Can somebody educate me about Waldorf? - Page 2

[Ragana]

Originally posted by GranolaMommy
Just a note about the editing out.

Isn't it a good thing that pro-Waldorf and Anthroposophy people recognize and filter out those negative statements? Waldorf isn't a religion with Steiner set up as a god. He is the founder and informs a great deal of it, yes, but proponants are willing to filter out the parts that they do not find agreeable and/or find offensive or absurd.

Isn't it better to confront than edit out? What I mean is that maybe these views of his should be acknowledged and then taken apart critically rather than just having them deleted without comment (if that is indeed what happened).

[TraceyMc]

Granola Mommy-so well put! I couldn't agree more.

Elizabeth-thanks for the link, I have been looking for something like that, the inside story of PLANS.

Tracey

[GranolaMommy]

Originally posted by Ragana


Isn't it better to confront than edit out? What I mean is that maybe these views of his should be acknowledged and then taken apart critically rather than just having them deleted without comment (if that is indeed what happened).

It may be good to confront and dissect critically, but there is no forum in which to do that so that all readers of the books are given the same opportunity to be privy to the information. In lieu of such an opportunity, I think it is important that TPTB who are in charge of editing the books that are published recognize and acknowledge (by their removal) quotes that no longer reflect the opinions of the Waldorf community.

[Britishmum]

I find it interesting once again that if someone enters the discussin and turns out to be involved in Waldorf Critics, they get pounced upon.

I've said this before., Any system should be open to scrutiny. If it has nothing to hide or worthy of such criticism, it will survive.

"It is difficult to find Waldorf proponants who buy into every word Steiner had to say. They are out there, sure, but the majority of the Waldorf enthusiasts, even teachers, take his message and distill it for all the positive things he did say."

If even one teacher does buy into every word that Steiner has to say, isn't that scandalous? What would we all think if a public school teacher was found to hold these racist beliefs? Wouldnt he or she be fired without a second thought?

I, for one, think that there is nothing wrong with critics joining the boards here and discussing Waldorf. I want to know both sides, so that I can make my own decisions.

Why be defensive? (I've asked this before, but it seems to be a pattern that repeats itself)

[Diana W]

granolamom wrote - about the removal of offensive statements from recent translations of Steiner:

>Isn't it a good thing that pro-Waldorf and Anthroposophy >people recognize and filter out those negative statements?



You can't be serious. I fear you are. To *delete* the offensive material in a new translation, without comment, is hardly the same thing as addressing the issue. It's hiding, secrecy. It's meant to silence the criticism, pretend it never happened. It's unethical. It's also pathetic as scholarship, and this is the foundation of an educational movement?


Elizabeth says:
>Oh, so you're a member of the Waldorf Critics organization. >Well, at least I know where you are coming from now.


Okay. You know where I'm coming from. I had a child in Waldorf for three years and worked for 2 years as a Waldorf teaching assistant, and planned to become a Waldorf teacher. I was a very involved Waldorf parent. I became disillusioned after I saw the abuses and dysfunction in this so-called "spiritual" education.

>Well, if I hadn't just edited down my sig file you would know >that I am conducting a Steiner Book Study right now. I'm >reading "Theosophy" right now. It's boring as heck, and not my >cup of tea but I am reading it.

I don't know what your reading of Theosophy has to do with this. Talk about ethics - while you imply slimy things about Waldorf critics, you have made a false accusation. I am still seeing red over the charge that critics of Waldorf have simply *made up* Steiner quotes.. Amazing! An amazing charge. I suggest you read a bit past Theosophy if you honestly are able to kid yourself that those Steiner quotes are fabricated! Can I ask you if you really believe someone made these quotes up? If that's what you believe, why do you think someone would make up quotes from the founder of Waldorf education?

Do you not think we are real people too? We were happy Waldorf parents, we were moms you met and did committees with and exchanged play dates with, baked and knitted and gardened and organized open houses, etc. . . .

>From the actions of *many* members of the Waldorf Critics >group I do not have a high regard for the >organization as a >whole. What first brought me to the Mothering.Com forums is >that a post was taken off >a mailing list and posted to the >critics list WITHOUT THE AUTHORS PERMISSION.

This is a public forum. There is much confusion about that on the Internet, I realize. You need to realize you are presently posting in a public place. Anyone in the world who sits down at a computer with an Internet connection can read what we are presesntly saying. I agree with you, however, that it isn't always the right thing, to quote people who don't understand that they can be quoted so easily, when they don't understand this and don't realize their words may be repeated elsewhere.

Still, it seems we are talking about ethics, and I have seen nothing from the critics to rival the false accusation you made in saying that material on the Waldorf critics site is fabricated. That is a serious charge which you seem to have made quite lightly! I could not believe my eyes that you were saying this so blithely and without any idea what you are talking about.

>After her post was laughed at it was posted HERE, again >without the author's knowing about it or her >permission. She >found out because a friend of hers is here and saw it and >emailed her about the issue.

I think I know what you're talking about, I don't think anyone laughed at her. I recall there being concern about the children involved. She had some kind of serious situation with some children in her care, and she was trying hard to follow the Waldorf party line that you never speak to a child directly, even if a child is being hurt. She was obviously well intentioned. But we could be talking about two different things. The people I have met through critics do not take posts and pass them around to laugh at them. We are parents like you, probably with a lot in common in parenting, actually, and we know that what we saw in Waldorf was sometimes very damaging to children. We are trying to help people "get it" that Waldorf isn't AP, isn't respectful of children, isn't about love and light - that is *surface* and there is *deeper stuff* that you *need to get* if you sign on long term. That is where this got started for most of us, and believe me it was a long road.


>Events like this have happened on several mailing lists. I have >seen members of the Waldorf Critics join >groups, and boards, >just to cause strife.

We don't talk about Waldorf to "cause strife"; we talk about Waldorf because we spent years and years there, and want to save others the trouble. There is a private mailing list where we try to support people whose kids require therapy, tutoring, and years of confidence re-building post-Waldorf. We hate to think we are going to see some of the younger mothers here, who join a mom-tot group and think it is so beautiful, in a few years, with more damaged kids. We pick up the pieces afterwards. Wake up! It's a front for a cult. We were just where you are a few years ago, thinking it was all about bread baking and celebrating the seasons or something.

>One member will pretend to be a newbie and other members of >WC will respond.

This, like your charge that we are making up quotes, is beyond absurd. Who is pretending to be a "newbie"? What would it even mean to pretend to be a newbie? I am not misrepresenting myself in any way. I check these boards periodically, and a couple of other places where I know that people who might be drawn to Waldorf (generally, attachment parenting people, as I am, to a large extent), and from time to time I comment on Waldorf when the topic comes up. Is there something you find unethical about that? I don't comment on much else because there are only so many hours in a day, I have children and work and a life also. We realize that popping up different places always talking about Waldorf makes us look like we are kind of nuts. (It's called shooting the messenger.) But there isn't any "pretending" involved. We're who we say - former Waldorf parents, determined to tell our experiences in Waldorf.

>That everyone joins within hours of each other is very telling.

Telling of what? That we talk to each other off-line? (yes) If you are implying something worse, I'm not sure what. (Though for the record, I don't think there's anyone else of "us" here right now.) There were a lot of wonderful families at the Waldorf school. Post-Waldorf, I remain friends with many of them and have connected with a lot of other wonderful families who had similar experiences at Waldorf schools all over the world, and continue to support each other in the recovery process. And that's what post-Waldorf is, for many of us and our children - a recovery process, and for a few, later, activism. We do support each other and have become friends, many have met in person, and we work on this together. There is no secret there. You will find the "secret society" mentality alive and well in Waldorf, however. enough for now.
Diana

[Diana W]

Granolamommy:

>It may be good to confront and dissect critically, but there is no >forum in which to do that so that all readers of the books are >given the same opportunity to be privy to the information.
>In lieu of such an opportunity, I think it is important that TPTB >who are in charge of editing the books that are published >recognize and acknowledge (by their removal) quotes that no >longer reflect the opinions of the Waldorf community.

This just astounds me, I am mouth agape trying to figure out how educated people could make such statements. Hello? You can't take go back and DELETE the parts you don't like of your favorite authors.

Does it change the facts, does it mean he never said it if it is taken out of the books? Do you want history taught to your own children this way? Is this just ignorance? I suspect a lot of people just really want Steiner to have been a nice guy so that he could have founded a really great educational system, unfortunately wishing it doesn't make it so, and rewriting his words just compounds the problem. Integrity?
(Does make it easier to pretend the critics of Waldorf are just on some kind of weird crusade, though. What racist quotes?)

[sha_lyn]

I agree with Granolamommy ...Why can't the philosphy grow as we as a society grow? Stop dwelling on the fact that he had opinions that were shaped by society at the time, most of us realize that we have has grow since them. No, you had rather dwell on an outdated opinion and bash someone who isn't alive and can defend themself and their viewpoint.

[Jazmommie]

Thanks for the link to the mag...

LILIPOH--I ordered a issue -the one on childrens illnesses by Dr Incao.

I do not agree with everything that Waldorf or Steiner has said/believes but do get a lot out of the anthroposophical Dr & nurse websites & beliefs.
He was way ahead of his time in my opinion & very other world minded(reminds me of Mary Baker Eddy's life)-when you believe in something & not every one else does ,does that make it wrong?Not for them!

Thanks for the good info on this thread.

[Diana W]

Shalyn wrote:

>I agree with Granolamommy ...Why can't the philosphy grow as >we as a society grow?

That would be nice, but philosophies don't "grow" when people pretend that the philosopher didn't say what he said. Anthroposophy is not growing. People who disagree with Steiner just don't last long in Waldorf.


>Stop dwelling on the fact that he had opinions that were >shaped by society at the time,

Actually, Steiner claimed to be clairvoyant, and his followers insist that his opinions were derived from the "Akashic record." They are supposed to be immortal truths, revealed knowledge. If his followers admit he had opinions "shaped by his time," they might have to throw out a lot of other outdated stuff to, like the nonsense about not making eye contact with children, and never answering children's questions.


>No, you had rather dwell on an outdated opinion

That is my point, that it is an outdated opinion. It's junk, toss it out. That's different from pretending he never said it.

>and bash someone who isn't alive and can defend themself and >their viewpoint.

There are some very scary and ignorant views being expressed here about history and debate. Do you really believe we shouldn't criticize someone who isn't alive?

[momofgurlz]

editing racist commentary out of Steiner

Hello, everyone!

My name is Lisa, and I posted on these boards a few months ago, quite extensively, regarding Waldorf education and some of the objections/concerns that I have with it. (For the record, I was a Waldorf parent for a number of years and have firsthand experience with this matter, in addition to knowledge gleaned from almost four years of intense study of Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf in an effort to figure out just what happened at our school!)

I don't have time right now (unfortunately! <g>) to respond to a number of messages that have been posted recently, but the following just begged immediate response:

Someone said:

<<Isn't it a good thing that pro-Waldorf and Anthroposophy people recognize and filter out those negative statements? Waldorf isn't a religion with Steiner set up as a god. >>

Lisa again: Editing racist and racially offensive statements from Steiner's lecture (collected in books) certainly *would* be a "good thing" for pro-Waldorf people and Anthroposophists to do IF (and therein lies the problem) they simultaneously acknowledged the sentiments and philosophy and beliefs behind those statements and DISOWNED them. Sadly, that is not the case. Editing these statements out is, instead, just a way to hide them.

Racist ideology -- just one part of which is the belief that the various races of humankind have different levels of spiritual evolution -- is deeply embedded in Anthroposophy; indeed, the history of the world and creation according to Anthroposophy/Steiner is based upon racist doctrine. (Example: Aryan humankind -- the most highly evolved race, a la Steiner -- originated on Atlantis, which was destroyed by a flood. This is accepted as FACT, folks. )

I have had the experience of asking Steiner followers (and that includes both Waldorf teachers and anthroposophers) about a variety of their guru's teachings (and make no mistake: to a many a dedicated Waldorf teacher, Steiner *is* a guru, whose word is practically indisputable!), and the response is, to me, frightening. I was told that "some of Steiner is difficult." Others who have stumbled upon the racist elements of Waldorf's founding doctrine have been given similar answers when asked: we are told we just don't understand, that we must study Steiner more, that we must learn to meditate a certain way to "get" it, that it really is not racist at all, can't we see?

If Waldorf teachers and anthroposophers would only say "You know, Steiner was a man of his time, and therefore, some of the things he believed and taught are outdated and yes, racist ways of thinking. We merely sift the good and useful from the old and potentially harmful," I would not be writing this now. Unfortunately, that is not what happens. Instead, the statements are hidden. Waldorf schools are master of hiding things; I would daresay that it is one of the things they do best.

Sorry to be so blunt.

Lisa

[momofgurlz]

believing does not make something right

Jazmommie, after reading some Steiner in a recent issue of Lilipoh, argues:

<<when you believe in something & not every one else does ,does that make it wrong?Not for them!>>

Lisa here: Believing in something does not make it right, you know! <g> I could believe in sacrificing Oscar Meyer Weiners to the full moon would bring me riches, but it wouldn't be so!

I do agree that people should be free to *think* what they want and to say what they want. (I'm a big advocate of freedom of speech!)

What I do not agree with is allowing someone to put their beliefs on me or my children without my express knowlege and consent, and this is sadly and sometimes tragically what many Waldorf schools do each day. They promote themselves to parents as "arts based, nonsectarian schools," when that is far, far from true. Waldorf educates children (and be aware they use the term "educate" differently than you or I might) according to Anthroposophy, and many are quite rigid about it. They cite their belief that any child who is brought to them to educate came by karma/destiny as justification for not revealing this -- in other words, they believe not telling is OK and is, in fact, part of the mission. (One former Waldorf teacher told me she was often alarmed and even disgusted at the way other teachers talked about the parents in her school. "It was like they were extra baggage that they had to put up with in order to get to the kids," she said. She also told me that teachers viewed themselves, and not the parents, as the children's *true* parents.)

Believing something is right or OK does not make it so, if that belief impacts another person without his or her permission. I know this is an extreme example, but it makes the point: the Nazis believed it was OK and right to murder thousands of innocent people. Was it right? Of course not.

Lisa

[Ragana]

Originally posted by GranolaMommy


It may be good to confront and dissect critically, but there is no forum in which to do that so that all readers of the books are given the same opportunity to be privy to the information. In lieu of such an opportunity, I think it is important that TPTB who are in charge of editing the books that are published recognize and acknowledge (by their removal) quotes that no longer reflect the opinions of the Waldorf community.

I think that if an explanation were given in the introductions to the new editions of the books, this would give all readers equal opportunity to have access to this information. If not, what do you mean? It could be stated in the introduction that these parts "no longer reflect the opinions of the Waldorf community". That would put me more at ease as a potential W parent, whereas simply cutting things out and not mentioning it would not.

PS Disclaimer! I am not a member of the Waldorf critics group - as I stated in my orig. post, we were/are interested in the Waldorf school in our area and are looking for answers to criticisms we have had ourselves or have heard from others. There were definitely things we liked about the W parent-child group; other things about the school we are not so thrilled about.

[I Believe in Fairies]

Re: editing racist commentary out of Steiner

Originally posted by momofgurlz
(and make no mistake: to a many a dedicated Waldorf teacher, Steiner *is* a guru, whose word is practically indisputable!)

guru as defined at www.m-w.com
Main Entry:gu·ru
Pronunciation:'gur-(")ü also g&-'rü
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural gurus
Etymology:Hindi guru, from Sanskrit guru, from guru, adjective, heavy, venerable -- more at GRIEVE
Date:1613
1 : a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism
2 a : a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern b : one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent c : a person with knowledge or expertise : EXPERT

Originally posted by momofgurlz
If Waldorf teachers and anthroposophers would only say "You know, Steiner was a man of his time, and therefore, some of the things he believed and taught are outdated and yes, racist ways of thinking. We merely sift the good and useful from the old and potentially harmful," I would not be writing this now. Unfortunately, that is not what happens. Instead, the statements are hidden. Waldorf schools are master of hiding things; I would daresay that it is one of the things they do best.

Not all schools hide what Steiner taught. Many schools have classes for parents on his teachings.

Yes, there are some schools that hide things but all schools do that to some degree or another. For example, the SF Waldorf school never teaches computer use but the East Bay Waldorf School starts computers in 8th grade. Some schools require that there be no TV in a home while others don't care either way. The schools are all very, very different. It seems to me that you are making very broad generalizations.

I have met Waldorf teachers and Anthros that have said that he had outdated ideas.

[I Believe in Fairies]

I have to ask, momofgurlz, why is it that the *only* time you ever post here it is anti-Waldorf?

If Waldorf is so bad, then why did you spend close to $60,000 on it and not $20 on a book before sending your children to a Waldorf school? I am very confused on those points.

[momofgurlz]

why I post only about Waldorf

Dear Elizabeth,

You ask why I only post here in reference to Waldorf schools and education. Certainly a fair question, and one I am more than happy to answer.

I only post about Waldorf for several reasons. The first and foremost is that at this point in my parenting journey, I just don't feel compelled or the need to interact with other parents about general parenting issues in this kind of forum. (I do spend a teensy bit of time on a list for parents raising children adopted from China, but even there, I usually just browse the digest and read selectively.) Though the Mothering boards are filled with moms who, in general, have the same priorities as me (attachment parenting, family bed, extended breastfeeding, healthy food, natural fiber clothing, etc., etc.) at this point in my mothering, I don't feel the need for much discussion about that online! <g>

When Waldorf education is the topic, however, I *do* feel compelled to share what I (and many other families, with whom I am in touch often by internet) learned the hard way. I want to do whatever I can to make sure that parents considering Waldorf for their children know as much about it as possible.

I know there are some of you who believe -- or want to believe -- that people like me (Waldorf "critics") are out to promote our own nefarious "agenda:" that we delight in bashing Waldorf and will even lie (make up stories, make up Steiner quotes, etc.) to do so.

That's just not true. All of the Waldorf "critics" I know are moms and dads, just like you all, who love and care about their children and enrolled their children in Waldorf schools because we were led to believe that they were the very best place for our children. As Diana said earlier, many of us spent hundreds of hours volunteering in classrooms, baking and cooking, staffing open houses and parent committees, chaperoning field trips and so on. We come to you now simply to share with you what we learned, so that you can make the most informed decision about schooling possible.

Believe it or not (and I honestly don't know why it's so hard to believe!) I and other critics want to help you. Why not take our information in the spirit with which it is offered, consider it and then make your decision?

Lisa

[cumulus]

Hi:

I don't think Waldorf schools hide their agenda any more than any other school or even parent does. It would me my guess that much of the arguing about parenting that goes on between couples stem from a attitudes toward life and children that are unknown to each other and become known only after the children are growing. Nobody can tell what goes on in a given school, or parent, until they've been involved for years or sit in class for months. I think a search of MDC would find many questions concerning how to deal with a given public school or teacher.
The local high school has had a series of racial-type fights recently. Most parents don't even know about it. The school has said nothing pubically. Living in a country where many have said that the race problem is the biggest problem we face, what some guy in another country said years ago means little in this country where that issue is a fact of live for many citizens in this country and has been from before that foreigner was born up until this day.

[Iguanavere]

"You can't be serious. I fear you are. To *delete* the offensive material in a new translation, without comment, is hardly the same thing as addressing the issue. It's hiding, secrecy. It's meant to silence the criticism, pretend it never happened. It's unethical. It's also pathetic as scholarship, and this is the foundation of an educational movement?"

Of course this is what happened with the bible. We know so much has been deleted, books lost or removed and translated poorly.

And yet so many don't dispute the bible as being the *word of god*!

I just joined this discussion, because when DS was a baby I read "You are your child's first teacher" and really enjoyed the Waldorf Philosophy and how gentle it is. I started to research and found here on MDC that there were many people who were very happy with the Waldorf education, but a little naive about Steiner. And then there were the very angry people who think it is a cult.

I researched and then decided I would enroll my ds in the parent-toddler class to *see for myself* what the philosophy in action is like.

I have a very spirited child, who is under tremendous stress at home for a various reasons.

At first I thought the program was totally wrong for my DS, who loves to run and jump and use his body.

However, he has totally thrived and we are enjoying the program so much. DS talks about the teacher constantly and loves the rhythm and ritual of going to her class. I personally love the attention to the changing seasons and the not so well known holidays (mostly christian, but not always) and how they celebrate them. All hallowed Eve was very fun, not scary and sweet.

Also, I find there to be a lot of structure, which my son really loves. I think that may surprise many people to see how structured the classrooms are.

In the long run, the school is too expensive and because I believe more in unschooling and don't like the idea of a forced curriculum, I would never send my child to a Waldorf school (or any other school, probably.)

anyway, I think that a lot of great things can be gleaned from the Waldorf Philosophy and I would urge you to discover and experience it for yourself. My son and I have really had a great transformation by going to the Waldorf Playgroup. But I went in with my Eyes Wide Open!

[Diana W]

I'm going to break this in half - this is part I, Steiner quotes:

Here are some Steiner quotes, with references, as I promised. This is a fraction of the quotes featured on the critics site on these and similar topics http://www.waldorfcritics.org I didn't want to clog up this board with pages and pages of this stuff, don't know how much people are interested in reading of this. But it seemed important to provide a selection, as Elizabeth charged that critics of Waldorf make up these quotes, that the lectures we are quoting don't exist, and that we refuse to provide the information when requested. All of which is false and slanderous.

Again there are more quotes featured on the website above if anyone feels the need to pursue it further. Yes, many of these books are very obscure and not easy to find quickly. However, my offer stands that if Elizabeth or anyone else still doubts that these are real, I would be happy to find paper copies and send xeroxes by snail mail on request. (Otherwise, you know Elizabeth, an apology would be nice.)

Knowledge of the HIgher Worlds is not hard to find; Destinies of Individuals and of Nations, and Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy I have at home; Conferences with Teachers is sometimes for sale at Waldorf schools; the others would be harder, but I can track them down. The Anthroposophic Press can certainly get them for you. There are few scholars studying anthroposophy, but those who are (if they are not also anthroposophists) are very concerned about these right wing elements.

I* "Besides their character, families, nations and races have also their destiny. ... Besides the separate individuals, a very real family and national group soul and racial spirit is at work in the life of a family, a people, or a race. Indeed, in a certain sense the separate individuals are merely the executive organs of these family group souls, racial spirits, and so on....In the truest sense, everyone receives his alotted task from his family, national or racial group soul." Steiner, Rudolf. Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. (1904) Trans. George Metaxa, revised by Henry B. and Lisa D. Monges. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1947.


* "[P]eoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way from physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious perfection." Steiner, Rudolf. Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. (1904) Trans. George Metaxa, revised by Henry B. and Lisa D. Monges. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1947.

"The Western European peoples have become very much crystallized in their national characteristics, but in the case of the German people this cannot happen because of the peculiar nature of the German folk spirit. The result is that German attitudes will always have to remain more universal than those of other peoples. These things relate to profound realities in the spiritual world." Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987.

"The German spirit...is prepared for a truth that reveals itself to be true out of itself, not requiring external verification. The German spirit is prepared for this and evidence of this may be found everywhere. The thoughts of those who were truly working within the essence of the German spirit have always taken the form of considering truth to be an inner gift of the human soul." Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987. (p 104)

"[T]he representative people for the development of the consciousness soul, hence for what matters particularly in our age, is the Anglo-Saxon nation. The Anglo-Saxon people are those who through their whole organization are predisposed to develop the consciousness soul to a special degree. The prominent position occupied by the Anglo-Saxon nation in our time is indeed due to the fact that this nation is especially suited for the development of the consciousness soul." Steiner, Rudolf. Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy. (1921) Trans. Maria St. Goar. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987.

(more to come)

[Diana W]

Steiner quotes part II:


"You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude that if people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence. ... It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the more will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish." Steiner, Rudolf. Health and Illness: Volume I. (1922) Trans. Maria St. Goar. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981.

Diana notes: This passage is the one I was referring to - that has been simply removed from the 2000 translation of this work (which, if anyone is interested, is now called Comets to Cocaine: Answers to Questions, London:Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000).

* "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." Steiner, Rudolf. Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year. (1923) Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988.

"[T]he European sort of invention is impossible for either the Chinese or the Japanese." Steiner, Rudolf. The Evolution of the Earth and Man and the Influence of the Stars. (1924) Trans. Gladys Hahn. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987

"[W]e are not justified in thinking that human beings were originally like the savages of today. The savages have developed into what they now are--with their superstitions, their magical practices and their unclean appearance--from states originally more perfect. The only superiority we have over them is that, while starting from the same conditions, we did not degenerate as they did. I might therefore say: The evolution of man has taken two paths. It is not true that the savages of today represent the original condition of mankind. Mankind, though to begin with it looked more animal-like, was highly civilized. ... Just as the present savages have fallen from the level of the human beings of primeval times, so the apes are beings who have fallen still lower." Steiner, Rudolf. The Evolution of the Earth and Man and the Influence of the Stars. (1924) Trans. Gladys Hahn. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987


"It can certainly not be denied, that today Jewry still appears as a closed totality, and as such many times has intervened in the development of the present situation in a way that has been less than positive for Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has long since outlived itself, and has no justification any more within modern life of the peoples, and that it nevertheless has preserved itself is a mistake of world history, whose consequences have been inevitable." Rudolf Steiner, from his review of "Homunculus" by Hammerling (1888) published in the German Weekly

[Diana W]

Someone also mentioned Sune Nordwall's site, and I recommend people visit this as well. He is an anthroposophist who makes a project out of battling the Waldorf critics on the Net, and just looking at his site this afternoon, I am wondering if perhaps Elizabeth got her idea from that site that Waldorf critics somehow refuse to supply the sources for racist quotes, her innuendo that the lectures don't even really exist . . .

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/commen...denmaier-1.htm

A couple of years ago Sune charged the author Peter Staudenmaier, a historian and critic of anthroposophy, with actually "forging" a lecture. This issue has been hashed out on the Waldorf critics list in literally hundred of posts, and it was clarified beyond any possible doubt that Staudenmaier never forged anything.

Note that at Sune's site, a link is provided to the lecture cycle they were discussing, which is called "The Mission of Folk Souls," and contains more of Steiner's nonsense about nations and races having "group souls" and "missions" and "destinies." Click on Sune's link. There's nothing there. It was there for quite some time; Sune recently took it off, when he figured out his mistake. Maybe someone could ask him why the link was removed. If it was there to prove that Peter S. "forged" something, why has he taken down the link that would prove it? Does he plan to retract the accusation?

The same lecture used to be available at the Steiner elib (www.elib.com) but the powers that be also removed it there not long ago. This is typical of anthroposophy. The controversial material disappears, is suddenly inaccessible, maybe it never really existed in the first place? they suggest, and then they turn the tables on their critics and it appears - or they actually accuse us - that *we* have made something up.
Diana