage Years; _Hear the Voice of the
Griot: A Guide to the History, Geography and Culture of Africa; _/and
/Tapestries: Weaving Life's Journey/.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:13:11 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Last but not least, the version of this essay that you linked to is of
) course a whitewashed translation; it simply omits the reference to
) black people (directly prior to the phrase "utterly barbaric savage").
) I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you
) were unaware of that fact, but I must admonish you to be more careful
) in the future; this sort of tampering with the text in order to soften
) the racist aspects is a common feature in English translations of
) Steiner.
I don't have access to the german original, please provide the full
quote in german if you have access to it - As I've said several times
several of Steiners sayings about native people is absolutely idiotic -
)Questions of great importance are pressing upon us these days;
questions dealing with the education, not alone of the young, but of
entire nations. And, )furthermore, we are confronted by the momentous
educational question which humanity will have to face in the future, and
which cannot fail to be recognized by all )who note the great social
upheavals of our time, and the claims which are everywhere being
advanced, be they the Labor Question, or the Question of Peace. All
)these things are pre-occupying our anxious minds.
)But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the
nature of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who
can deny that this )question is closely linked to that of race, which at
the present time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this
question of race is one that we can never )understand until we
understand the mysteries of the blood and of the results accruing from
the mingling of the blood of different races. And finally, there is yet
one )other question, the importance of which is becoming more and more
acute as we endeavor to extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless
methods of dealing with )it, and seek to approach it in its more
comprehensive bearings. This problem is that of colonization, which
crops up wherever civilized races come into contact with )the
uncivilized: namely ó To what extent are uncivilized peoples capable of
becoming civilized? How can an utterly barbaric savage become civilized?
And in )what way ought we to deal with them? And here we have to
consider not only the feelings due to a vague morality, but we are also
confronted by great, serious, )and vital problems of the very fact of
existence itself.
Later he says:
) We must now inquire how it was that his form of consciousness was
) changed. It came about through a cause well known to occult history.
) If you go back into the past, you will find that there is one
) particular moment which stands out in the history of each nation. It
) is the moment at which a people enters on a new phase of civilization,
) the moment when it ceases to have old traditions, when it ceases to
) possess its ancient wisdom, the wisdom which was handed down through
) generations by means of the blood. The nation possesses, nevertheless,
) a consciousness of it, and this is expressed in its legends.
)
) In earlier times tribes held aloof from each other, and the individual
) members of families intermarried. You will find this to have been the
) case with all races and with all peoples; and it was an important
) moment for humanity when this principle was broken through, when
) foreign blood was introduced, and when marriage between relations was
) replaced by marriage with strangers, when endogamy gave place to
) exogamy. Endogamy preserves the blood of the generation; it permits of
) the same blood flowing in the separate members as flows for
) generations through the entire tribe or the entire nation. Exogamy
) inoculates man with new blood, and this breaking-down of the tribal
) principle, this mixing of blood, which sooner or later takes place
) among all peoples, signifies the birth of the external understanding,
) the birth of the intellect.
)
) The important thing to bear in mind here is that in olden times there
) was a hazy clairvoyance, from which the myths and legends originated.
) This clairvoyance could exist in the nearly related blood, just as our
) present-day consciousness comes about owing to the mingling of blood.
) The birth of logical thought, the birth of the intellect, was
) simultaneous with the advent of exogamy. Surprising, as this may seem,
) it is nevertheless true. It is a fact which will be substantiated more
) and more by external investigation; indeed, the initial steps along
) this line have already been taken.
)
) But this mingling of blood which comes about through exogamy is also
) that which at the same time obliterates the clairvoyance of earlier
) days, in order that humanity may evolve to a higher stage of
) development; and just as the person who has passed through the stages
) of occult development regains this clairvoyance, and transmutes it
) into a new form, so has our waking consciousness of the present day
) been evolved out of that dim and hazy clairvoyance which [was]
) obtained in times of old.
)
Here is a opposite view to that of the nazi's, Steiner sees the mingling
of blood as a positive evolutionary development, while the whole
ariosofic and nazi blood ideal was based on a wish to recreate the old
atavistic consciousness and will - the total opposite of
I-consciousness. No need to say that in Germany 1933-1945 this attempt
succeeded in a regressive movement in civiliation - a fall from German
idealism deep into utterly savage barbary.
The problem in meeting of cultures is actually existent - ie the indians
of the amazonas not only dies physically, but as indians in meeting
civilisation - no matter how carefully the meeting is performed. I find
that Steiner adress a real question, but his fromulations I find very
disturbing - like the "had to" below
)Take, for example, a people that is the product of its environment,
into whose blood this environment has built itself, and try to graft
upon such a people a new form
)of civilization. The thing is impossible. This is why certain
aboriginal peoples had to go under, as soon as colonists came to their
particular parts of the world.
Further reading shows that he is not talking about physical
extermination, but a death in cultural sense - the transition from old
consciousness to new is too abrupt.
) For example, the individuality of a people may be destroyed if, when
) colonizing, you demand from its blood more than it can bear, for in
) the blood the ego is expressed.
The strong ego of the colonists was for several aboriginal people more
than they could bear to meet -
What I see as a real question in these mattters is, that segregation is
not the answer - a tedency to romantisize indigenous cultures and sort
of want to preserve them untouched is to me not an answer - to protect
these people is also witholding the benefits of "civilisation" - as
Steiner points out assimilation is in many cases devastating - the
question of course is how tribal people can come in contact with
"civilisation" in a way that integrate their unique character in a
global community
Soren
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:57:49 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: S. and the Nazis
Soren wrote:
) )P:
) )Ad libitum.
) )There is nothing to dissociate from. So, don't hold your breath.
) I will disagree - In praxis antroposophy of today have included a
) north-south perspective,
P:
Would you please expand on what you mean by this. I suppose it is
referred to the East-West direction of civilizations.
at least there's good attempts to include this
) perspective, but I absolutely think Steiner totally missed to present
) anything valid in regard to a north-south perspective,
P:
What is missing specifically?
and in several
) occassions express opinions I think antroposophists of today do well in
) clearly dissassociating themselves from - even without excuses.
P:
The path is about trying to experience the idea, not about forming
opinions. I mean that a new path was given with the PoF, something that
could not be given in earlier times. It is totally new. It takes a lot
of inner work to move any step on this path.
One can see for him/herself what happens by following the path.
But, then one should go and pick a sentence here and a sentence there
and and say that this word is not politically correct, that that
sentence is not acceptable in 2003 - maybe because things degenerated so
much during these last decades that today people accept as good what is
not really good.
There is the goal: experiencing thinking in itself.
And then there are all possible distractions, like a sentence that does
not fit today's standards, from an unrevised lecture.
No way!
If people realized just a bit of what is in PoF, there would be no such
thing like wasting time on these things. Of course, including also those
who follow the spiritual science.
Steiner
) was very eurocentric -
P:
Maybe because central europe was in a special position in relationship
to the evolution of humankind. Now that they succeded in destroying it
with two world wars, that position has passed to...
and expose total ignorance about ie Africa and
) express views on negroes that is totally unacceptable -
P:
Like what?
This however
) doesn't necessarily mean you have to dissaccociate yourself from
) antroposophy - but in several cases from Steiner - not all sayings from
) Steiner is coming out of spiritual insigth - and in many cases he talks
) about things he simply didn't knew anything about.
) This means that there's a whole area of parralell evolution of
) cultural-historical-spiritual developments in important civilisations
) that antroposophy of today need to explore with spiritual science and
) complement the eurocentric view with.
P:
Every nation has its importance. But some are leading and some are
trailing, of course. There is always a principle of hierarchy in
everything. Some go ahead and help the others.
Neither as segregation nor
) assimilation, but in a creative process of mutual understanding and free
)
) integration.
)
) )Also, there are races, but in our time we have to consider nations, not
) )races.
) )But you don't want to understand this, because you need it to continue
) )to attack A., that is your agenda.
) )
) The attacks is partly justified. I think antroposophy suffer somewhat
) from an attitude of exclusion. There's a tedency to build an ivory
) tower, where communication requires from the other to understand
) antroposophy and Steiner.
P:
The problem is that mostly instead of practicing it became natural just
to read and repeat. No inner work, no spiritual science.
Why not adapt the following advise from RS: "
) When we meet adversity, we should not indulge in negative judgement, but
)
) accept the inevitable and try as best as we can, to turn it into good.
) Similarly instead of considering the opinions of others only from our
) own standpoint, we should try to put ourselves into their position" (How
)
) to know higher worlds p 121) I don't find it productive to speculate in
)
) PS's motives - and it is interesting to step outside your own image of
) and see it from an outside view. It may turn out that the others lack of
)
) understanding is a direct result of your own failure to communicate, and
)
) cast ligth upon "blind spots' in your own view
P:
And not only these two indications but the rest of the book, although
today the approach of PoF is more adapt for our time.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1135
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: S. and the Nazis
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: S. and the Nazis
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Steiner and the Nazis
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: S and the Nazis
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: S. and the Nazis
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:55:16 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Hi Soren,
)I don't have access to the german original, please provide the full quote
)in german if you have access to it
Sure. I think this one is worth examining in detail. Let's start with the
actual unaltered text, and then let's take a look at the historical context.
Here is the same passage you provided, as it appears in the original English
translation published by the Anthroposophical Publishing Company in London
(pp. 12-13); I ask you to read all the way through, as I have included two
crucial sentences that you dropped:
"But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the nature
of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who can deny
that this question is closely linked to that of race, which at the present
time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this question of race is
one that we can never understand until we understand the mysteries of the
blood and of the results accruing from the mingling of the blood of
different races. And finally, there is yet one other question, the
importance of which is becoming more and more acute as we endeavor to
extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless methods of dealing with it,
and seek to approach it in its more comprehensive bearings. This problem is
that of colonisation, which crops up wherever civilised races come into
contact with the uncivilised: namely ó To what extent are uncivilised
peoples capable of becoming civilised? How can a Negro or an utterly
barbaric savage become civilised? And in what way ought we to deal with
them? And here we have to consider not only the feelings due to a vague
morality, but we are also confronted by great, serious, and vital problems
of existence itself. Those who are not aware of the conditions governing a
people ó whether it be on the up- or down-grade of its evolution, and
whether the one or the other is a matter conditioned by its blood ó such
people as these will, indeed, be unlikely to hit on the right mode of
introducing civilisation to an alien race. These are all matters which arise
as soon as the Blood Question is touched upon."
As you can see, this translation is essentially identical to the one you
gave from the online Steiner archive, with the exception that the phrase
about the "negro" was deleted. That suggests that the online Steiner archive
used the original authorized translation as their basis, but cleaned up the
more embarrassing bits. The German original does indeed include the phrase
about blacks; it reads as follows:
"Wir verstehen die Rassenfrage aber nur, wenn wir das geheimnisvolle Wirken
des Blutes und der Blutmischung unter den Voelkern verstehen. [...]
Inwiefern koennen unkultivierte Voelker neue Kulturen in sich aufnehmen? Wie
kann ein Schwarzer, wie kann ein barbarischer Wilder kultiviert werden, wie
hat man sich ihnen gegenueber zu benehmen?" (GA 55 p. 42)
As you can see, Steiner simply equates black people with "utterly barbaric
savages". I'm still waiting to hear some non-racist interpretation of this
passage. While we're at it, can you offer any non-racist explication of the
phrase "utterly barbaric savage", particularly in conjunction with the
notion of "an alien race"? And last but hardly least, Steiner's preposterous
notion that "taking up new cultures" is a one-way process only, in which
"civilized races" lend a helping hand to "uncivilized races" who have no
culture or civilization of their own, is a thoroughly racist idea, whether
or not it comes attached to an arcane theory of "blood" and its special
spiritual significance.
I also note that you inexplicably omitted the last two sentences of the
paragraph, which contain the whole conclusion to Steiner's argument on this
point. That conclusion cannot have escaped your attention, even setting
aside the egregious reference to black people. What Steiner says here is
that "savage" peoples need to be raised out of their miserable and backward
condition by "civilized races", and indeed that these differences are
biologically anchored, they are at least in part conditioned by "blood". To
top it off, he maintains that some racial-ethnic groups are on the upgrade
of evolution, while others are on the downgrade. Every single one of these
claims is patently racist.
To get to the bottom of Steiner's weird mix of White Man's Burden
paternalism and esoteric blood mysticism, it's important to take the
immediate historical context into account. "The Occult Significance of
Blood" is from 1906, right smack in the middle of the twentieth century's
first genocide, perpetrated by German soldiers and settlers against the
black "savages" of Germany's colony in Southwest Africa. While the
"civilized" Germans were doing their best to annihilate the Nama and Herero
peoples, the "savages" fought back in a remarkably humane manner. In stark
contrast to the Germans, the Africans attacked only combatants, treated
prisoners well, and respected the standard rules of warfare. This is one
more reason why Steiner's notion that Europeans had something to teach
"savages" about "civilization" was utter nonsense. As I have pointed out
before, the simple fact is that in 1906, it was Germans who were acting as
utterly barbaric savages in Africa, and black people who were trying to
defend their civilizations against this murderous onslaught.
Steiner's reflections on colonialism are thus pure fantasy, and they served
to reinforce the very same cultural assumptions that made the genocide of
the Nama and Herero acceptable to German sensibilities in the first place.
His various remarks about "Hottentots" draw on the same shared assumptions;
this term was the name European colonists gave to the Nama and other San
peoples. The conflict in Southwest Africa was the major military engagement
for German forces between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I. In late
1905, the German commander von Trotha, who issued the infamous extermination
order against the native tribes in 1904, was awarded the highest German
medal by the Kaiser in honor of his services to the German Empire. There are
many available accounts of this campaign, and knowing something about it is
a basic prerequisite to understanding Steiner's remarks in "Occult
Significance of Blood". I particularly recommend Mark Cocker's 1998 book
Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold: Europe's Conquest of Indigenous Peoples,
part 4 of which describes the genocide in German South-West Africa at length
and attempts to understand how it was possible. Allow me to quote Cocker's
disquisition on the cultural attitudes that predisposed many educated
Germans to go along with a policy of extermination:
"The reason for this lies only partly in their axiomatic perception of
Africans as inferiors. Paradoxically, the critical factor driving them
towards a genocidal policy was a concern that these tribal peoples had shown
potential well beyond their allotted station. True, until the outbreak of
war, the Germans had acted, like all European colonists, on the assumption
that they were not dealing with equals. Just as the embryonic science of
anthropology envisioned a gradual pattern of historical improvemnt amongst
the human species, culminating in white European industrial man, so living
African society must obey that same rigid teleological process." (p. 348)
"Fused with these social Darwinian notions was the quasi-religious, and
deeply contradictory, conviction that evolution did, in fact, fulfil a moral
purpose: the development of the most powerful, the most advanced, most
intelligent civilisation on earth. Europeans were at once the apex of a
determinist process, but also the free agents of their own superiority. It
was their duty to impose themselves on the rest of the world." (p. 349)
I hope that you can discern the obvious parallels to Steiner's teachings on
"the question of race", the specific "missions" and "tasks" of specific
ethnic groups, the progress of evolution, and so forth.
As for the rest of "Occult Significance of Blood", I think you missed out on
about half the text. You wrote:
)Here is a opposite view to that of the nazi's, Steiner sees the mingling of
)blood as a positive evolutionary development,
I think that's much too simple a reading; there is a pronounced ambivalence
in Steiner's attitude toward "blood mixing" in this essay. Moreover, Steiner
taught that the very existence of different races on the earth at the same
time is an unfortunate detour from the proper course of cosmic evolution. He
held that Lucifer and Ahriman had thwarted the divine plan and thereby made
it possible for "lower racial forms" to continue to exist long after they
ought to have disappeared. (See for example his booklet The Universal Human,
a favorite among anthroposophists today.) Given this basically negative view
of the simultaneous co-existence of different racial groups, the most we
might say is that Steiner saw "blood mixing" as a necessary evolutionary
step. If you think that view is opposite to Nazi doctrine, then you have an
inadequate grasp on the internal Nazi debates over evolutionary matters.
)while the whole ariosofic and nazi blood ideal was based on a wish to
)recreate the old atavistic consciousness and will - the total opposite of
)I-consciousness.
That is certainly not what the Ariosophic ideal was based on. Where did you
get this conception of Ariosophy from? List and Lanz shared Steiner's
convictions about progressive evolution. The Nazi blood ideal, on the other
hand, was a remarkably flexible construct that could be fitted to any number
of political contexts. Thus I think you are quite wrong on both counts. But
I do agree that there are a number of important differences between
Steiner's appropriation of notions like 'blood' and 'race' and the various
Nazi versions of these same notions. What I've been trying to make clear is
that both cases are instances of racist thinking. It doesn't make any sense
to declare that one expression of racism isn't really racist because after
all, it differs from other expressions of racism. By that absurd logic, both
Ariosophy and Nazism would turn out to be free of racism. Surely you can see
how quickly that sort of argument devolves into foolishness.
)No need to say that in Germany 1933-1945 this attempt succeeded in a
)regressive movement in civiliation - a fall from German idealism deep into
)utterly savage barbary.
That fall didn't start in 1933. German behavior in Africa was already
utterly barbaric in 1906, when Steiner divulged his thoughts on the meaning
of blood and the question of race. It was already thoroughly racist in the
1920's, when Steiner joined the outcry against Africans setting foot on
German soil and warned against the insidious influence of "negroes" on
European culture. For that matter, German Idealism itself wasn't exactly a
beacon of tolerance when it came to "the question of race". The distinctive
thing about Steiner's doctrine is the way it dressed up a series of
profoundly racist prejudices in the garb of spiritual enlightenment, and
then insisted that these prejudices were simply part of the grand cosmic
order. As your fellow anthroposophist Percedol says, "There is always a
principle of hierarchy in everything," including race. That's what the rest
of us call racism.
I'm glad we're having this conversation, but I don't really understand why
you keep ignoring all the textual evidence I've presented, as if it left
your arguments unscathed. To my mind, the real sign of "keeping an open
mind", as you like to put it, is to change one's mind when confronted with
compelling new evidence. Inveterate optimist that I am, I'm going to
continue that strategy in the hope that it eventually it might have some
discernible. Here, in closing, are two passages from Steiner that directly
contradict the interpretation you seem quite attached to. I would very much
like to hear what you make of them:
"You see, if a pregnant woman today were to ask for something to read, there
is nothing to give her! There isnít even anything to recommend! Recently I
went into a bookstore in Basel and found an example of the latest publishing
agenda: a Negro novel, just as the Negroes in general are entering into
European civilization step by step! Everywhere Negro dances are being
performed, Negro dances are being hopped. But we even have this Negro novel
already. It is utterly boring, dreadfully boring, but people devour it. I am
personally convinced that if we get more Negro novels, and give these Negro
novels to pregnant women to read during the first phase of pregnancy, when
as you know they can sometimes develop such cravings, if we give these Negro
novels to pregnant women to read, then it wonít even be necessary for
Negroes to come to Europe in order for mulattoes to appear. Simply through
the spiritual effects of reading Negro novels, a multitude of children will
be born in Europe that are completely gray, that have mulatto hair, that
look like mulattoes!"
(Steiner, Ðber Gesundheit und Krankheit p. 189; from a 1922 lecture at the
Goetheanum. This lecture forms the first chapter in the second volume of
Steiner's book Health and Illness. The quoted paragraph, however, has been
completely omitted from the translation; it would have appeared on p. 16.)
"The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul
acquires nothing more than the possibility of cliches. Those who
enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French
are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood.
The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to
Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an
enormous effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably
toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting."
(Steiner, Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner, published in the series
Foundations of Waldorf Education, pp. 558-559)
To put the point bluntly, Soren: if Steiner really believed what you think
he believed, how could he possibly have said things like this to his
followers?
Thanks,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Use custom emotions -- try MSN Messenger 6.0!
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_emoticon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:43:07 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: S. and the Nazis
Not one to let us critics down, Percedol opines:
)central europe was in a special position in relationship
)to the evolution of humankind.
and:
)Every nation has its importance. But some are leading and some are
)trailing, of course. There is always a principle of hierarchy in
)everything. Some go ahead and help the others.
Steiner couldn't have said it better himself. And they wonder why we keep
going on and on about anthroposophical racism...
)But, then one should go and pick a sentence here and a sentence there
)and and say that this word is not politically correct, that that
)sentence is not acceptable in 2003 [...] a sentence that does
)not fit today's standards, from an unrevised lecture.
Nobody accuses Steiner of being politically incorrect; the whole idea is
goofy, since Steiner lived one hundred years before that phrase was coined.
The passages that we've been discussing lately are not isolated sentences
picked out from here and there; I just reproduced three full paragraphs from
three different Steiner texts. There are dozens and dozens of other full
paragraphs at the openwaldorf forum on Steiner's racial doctrines. Percedol
himself claims to have read entire books filled with Steiner's racist
gobbledygook, such as The Apocalypse of St. John, Cosmic Memory, and Mission
of the Folk Souls. Nor is this a matter of "unrevised lectures"; the last
two titles I mentioned are of course full-length books written and published
by Steiner himself during his lifetime, and even the 1906 essay on "The
Occult Significance of Blood" was a written text published by Steiner
himself, and which he later repeatedly referred to as a written text. As
usual, anthroposophists know next to nothing about the writings they
consider to be uniquely profound and sacred.
Last, this notion that Steiner's racist teachings only became unacceptable
in 2003 is genuinely moronic; only somebody completely unacquainted with the
history of racist thought could come up with that idea. From Boas to Finot
to Rocker to Du Bois, a very wide variety of scholars and activists from
Germany to France to Britain to the United States -- not to mention those
generally suppressed voices from the colonized world -- had thoroughly
dismantled the conceptual foundations of racism during Steiner's lifetime.
Apparently this century-old body of work remains unkown to anthroposophists
today.
)If people realized just a bit of what is in PoF, there would be no such
)thing like wasting time on these things. Of course, including also those
)who follow the spiritual science.
Since Philosophy of Freedom (published in 1894) has nothing to do with
Steiner's 'spiritual science' (invented a decade later), your sentence is
nonsensical. But recognizing that simple fact would require you to pay more
attention to what Steiner actually wrote and less attention to your own
thinking, which is precisely what you consider to be an affront to
'spiritual science'. You are trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy,
Percedol.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95.
https://broadband.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:06:59 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: S. and the Nazis
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Not one to let us critics down, Percedol opines:
)
) )central europe was in a special position in relationship
) )to the evolution of humankind.
P:
But some groups worked very succesfully through the 20th century to
destroy central europe.
)
) and:
)
) )Every nation has its importance. But some are leading and some are
) )trailing, of course. There is always a principle of hierarchy in
) )everything. Some go ahead and help the others.
)
) Steiner couldn't have said it better himself. And they wonder why we
) keep
) going on and on about anthroposophical racism...
P:
Not racist. Most likely, nobody is at the same level with anybody else.
But this implies the need to help others to move on.
)
) )But, then one should go and pick a sentence here and a sentence there
) )and and say that this word is not politically correct, that that
) )sentence is not acceptable in 2003 [...] a sentence that does
) )not fit today's standards, from an unrevised lecture.
)
) Nobody accuses Steiner of being politically incorrect; the whole idea is
)
) goofy, since Steiner lived one hundred years before that phrase was
) coined.
) The passages that we've been discussing lately are not isolated
) sentences
) picked out from here and there; I just reproduced three full paragraphs
) from
) three different Steiner texts. There are dozens and dozens of other full
)
) paragraphs at the openwaldorf forum on Steiner's racial doctrines.
) Percedol
) himself claims to have read entire books filled with Steiner's racist
) gobbledygook, such as The Apocalypse of St. John, Cosmic Memory, and
) Mission
) of the Folk Souls. Nor is this a matter of "unrevised lectures"; the
) last
) two titles I mentioned are of course full-length books written and
) published
) by Steiner himself during his lifetime, and even the 1906 essay on "The
) Occult Significance of Blood" was a written text published by Steiner
) himself, and which he later repeatedly referred to as a written text. As
)
) usual, anthroposophists know next to nothing about the writings they
) consider to be uniquely profound and sacred.
P:
Those are important texts and should be meditated. If you find it
racist, then you may have a problem.
)
) Last, this notion that Steiner's racist teachings only became
) unacceptable
) in 2003 is genuinely moronic; only somebody completely unacquainted with
) the
) history of racist thought could come up with that idea. From Boas to
) Finot
) to Rocker to Du Bois, a very wide variety of scholars and activists from
)
) Germany to France to Britain to the United States -- not to mention
) those
) generally suppressed voices from the colonized world -- had thoroughly
) dismantled the conceptual foundations of racism during Steiner's
) lifetime.
) Apparently this century-old body of work remains unkown to
) anthroposophists
) today.
P:
The only way I can make sense of the above is that you are saying that
those guys (Bosa to DeBoy) found RS's work racist. If you are not
specifically referring to RS's work then what?
)
) )If people realized just a bit of what is in PoF, there would be no such
) )thing like wasting time on these things. Of course, including also those
) )who follow the spiritual science.
)
) Since Philosophy of Freedom (published in 1894) has nothing to do with
) Steiner's 'spiritual science' (invented a decade later), your sentence
) is
) nonsensical.
P:
Exoteric and esoteric. What you think and what is.
But recognizing that simple fact would require you to pay more
) attention to what Steiner actually wrote and less attention to your own
) thinking, which is precisely what you consider to be an affront to
) 'spiritual science'. You are trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy,
) Percedol.
)
) Cheers,
)
) Peter S.
P:
What you think and what is.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:41:44 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Nazis
Soren wrote:
) The attacks is partly justified. I think antroposophy suffer somewhat
) from an attitude of exclusion. There's a tedency to build an ivory
) tower, where communication requires from the other to understand
) antroposophy and Steiner. Why not adapt the following advise from RS: "
) When we meet adversity, we should not indulge in negative judgement, but
) accept the inevitable and try as best as we can, to turn it into good.
) Similarly instead of considering the opinions of others only from our
) own standpoint, we should try to put ourselves into their position" (How
) to know higher worlds p 121)
While I appreciate knowing that you *seem* willing to look at Anthroposophy
from outside of the box, I have to ask why you would choose to quote
Steiner on something as obvious as what he states (above). Looking at
anything with objective eyes while using our purely *human* ability to think
rationally is the only way to really understand. There is no deep spiritual
revelation in Steiner's words in your quote. Basic human logic, IMO. Do we
really need Steiner to help us fathom that which is so easily within our
grasp?
I have found answers to many questions by simply learning about them,
critically thinking (not simply "criticizing") and accepting that sometimes
I either do not agree with what I have discovered or I still need more
research. To dump my very *human* critical thinking skills and accept the
words of a dead occultist who claimed to be clairvoyant and connected to the
akasha is, IMO, a tragedy.
I, too, look forward to your response to Peter's questions. As always, I
enjoy this discussion.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:25:09 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: S and the Nazis
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
The distinctive
) thing about Steiner's doctrine is the way it dressed up a series of
) profoundly racist prejudices in the garb of spiritual enlightenment, and
)
) then insisted that these prejudices were simply part of the grand cosmic
)
) order. As your fellow anthroposophist Percedol says, "There is always a
) principle of hierarchy in everything," including race. That's what the
) rest
) of us call racism.
P:
Be careful. There is a hierarchy. But by adding your own 'includin