why "racist to the core?"
From: Deborah
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 10:21 am
Subject: why "racist to the core?"
I've been thinking about this key phrase,
which comes up over and over again. Occasionally, an anthroposophist
will point out that Steiner doesn't actually talk about race
all that much, that it wasn't one of his main themes and so forth,
but none of these facts cut the mustard with our friendly critics.
Why the insistence on the phrase "racist to the core"
?
It is truly odd. I've been reading anthroposophy
since I was in my early 20s so that adds up to a good 30 years.
[Please, Diana, no sympathy, my case is hopeless:)] In those
30 years I've probably encountered the term or concept of race
in Steiner (outside of the quotes on this list), no more than
10 times. It's possible to read and study and work within anthro
orgs for years without ever even thinking about race.
So, I have a parallel case to bring forward.
Henry Ford was an enthusiastic and dedicated
anti-semite. He put his money behind his beliefs and published
lots of anti-semitic material.
Here is a summary article about his role in
promoting hatred of Jews:
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
It is possible, however, to read the history
of industrialism in the U.S., including the story of Henry Ford
and the Ford Motor Co., without anti-semitism being mentioned.
Henry Ford's doctrine was apparently not "to the core."
His achievements as an industrialist can be separated from his
actions as a racist bigot. People can buy cars and other products
from Ford without being contaminated. They can even drive them.
Time has, of course, passed. The money that goes into Ford coffers
is no longer used for spreading racism. Still the separation
between the different aspects of his life is generally accepted
and acceptable.
So, looking at Steiner. He wasn't a loud,
nasty public sort of racist. (I don't really see the racism at
all, but then I'm an anthroposophist and confused) You really
have to dig around and do some selective reading to build any
sort of case. And then...the case is so weak that the attackers
have to make stuff up...certainly not a problem with Ford. The
matter is totally straightforward and clear.
On this basis, the desire to not only critique
Steiner but to try to shut down all the daughter movements derived
from Steiner's work seems a trifle excessive? Out of proportion?
I really want my grandchildren to go to a
Waldorf school. Their parents really want them to go to a Waldorf
school. Why should anyone be trying to interfere with what seems
to me to be a perfectly reasonable desire on our part? (she said
plaintively, wiping away a pathetic tear...)
Nana (since I'm suddenly in grandmotherly
mode)
PS Please, no nasty attacks. It isn't nice
to pick on Jewish grandmothers, even when they are wrong.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: why "racist to the core?"
Nana,
Are you the same person as Deborah? Have I
got two people mixed up or do you sign your posts sometimes Nana
sometimes Deborah?
I'd like to reply to some of this about whether
Steiner is "racist to the core" and what that means
and maybe I will later, but I've only got 5 minutes here so I'll
make a few sympathetic noises about the other stuff . . . I do
agree with you that it is certainly possible to work in or around
anthroposophic projects and think, talk, or hear nothing at all
about race, and certainly since one is working with a bunch of
generally kind and well-intentioned idealistic people, to find
that there is fierce criticism of some of the guy's doctrines,
even allegations of racism, can come as a shock.
I do not, personally, think there are racist
aims in Waldorf schools or anthroposophic projects in general.
I think the spiritual leader's doctrines on these topics should
certainly be re-examined because it's frankly bonkers, and I
do think it biases certain aspects of the curriculum. There seems
to be a movement away from the traditional Eurocentrism of the
curriculum, but reevaluating Steiner could only encourage this.
Just quietly set some of that stuff aside, never mind the clairvoyance
thing. Move on, Steiner will not turn over in his grave. From
my POV the actual issue is the absolutely incredible (in the
sense that it is really hard to credit that you folks are for
real sometimes!!) ferocity and furor with which simply indefensible
ideas are defended JUST `CUS THE BIG GUY SAID SO. That is what
is cult-like! You've got this reputation for being wackos because
you act like wackos. Criticize "the man," and
anthroposophists turn on you like you've insulted, well, God
(as I am in fact accused here LOL).
the case is so weak that the attackers
have to make stuff up...
Er – you lost me there. What is it you
believe the "attackers" have made up? Are you of the
school of thought that Peter S. once "forged" a lecture
attributed to Steiner? Even Sune has dropped that little piece
of silliness (he now refers to "spiritual forgery").
On this basis, the desire to not only critique
Steiner but to try to shut down all the daughter movements derived
from Steiner's work seems a trifle excessive? Out of proportion?
Whoa. I'd say so too. Who do you think is
trying to "shut down" movements derived from Steiner's
work? Is that what you get out of a discussion of Steiner's racism?
I really want my grandchildren to go to
a Waldorf school. Their parents really want them to go to a Waldorf
school. Why should anyone be trying to interfere with what seems
to me to be a perfectly reasonable desire on our part?
I don't know why anyone would do that. Who
is doing that? Who do you perceive as trying to stop you
from sending your grandchildren there?
Diana
(have a hanky, Nana) :)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 11:49 am
Subject: ? "racist to the core" ???
I've been wondering about this "racist
to the core" bit that I keep hearing about.
Take Henry Ford for example. A serious, dedicated,
enthusiastic, whole-hearted anti-semite. He really put time and
money and effort into being an anti-semite.
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
(for anyone who doesn't know the story)
However, you can read industrial history without
anyone mentioning hs anti-semitism. With Henry Ford, it is possible
to separate his extremely (well, verbally) violent and public
attitudes from his role as a businessman.
Now Steiner. I've been reading Steiner for
a good 30 years at this point. In that time, except for the excerpts
offered by the WC, PLANS and other attackers, I encountered material
on race...well, maybe 10 times. You have to search for it. You
have to focus on it. You have to really, really care about it.
You have to blow it completely and totally out of any reasonable
proportion to the totality of Steiner's life and work!
To make the case of "racist to the core"
unnamed enthusiasts take texts out of context. They mistranslate
them. They make up content. They try to link Steiner to various
nasty people.
The reasoning presented is:
1)Steiner is racist to the core.
2)Therefore all the daughter movements arising out of anthroposophy
are contaminated and should all be shut down and shunned by all
right thinking people.
Now, switching to my grandmother hat. I want
my grandchildren to go to a waldorf school. Their parents also
want them to go to a waldorf school. Various people who shall
remain unnamed (cause I'm too lazy to enumerate them) have taken
it upon themselves to try to interfere with the health and welfare
of waldorf schools. Continuing to speak as a grandmother: !!!!!!!!
Well, Jewish grandmothers aren't supposed
to say the sort of things I was thinking of saying, so I won't.
Nana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Deborah expressed some skepticism that non-anthroposophists
might actually believe that anthroposophy is racist to the core.
I think this is an interesting question; to my mind there is
room for legitimate disagreement about just what the core of
anthroposophy is. I think that core is Steiner's theory of cosmic
evolution, within which racial themes (many of which I take to
be racist) do indeed play a central role. But for folks who think
that Waldorf or biodynamics are the core of anthroposophy, this
could well be different. Anyway, on to some of Deborah's specific
claims:
Occasionally, an anthroposophist will point
out that Steiner doesn't actually talk about race all that much,
that it wasn't one of his main themes and so forth, but none
of these facts cut the mustard with our friendly critics.
Steiner talked about race quite a bit; he addresses the topic
in many of his books.
In those 30 years I've probably encountered the term or concept
of race in Steiner (outside of the quotes on this list), no more
than 10 times.
If you're reading Steiner in English, that isn't necessarily
surprising. Several of Steiner's most obviously racist and antisemitic
statements (including entire lectures) have been excised from
the otherwise complete English translations of the books they
appear in.
It is possible, however, to read the history
of industrialism in the U.S., including the story of Henry Ford
and the Ford Motor Co., without anti-semitism being mentioned.
Indeed it is. Ford is a good contrast with Steiner. If Steiner's
job had been making cars, then it might make sense to set his
racism and antisemitism to the side. But Steiner's job was making
claims about the ultimate nature of reality, the spiritual meaning
of human existence, and so forth. Hence Deborah's conclusion
misses the point:
Henry Ford's doctrine was apparently not "to the core."
His achievements as an industrialist can be separated from his
actions as a racist bigot.
Ford's doctrines and his achievements don't have much to do with
one another. But Steiner's doctrines are his achievements.
That's why we pay attention to them, both anthroposophists and
non-anthroposophists.
Still the separation between the different aspects of his
life is generally accepted and acceptable.
Because in Ford's case they were indeed "different aspects
of his life". They weren't in Steiner's case.
So, looking at Steiner. He wasn't a loud,
nasty public sort of racist.
Agreed.
(I don't really see the racism at all, but then I'm an anthroposophist
and confused)
You don't think it is racist to designate some races as higher
than others, to declare that black people do not belong in Europe,
and so forth? Then yes, I'd say your ideas on this matter are
confused.
On this basis, the desire to not only critique
Steiner but to try to shut down all the daughter movements derived
from Steiner's work seems a trifle excessive? Out of proportion?
Which critics of Steiner's racism desire this, in your view?
I really want my grandchildren to go to
a Waldorf school.
And you think that public discussion of Steiner's racial doctrines
will prevent this?
Please, no nasty attacks. It isn't nice to pick on Jewish
grandmothers, even when they are wrong.
Picking on ideas is not at all the same thing as picking on people.
The reasoning presented is:
1)Steiner is racist to the core.
2)Therefore all the daughter movements arising out of anthroposophy
are contaminated and should all be shut down and shunned by all
right thinking people.
Can you name anyone anywhere who holds this view? Neither of
the critics of anthroposophical racism represented on this list
agree with the second point. Do you know of any others critics
who do? Which ones?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:22 am
Subject: Re: why "racist to the core?"
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
P:
Because in Ford's case they were indeed
"different aspects of his life". They weren't in Steiner's
case.
D:
Please, no nasty attacks. It isn't nice
to pick on Jewish grandmothers, even when they are wrong.
The reasoning presented is:
1)Steiner is racist to the core.
2)Therefore all the daughter movements arising out of anthroposophy
are contaminated and should all be shut down and shunned by all
right thinking people.
P:
Can you name anyone anywhere who holds
this view? Neither of the critics of anthroposophical racism
represented on this list agree with the second point. Do you
know of any others critics who do? Which ones?
Bradford comments:
Nasty Hobbitttsss! Now as part of your extended
I AM indoctrin...excuse me... ahhhh education Peter, I know you
think it is nice and kind and wonderful that the IDEAS and the
MAN can run on different tracks, and they do. Rosicrucians are
famous for having to know certain things, that they cannot speak
about to everybody. But you Peter are not a child, we all know
that if Steiner, dropped the bomb of the I AM in the middle of
culture and said deal with it; it was a problem. Raw Truth is
always a problem.
If Steiner dropped the bomb of you have an
ugly little gollum double hidden in your motives; it was right
out there where everyone could see it. But the real problem here
is that not only the Walk and Talk it, I AM ness, never manifested
as Racism in Steiner, but the Research and the I AM, was, as
Andrea and Sune has thought, connected also to the Karma of the
Anthro World view.
Meaning that Steiner did walk up to the plate
and say, reluctantly, you guys can't even wipe your butts, so
I'll have to take up the Presidency of the Society, which puts
this Karma on my shoulders. Now, that has been much debated.
Mature people don't allow Steiner to feel like it must be a burden
to his Spirit... but then Michael Intelligence is not a burden
it is Light, Christ Light. Therefore Steiner's Burden is Light.
It just happens that it lights on your nasty little motives and
double as well as on the I AM of the Christ.
So once again we find that attacking Steiner's
ideas, as they are connected to the very inner pulse of his I
AM and humanities I AM and trying to divide, (that which is inwardly
very clearly divided already) how the public views Steiner and
how we privately view Steiner, takes away the power of his Public
Deed. Attempts to take away the power of requiring you, you little
squirmy Gollum, to understand Initation and see exactly how it
is now public and you cannot get easily away from those of us
who see your motives and your ideas, which are two different
tracks, connected to one nasty little magnetic double. Steiner
brought Initiation and the I AM into the public, and linked it,
sadly, he had not choice, to his earthly personality.
So Dear Peter, Initation, like the Christ
Event, is public now and the Lions share of the work on that
issue, that changes everything about hiding your I AM behind
some malicious Ideology, is sorely transparent. In fact it is
not Steiner that set an example of two different tracks, his
public and private world, it was Steiner's sacrifice to bring
the contents of all the sensitive hidden data of the I AM through
his poor, poor personality and place it, solo, in the heart of
Europe and translations and translators world wide.
Try to think of Manes, as he was flayed and
Stuffed in Ghandi Shapur, stuffed with straw and hung outside
the gates of the running Sorathian power, super train. I know
that is so far beyond your current thinking capacity, but it
is an apt image of how the frailness of our Personalities must
house the tremendous honesty and compassion, the wisdom of the
I AM. Our Personalities are far from perfect, the I AM seers
right through it. So it was indeed a Sacrifice for Steiner to
unite the Two aspects into this frail Personality, while the
Entire Ahrimanic Army tore Europe to Shreds. Steiner was right
in the middle of it.
Christian community Priests during Nazi occupation.
What will you think of next. Imagine trying to go about helping
children, and protecting Jews, saying one thing outwardly to
monsters in Brown uniforms and doing something different in ones
heart. During such a time of Crisis, such a time of ultimate
betrayal, your examples are like the Christiians in the catacombs
of Rome or "Schindlers List".
Now that is why you have a nasty, nasty little
gollum in you that needs to be watched... Mike needs you to get
into a 12 step program, in fact, we have a therapist on our staff
named Joel... Joel is a trained 12 step therapist that can guide
you through your nasty, nasty little twisted motives of picking
on poor, poor Jewish Grandmothers...
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 12:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
At 18:19 06.04.2004, PS wrote:
Deborah expressed some skepticism that
non-anthroposophists might actually believe that anthroposophy
is racist to the core. I think this is an interesting question;
to my mind there is room for legitimate disagreement about just
what the core of anthroposophy is.
No there isn't. The core of Anthroposophy
is the Christ, also known as the Risen One, the God of the Spiritual
Sun. There is no room for "legitimate disagreement"
about that, because everything else is nonsense.
I think that core is Steiner's theory of
cosmic evolution, within which racial themes (many of which I
take to be racist) do indeed play a central role.
Cosmic evolution as an intellectual idea plays
a very peripheral role in Anthroposophy, and race plays no role
at all. Anthroposophy is not based upon any abstract theory,
but upon the living influences of Christ-Michael and Anthroposophia.
Steiner talked about race quite a bit;
he addresses the topic in many of his books.
He also talked about rocks, fairy tales, astronomy,
astrology, climate, animals, theology, myths and legends, Shakespeare,
Marx, food, history, psychoanalysis, dinosaurs, literature and
much more. But the only thing that intersts you is race.
Ford's doctrines and his achievements don't
have much to do with one another. But Steiner's doctrines are
his achievements.
You're suggesting that all of Steiner's achievements
are linked to doctrines that can be construed as racist. Steiner's
collected works are one huge racist doctrine.
That's why we pay attention to them, both
anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists.
Who are "we" who are paying so much
attention to race?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
Cosmic evolution as an intellectual idea plays a very peripheral
role in Anthroposophy, and race plays no role at all.
In that case, you can rest easy, because you and I are not talking
about the same thing. What I call anthroposophy is based squarely
on Rudolf Steiner's post-1901 writings and lectures, not on angels
and so forth. Steiner's theories about cosmic evolution play
a crucial role within those writings and lectures, and these
theories are in turn integrally tied to his racial and ethnic
theories, which served to flesh out his conception of cosmic
evolution.
Steiner's collected works are one huge racist doctrine.
No, Steiner's collected works are one huge jumble of dozens of
doctrines. Among those doctrines are several racist ones. I think
that those doctrines occupy a central place in the ideological
edifice of anthroposophy as a whole.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
At 18:31 07.04.2004, Peter S wrote:
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
Cosmic evolution as an intellectual idea
plays a very peripheral role in Anthroposophy, and race plays
no role at all.
In that case, you can rest easy, because
you and I are not talking about the same thing. What I call anthroposophy
is based squarely on Rudolf Steiner's post-1901 writings and
lectures, not on angels and so forth.
What you call Anthroposophy has no
validity whatsoever. Don't you realize that by now?
Steiner's theories about cosmic evolution
play a crucial role within those writings and lectures, and these
theories are in turn integrally tied to his racial and ethnic
theories, which served to flesh out his conception of cosmic
evolution.
Steiner's cosmology is "fleshed out"
of racism?
Steiner's collected works are one huge
racist doctrine.
No, Steiner's collected works are one huge
jumble of dozens of doctrines. Among those doctrines are several
racist ones. I think that those doctrines occupy a central place
in the ideological edifice of anthroposophy as a whole.
You're showing that you don't have a clue
about Anthroposophy/the works of RS at all when you say in effect
that racism plays a central role in it. What surprises me most,
however, is that you have the audacity to claim a better knowledge
of Anthroposophy than others on this list when you demonstrate
time and time again that you refuse to understand any of it.
What are you hoping to achieve by beating
a dead horse over and over and over? Don't you have anything
else to discuss about Anthroposophy except these race-related
lies? Are you obsessed by it or something?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:02 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
----- Original Message -----
: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the core?"
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
Cosmic evolution as an intellectual idea
plays a very peripheral role in Anthroposophy, and race plays
no role at all.
In that case, you can rest easy, because
you and I are not talking about the same thing. What I call anthroposophy
is based squarely on Rudolf Steiner's post-1901 writings and
lectures, not on angels and so forth.
Uhu!!!
Hey can someone tell me WHERE Steiner talked about "angels
and so forth" BEFORE 1901 ???
A.
( Psst. people, this guy who pretends to teach us what is anthroposophy
and what is not, is quite ignorant about the matter.... )
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think this is an interesting question;
to my mind there is room for legitimate disagreement about just
what the core of anthroposophy is. I think that core is Steiner's
theory of cosmic evolution, within which racial themes (many
of which I take to be racist) do indeed play a central role.
Daniel:
Ok, now I'm curious. If "many" of
Steiner's racial themes are racist, which ones do you not consider
to be racist?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
You don't think it is racist to designate
some races as higher than others, to declare that black people
do not belong in Europe, and so forth? Then yes, I'd say your
ideas on this matter are confused.
Daniel:
You know, this whole thing about how Steiner
supposedly said blacks don't belong in Europe bothers me. Steiner
actually said that the French ought not to use colonial troops
to fight the first world war (because it was unfair to the blacks
to take them from their country and make them fight and die in
someone else's battle). He did not say that an individual who
happened to be black and wanted to come to Europe should not
do so. But Peter "Distortion" Staudenmaier refuses
to even mention this interpretation, preferring the racist prejudicial
version over the contextually accurate one. Yet another reason
(as if you needed any more) why he is not to be trusted.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Steiner talked about race quite a bit;
he addresses the topic in many of his books.
Daniel:
Still clinging to the "Steiner frequently
talked about race" myth, I see. Perhaps when you get around
to reading Steiner beyond the pre-selected quotes specifically
on race you will perhaps come to realize that Steiner did not,
actually talk about race very much at all. But if all you are
interested in is race (as you have claimed several times) then
you never will figure out what role race plays in Steiner's overall
philosophy.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
You know, this whole thing about how Steiner supposedly said
blacks don't belong in Europe bothers me. Steiner actually said
that the French ought not to use colonial troops to fight the
first world war (because it was unfair to the blacks to take
them from their country and make them fight and die in someone
else's battle). He did not say that an individual who happened
to be black and wanted to come to Europe should not do so. But
Peter "Distortion" Staudenmaier refuses to even mention
this interpretation, preferring the racist prejudicial version
over the contextually accurate one.
I am more than happy to mention that interpretation, and to point
out that it is erroneous. Steiner says nothing at all about French
unfairness to colonial troops, and does not so much as allude
to their fighting in World War I. He doesn't even mention soldiers.
But perhaps what you really meant to say is that Steiner's racist
nonsense about how the negro race do not belong in Europe was
triggered by the presence of colonial troops in the occupation
of the Rhineland. In that case, I agree, and I encourage you
to explain why this would mean that Steiner's remarks were not
racist.
Yours for historical context,
Peter
Peter Staudenmaier:
You don't think it is racist to designate
some races as higher than others, to declare that black people
do not belong in Europe, and so forth? Then yes, I'd say your
ideas on this matter are confused.
Daniel:
You know, this whole thing about how Steiner
supposedly said blacks don't belong in Europe bothers me. Steiner
actually said that the French ought not to use colonial troops
to fight the first world war (because it was unfair to the blacks
to take them from their country and make them fight and die in
someone else's battle). He did not say that an individual who
happened to be black and wanted to come to Europe should not
do so. But Peter "Distortion" Staudenmaier refuses
to even mention this interpretation, preferring the racist prejudicial
version over the contextually accurate one. Yet another reason
(as if you needed any more) why he is not to be trusted.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:13 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
What you call Anthroposophy has no validity whatsoever.
Don't you realize that by now?
I realize that it has no validity in your eyes. But there are
lots of other people who think that anthroposophy is based largely
on Rudolf Steiner's published works, not on the activities of
archangels.
What surprises me most, however, is that
you have the audacity to claim a better knowledge of Anthroposophy
than others on this list
I claim a better knowledge of Steiner's racial and ethnic theories
than many members of this list. I don't know why this claim is
surprising.
What are you hoping to achieve by beating a dead horse over
and over and over?
I get the sense that it isn't really dead yet. Several of you
seem interested in pursuing the matter. But it sounds like a
number of other listmates here have wearied of my presence, and
my promised six weeks are up, so perhaps I should eventually
extricate myself.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 4:35 am
Subject: Re: why "racist to the core?"
Peter:
to my mind there is room for legitimate
disagreement about just what the core of anthroposophy is.
Tarjei:
No there isn't. The core of Anthroposophy
is the Christ, also known as the Risen One, the God of the Spiritual
Sun. There is no room for "legitimate disagreement"
about that, because everything else is nonsense.
Well. Waldorf school web sites, brochures,
and presentations at open houses always emphasize that anthroposophy
is not even a religion, let alone a religion with a creed, that
Waldorf schools are nonsectarian and that anthroposophy "includes
all faiths," that sort of thing. Sune's new web site has
(inconceivably) an assurance from Jean Yeager that there is no
creed in anthroposophy at all!
I know, I know, Tarjei, you have no connection
to Waldorf schools. A shame. Christine promised to help develop
better PR for Waldorf schools, but she seems to have cut and
run. Maybe you could help them out with your monolithic certainty
about all matters spiritual.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:53 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
----- Original Message -----
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
What you call Anthroposophy has
no validity whatsoever. Don't you realize that by now?
I realize that it has no validity in your
eyes. But there are lots of other people who think that anthroposophy
is based largely on Rudolf Steiner's published works, not on
the activities of archangels.
Hi Peter
if you ever were actually into Anthroposophical
matters you should have also to grasp that Steiner's published
works ARE among Archangel's activities (Mi-Ka-El's inspiration
).
(Surely you'll laugh about it but sometimes laughter ends turning
into into its opposite)
Andrea
What surprises me most, however, is that
you have the audacity to claim a better knowledge of Anthroposophy
than others on this list
I claim a better knowledge of Steiner's
racial and ethnic theories than many members of this list. I
don't know why this claim is surprising.
What are you hoping to achieve by beating
a dead horse over and over and over?
I get the sense that it isn't really dead
yet. Several of you seem interested in pursuing the matter. But
it sounds like a number of other listmates here have wearied
of my presence, and my promised six weeks are up, so perhaps
I should eventually extricate myself.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: why "racist to
the core?"
At 13:35 08.04.2004, Diana wrote:
Peter:
to my mind there is room for legitimate
disagreement about just what the core of anthroposophy is.
Tarjei:
No there isn't. The core of Anthroposophy
is the Christ, also known as the Risen One, the God of the Spiritual
Sun. There is no room for "legitimate disagreement"
about that, because everything else is nonsense.
Well. Waldorf school web sites, brochures,
and presentations at open houses always emphasize that anthroposophy
is not even a religion, let alone a religion with a creed, that
Waldorf schools are nonsectarian and that anthroposophy "includes
all faiths," that sort of thing. Sune's new web site has
(inconceivably) an assurance from Jean Yeager that there is no
creed in anthroposophy at all!
Jean Yeager is telling the truth. Anthroposophy
does not rest upon religious faith, but upon initiation-science.
All true religions also have an esoteric tradition, such as the
Kabbalah and the Sufi and so on. Anthroposophy is the science
of man in a comprehensive, cosmic sense, embracing the spiritual
truths reflected in all religions, not a religion about man in
an abstract, theological, sectarian sense.
I know it's hard to see the difference for
some people, but it's the unvarnished truth you've been asking
for, so take it or leave it.
I know, I know, Tarjei, you have no connection
to Waldorf schools. A shame. Christine promised to help develop
better PR for Waldorf schools, but she seems to have cut and
run. Maybe you could help them out with your monolithic certainty
about all matters spiritual.
Oh, do you suggest that I should meddle in
medicine and agriculture too, with no specialized training?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:03 am
Subject: Re: why "racist to the core?"
Tarjei proclaimed:
The core of Anthroposophy is the Christ,
also known as the Risen One, the God of the Spiritual Sun. There
is no room for "legitimate disagreement" about that,
because everything else is nonsense.
I wondered why it is, then, given this proud
affirmation of faith, that Waldorf parents are repeatedly told
there is no creed in anthroposophy, in fact it is not a religion,
as recently stated by Jean Yeager and quoted at Sune's site (which
is a new attempt to smoothe over some of these potential little
areas of disgruntlement Waldorf parents encounter).
Tarjei replied:
Jean Yeager is telling the truth. Anthroposophy
does not rest upon religious faith, but upon initiation-science.
All true religions also have an esoteric tradition, such as the
Kabbalah and the Sufi and so on. Anthroposophy is the science
of man in a comprehensive, cosmic sense, embracing the spiritual
truths reflected in all religions, not a religion about man in
an abstract, theological, sectarian sense.
Got it. Other folks have religion, you folks
have "truth." Your "truth" subsumes ("embraces")
everyone else's. There's no creed in anthroposophy, it just
so happens to be the absolute truth.
It should be obvious, but I guess it's not.
When anthroposophists characterize other religions as "abstract,"
"theological," and "sectarian," in order
to contrast it with anthroposophy which is supposedly none of
these things, the contrast is bogus. All religions have not only
theology and abstract doctrines, but also rituals and meditative
practices and paths to enlightenment, and the same, exact sense
that they possess an interior, living truth, a direct and vital
connection to the deity or spiritual realities that is somehow
missing in other religions. Even this belief that you alone
possess these living truths, while other religions have only
partial truths, or "dead," "sectarian" ideologies,
makes you not stand out from other religions, on the contrary
it is one more predictable similarity to other dogmas.
I know it's hard to see the difference
for some people, but it's the unvarnished truth you've been asking
for, so take it or leave it.
Likewise, I know this is very difficult for
religious dogmatists to hear, but here's another truth: Not everyone
believes anthroposophy is "the truth," embracing all
other truths, subsuming all other religions, providing comprehensive
answers to all cosmic questions. Newsflash: there are thousands
of religions in the world.
It is arrogant to presume your truth
is a truth other people want to have imposed on their families,
have their lives turned upside down to further the aims of a
movement they do not know the first thing about. Steiner would
not approve. It is not ethical. It is not "freedom."
You understand yourselves as possessors of cosmic truths, but
you need to present yourselves honestly to the world. People
can get pretty fighting mad when they find out they've been led
on this sort of wild goose chase, when a few words spoken honestly
at the first interview with a family could have prevented it.
If I can't hire you for the PR reform, Tarjei,
how about Bradford? Simply a 5-minute spiel from Bradford about
the I Am and the Michael School and a small selection of Stunning
Truths from the Bradford smorgasbord would explain a great deal
of what is going on in Waldorf schools and would be very helpful.
This is necessary to give the movement a solid ethical base,
parents need this as much as a spiel about the head, heart and
hands and the dangers of television.
If Jean Yeager is listening, I'd like to ask
her, do you not understand why it is not ok that, among themselves,
anthroposophists proclaim their devotion to the Cosmic Christ
and yet to parents lining up with their checkbooks to enroll
their children, "anthroposophy has no creed"?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:24 am
Subject: Quest for truth and wild goose chases (was: why "racist
to the core?")
At 14:03 09.04.2004, Diana wrote:
I wondered why it is, then, given this
proud affirmation of faith, that Waldorf parents are repeatedly
told there is no creed in anthroposophy, in fact it is not a
religion, as recently stated by Jean Yeager and quoted at Sune's
site (which is a new attempt to smoothe over some of these potential
little areas of disgruntlement Waldorf parents encounter).
I have no idea what Waldorf parents are told
and not told aroud the world. I've been to some meetings at a
local Waldorf high school where my stepson is a student, and
what they've been talking about is the curriculum: Chemistry,
physics, mathematics, biology, Norwegian, English and so on.
Plus how to get into the universities after graduation. Most
Waldorf students and Waldorf graduates I've met, including my
stepson, don't know anything about Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy.
The science and art of teaching in Waldorf schools stems from
anthroposophical insights and knowledge. Beyond that, you'll
have to ask Waldorf people.
Got it. Other folks have religion, you
folks have "truth."
In other words, the religions of "other
folks" do not have truth? Who told you that?
Your "truth" subsumes ("embraces")
everyone else's.
You speak about truth as if it's a vampire.
There's no creed in anthroposophy, it just
so happens to be the absolute truth.
Creed is based upon faith, belief. Occultism
is based upon knowledge, not faith. Basically, that's how it
is, but it's a lot more complicated, Anthroposophy being a cultural-heretical
revolutionary movement from the beginning.
It should be obvious, but I guess it's
not. When anthroposophists characterize other religions as "abstract,"
"theological," and "sectarian," in order
to contrast it with anthroposophy which is supposedly none of
these things, the contrast is bogus.
There are abstract, theological, and sectarian
anthroposophists too, and there are people of other spiritual
paths who are not abstract, theological, and sectarian.
(This is so boring.)
Even this belief that you alone
possess these living truths, while other religions have only
partial truths, or "dead," "sectarian" ideologies,
makes you not stand out from other religions, on the contrary
it is one more predictable similarity to other dogmas.
You'll have to discuss this with those who
have said that they alone possess living truths.
Likewise, I know this is very difficult
for religious dogmatists to hear, but here's another truth: Not
everyone believes anthroposophy is "the truth," embracing
all other truths, subsuming all other religions, providing comprehensive
answers to all cosmic questions. Newsflash: there are thousands
of religions in the world.
I wish you all the truth in the world, Diana,
and I hope you find it. Is that why you're exploring anthroposophy
btw, to search for truth?
It is arrogant to presume your truth
is a truth other people want to have imposed on their families,
have their lives turned upside down to further the aims of a
movement they do not know the first thing about.
If I have imposed my truth on your family,
Diana, or anyone else's family, please accept my apologies and
tell all the other families how sorry I am. They must have been
trapped on my website and been brainwashed there or something.
But didn't they read the sign on top of the main index page?
It reads:
WARNING VISIT AT YOUR OWN RISK
If they'd heeded that warning, they wouldn't
have gotten my truth imposed on them. And please tell the Kennedys
and Flintstones and all the other families that I'm terribly
sorry about my arrogance too, and I'll work on it.
Steiner would not approve. It is not ethical.
It is not "freedom." You understand yourselves as possessors
of cosmic truths, but you need to present yourselves honestly
to the world.
Are you calling me dishonest, Diana?
People can get pretty fighting mad when
they find out they've been led on this sort of wild goose chase,
when a few words spoken honestly at the first interview with
a family could have prevented it.
When I interview families, I ask how much
they use the phone. Some people have problems with kids bringing
their friends home who call all over the world, and we need to
solve these problems. I also tell them they can switch back to
their old phone company anytime if they don't like our alternative.
I don't lead them on a wild goose chase.
Are you telling me that people are fighting
mad at me because my website has led them on wild goose chases?
Well, I'm oceans away and have little to worry about, because
nobody's mad at me locally :)
If I can't hire you for the PR reform,
Tarjei, how about Bradford?
I didn't know you were hiring. How much do
you pay?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think this is an interesting question;
to my mind there is room for legitimate disagreement about just
what the core of anthroposophy is. I think that core is Steiner's
theory of cosmic evolution, within which racial themes (many
of which I take to be racist) do indeed play a central role.
Daniel:
Ok, now I'm curious. If "many" of
Steiner's racial themes are racist, which ones do you not consider
to be racist?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Peter,
I suppose this is one of those frivolous topics
that you refuse to address without condescending. I have to wonder
about your desire to "discuss" if every time you are
asked to explicate on a generalization you refuse.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why "racist to the
core?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think this is an interesting question;
to my mind there is room for legitimate disagreement about just
what the core of anthroposophy is. I think that core is Steiner's
theory of cosmic evolution, within which racial themes (many
of which I take to be racist) do indeed play a central role.
Daniel:
Ok, now I'm curious. If "many"
of Steiner's racial themes are racist, which ones do you not
consider to be racist?
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
