36

Waldorf Schools: Rudolf Steiner’s books are “an incitement to racial hatred”, says BPjM

In the UK a discussion is going on about Rudolf Steiner’s racism, see: “Steiner Waldorf Schools Part 3. The problem of racism“. Therefore Ruhrbarone publish a short English summary of the BPjM’s decision on Rudolf Steiner. By Andreas Lichte.

The “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (BPjM) (”Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons”) examined 2 books by Rudolf Steiner for “racist content” and decided that the content of the books is racist.

To understand the BPjM´s importance and function here’s its self-portrayal, quote:

“General information about the BPjM (Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons) We are an official administrative authority of the German government called “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (BPjM) (”Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons”). Our task is to protect children and adolescents in Germany from any media that might contain harmful or dangerous contents. This work is authorized by the “Youth Protection Law” (Jugendschutzgesetz – JuSchG). Media monitored by us are, among others: videos, DVDs, computer games, audio records and CDs, print media and internet sites. Objects are considered harmful or dangerous to minors if they tend to endanger their process of developing a socially responsible and self-reliant personality. In general, this applies to objects that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or otherwise racist material. (…)” see the BPjM-homepage for the rest.

The 2 books examined by the BPjM are:

– „Geisteswissenschaftliche Menschenkunde“

English title: „Spiritual-Scientific Knowledge of the Human Being“

– „Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie“

English title: „The Mission of Individual Volk-Souls in Connection with Germanic-Nordic Mythology“

The 2 decisions differ from one another only with regard to which particular statements by Rudolf Steiner the BPjM considered to be racist. As stated in the respective decisions on i) „Geisteswissenschaftliche Menschenkunde“ and ii) „Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen“, decisions page 6:

„Der Inhalt des Buches ist nach Ansicht des 12er-Gremiums in Teilen als zum Rassenhass anreizend bzw. als Rassen diskriminierend anzusehen.”

„The content of the book [by Rudolf Steiner] is, in the opinion of the board of 12 representatives, considered in part as an incitement to racial hatred, respectively as discriminating on grounds of race.“

This is followed by a definition. I only translate the most important part:

„Ein Medium reizt mithin zum Rassenhass an, d.h. stellt Rassenhass als nachahmenswert dar, wenn darin Menschen wegen ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu einer anderen Rasse, Nation, Glaubensgemeinschaft o.ä. als minderwertig und verächtlich dargestellt oder diskriminiert werden (Ukrow, Jugendschutzrecht, Rn. 284).”

“A medium incites racial hatred, that is, depicts racial hatred as worthy of imitation, if human beings are represented as being inferior or contemptible or are discriminated against, due to their affiliation to another race, nation, religious community or the like.”

This definition is followed by those of Rudolf Steiner’s statements that were considered by the BPjM as racist. I translate only statements concerning BLACK PEOPLE directly.

from “Geisteswissenschaftliche Menschenkunde” page 6f: „Die Menschen, welche ihr Ich-Gefühl zu gering ausgebildet hatten, wanderten nach dem Osten, und die übriggebliebenen Reste von diesen Menschen sind die nachherige Negerbevölkerung Afrikas geworden.” “The people who had underdeveloped their sense of »I« [that is: the »ego«], migrated to the east, and the surviving remnants of these people later became the negro population of Africa.”

page 7: „Diejenigen Menschen aber, die ihre Ich-Wesenheit zu schwach entwickelt hatten, die den Sonneneinwirkungen zu sehr ausgesetzt waren, sie waren wie Pflanzen: sie setzten unter ihrer Haut zuviel kohlenstoffartige Bestandteile ab und wurden schwarz. Daher sind die Neger schwarz.” “But the people, who underdeveloped their »I«-being [that is: their »ego«], who were exposed too much to the effects of the sun, they were like plants: they deposited under their skin too many carbon-like elements and became black. This is why the negro is black.”

„…, von der ganz passiven Negerseele angefangen, die völlig der Umgebung, der äußeren Physis hingegeben ist, …” “…, beginning with the completely passive soul of the negro, which is in complete abandon to [that is: devoted to] the environment, to the exterior physique, …”

page 8: „Aber das sind die, welche so ihr Ich verleugnet haben, dass sie schwarz davon wurden, weil die äußeren Kräfte, die von der Sonne auf die Erde kommen, sie eben schwarz machten.” “But they are the ones, who so denied their »I« that it turned them black, because the exterior forces that come from the sun to the earth simply turned them black.”

from „Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen” page 6: „Der afrikanische Punkt entspricht denjenigen Kräften der Erde, welche den Menschen die ersten Kindheitsmerkmale aufdrücken, …” „The African Point corresponds to those forces of the Earth, which imprint on people the first features of childhood…”

These are examples of racist statements made in only 2 of Steiner’s books. Be aware of the fact that Steiner wrote 354 books. To what do they add up? To an esoteric evolutionary theory, in which there is no place for people who aren’t white. Coloured people will become extinct – Steiner’s program in short, quote Rudolf Steiner:

„Die weiße Rasse ist die zukünftige, ist die am Geiste schaffende Rasse”

“The white race is the race of the future, the race that works creatively on the spirit.”

Articles at Ruhrbarone directly related to the topic:

3 Jahre Rudolf Steiner ist „zum Rassenhass anreizend bzw. als Rassen diskriminierend anzusehen“, by Andreas Lichte

Rudolf Steiners Rassenlehre, by Ansgar Martins

Other Waldorf-articles by Andreas Lichte at Ruhrbarone:

„Waldorfschule: Vorsicht Steiner“ Interview with Andreas Lichte

„Kampf bis zur Erleuchtung – Lorenzo Ravagli und der Glaubenskrieg der Anthroposophie gegen Helmut Zander“

„Die Waldorfschulen informieren“

„Drei Gründe für die Waldorfschule“

Waldorfschule: „Detlef Hardorp, der Berlin-Brandenburgische Bullterrier der anthroposophischen Öffentlichkeitsarbeit“

„Waldorfschule: Lehrer gesucht!“

„Waldorfschule Schloss Hamborn, das anthroposophische Zentrum in Ostwestfalen“

Image: Rudolf Steiner, „Menschheitsentwickelung und Christus-Erkenntnis”, page 245

RuhrBarone-Logo

36 Kommentare zu “Waldorf Schools: Rudolf Steiner’s books are “an incitement to racial hatred”, says BPjM

  • #1
    ThetisMercurio

    I’m the writer of the post at DC’s Improbable Science linked to here.

    At the moment in England, our Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove is commencing the funding of parent-run or independent schools through a new Free Schools policy, similar to the model in Sweden. Here’s the New Schools Network, which was set up to support groups interested in this English Free Schools policy http://newschoolsnetwork.org/about-us/our-mission

    Questions have been asked about the funding of this organisation, which is generally believed not to be politically neutral.

    The post explores a meeting held last year between the NSN and representatives of the Steiner Waldorf movement in England, including the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship. Many Steiner Waldorf schools intend to access public funds through the Free Schools policy. Here’s that meeting in detail on the UK Anthroposophy blog: http://ukanthroposophy.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/seminarnotes/

    At that meeting the racist content of Steiner’s writings was mentioned, and it appears that the head of the NSN believed the answer to this ‚problem‘ was good PR for the schools. I contend that no PR will be enough to disguise the potency of these ideas within Anthroposophy. I examine the epistemology and history of Anthroposophy, with reference to historians Olav Hammer, Helmut Zander and Peter Staudenmaier. Steiner’s race theories are not an optional extra that can simply be removed, they are an integral part of Steiner’s doctrine. Many anthroposophists believe that these ideas are not racist, but are benevolent. I believe this is a very great problem for the children in these schools, and potentially for the communities which will have no choice but to support Steiner education.

    The choice to fund individual Steiner schools in England lies solely with the Secretary of State.

  • Pingback: zoom » Umleitung: 10 Tage in Schweden, Steiners Rassismus, Westerwelles Fall, die IT ist das Unglück der Dichter und Denker, Haushaltsplan in Hagen, pro NRW in Wilnsdorf, 3.014.237 und Elterbeiträge für die Kindergärten. «

  • #3
    Jan Luiten

    „Es gibt sicherlich Kritiker der Anthroposophie, die [eine] vollständige Ablehnung Steiners erwarten, aber das ist kaum eine grundlegende Forderung der Nicht-Anthroposophen als ganzer – ganz zu schweigen von den Nicht-Anthroposophen, die Steiners Rassenlehren (racial doctrines) im Einzelnen untersucht haben. Für Forscher wie Helmut Zander, Georg Otto Schmid, Jana Husman-Kastein und meine Wenigkeit liegt der Kern des Bestrebens nicht in der Verdammung der gesamten Anthroposophie als solcher, sondern im geschichtlichen Verständnis der Rolle des rassischen Diskurses innerhalb der Anthroposophie. Dieses mag allerdings mit der Hoffnung gekoppelt sein, dass Anthroposophen letztendlich dahin kommen, die rassistischen Teile der Lehre Steiners zurückzuweisen, aber das ist kaum dasselbe, wie Steiner als Ganzes abzulehnen. Ein fruchtbarer Dialog über den Gegenstand wird schwierig sein, sofern diese Unterscheidungen ignoriert werden.“ (Staudenmaier zum Frankfurter Memorandum, S. 2)

    Dieses Zitat Peter Staudenmaiers zu dem Frankfurter Memorandum bietet Raum für Gespräch/Auseinandersetzung. Er hat manchmal harte Kritik auf die anthroposophie , bringt diese Kritik aber sachlich und mit Respekt vor. Ich finde es total OK wenn Wissenschaftler die Anthroposophie “von aussen” studieren, beschreiben, erklären, kritisieren. Es ist vielleicht das beste was uns momentan passieren kann. Das es nicht jubelnd und jauchsend ist, sondern sehr kritisch: um so besser. Warum ? Weil viel innerhalb der anthroposophischen Subkultur einfach hemmend wirkt für die Anthroposophie. Der Blick eines Aussenstehenders kann uns das klar machen.
    Wenn man in der anthroposophischen Subkultur hineinwächst wird es allmählich schwierig die Subkultur , mit all ihren Gewohnheiten, noch richtig wahr zu nehmen. Selber arbeite ich nicht in einer anthroposophischen Institution, und meine Eltern waren keine anthroposophen. Ich habe auch nicht die Waldorfschule besucht. Ich bin nicht einmal Mitglied der AAG. Dadurch habe ich vielleicht etwas mehr Distanz. Wenn Peter Staudenmaier sagt daß es schwierig ist für Anthroposophen objektiv die eigene Subkultur an zu schauen hat er einfach recht. Dann wird also “Hilfe” von aussenher gebraucht.
    (Allerdings muss ich auch bemerken daß es unter den Kritikern große Unterschiede gibt. Man kann Peter Staudenmaiers Niveau kaum vergleichen mit dem Andreas Lichtes.)

    Persönlich glaube ich immer mehr daran daß wir einen Neubeginn für die Anthroposophie brauchen.
    Die Veränderungen in der AAG gehen viel zu langsam. Die anthroposophische Subkultur ist zu durchsetzt mit Sektarismus. Eine falsche Auffassung der Anthroposophie herrscht innerhalb der anthroposophischen Subkultur. Da muss noch viel Arbeit gemacht werden.
    Vielleicht brauchen wir eine Federation freier Anthroposophen ?.

    Zu der Rassismusdiskussion. Man soll sich eigentlich erst darüber verständigen was Anthroposophie ist oder sein will. Für mich ist die Anthroposophie vor allem eine Methode. In Prinzip kann eine Methode -wie auch z.B. die naturwissenschaftliche Methode gar nicht rassistisch sein. Eine Methode ist keine Lehre. Man beschuldigt Naturwissenschaftler oder Biologen auch nicht von Rassismus weil Darwin rassistische Aussagen gemacht hat. Die anthroposophische Methode hat aber auch Ergebnisse geliefert. Man kann sagen es gibt ein anthroposophisches „body of knowledge“ (s. oben). Dieses “body of knowledge” stammt zum grössten Teil von Steiner, aber es gibt andere Autoren die die anthroposophische Methode benützen und beitragen an dieses “body of knowledge”. Gibt es darinnen rassistisches? Gut möglich. Ich habe verstanden daß Staudenmaier da einiges gefunden hat bezüglich Anthroposophen in der Nazi-Ära. Wir werden sehen.
    Was ich aber bekämpfe ist die Meinung Rudolf Steiner sei ein Rassist. Dazu habe ich mich z.B in den Diskussionen auf den Ruhrbarone klar geaußert. Er hat zwar Aussagen gemacht die diskriminierend sind aber die Aussagen bilden nicht eine rassistische Lehre. Er hat eine Lehre entwickelt über Rassen, das ist aber noch etwas anderes als eine rassistische Rassenlehre. Ich habe dazu Argumente geliefert die gründen auf die Theorie von Albert Memmi. Kann man dort nachlesen.
    Man muss aber folgendes bedenken: Steiner hat diese Lehre entwickelt und bestimmte Aussagen gemacht. Als Anthroposoph braucht man gar nicht damit einverstanden zu sein. Ein Biologe bleibt man auch nicht immer daran erinnern daß Darwin rassistische Aussagen gemacht hat.
    Ein Anthroposoph soll nicht sein: Ein Person der/die an Steiner glaubt, sondern ein Mensch der die Wichtigkeit der Anthroposophische Methode einsieht und der die Ergebnisse dieser Methode zu schätzen versteht. Durch ständige Forschung werden in der Zukunft immer mehr Ergebnisse zugefügt an das “body of knowledge” der Anthroposophie. Wir werden auch sehen in wie weit Steiners Forschungsresultate stehen bleiben oder nicht.
    (Bitte entschuldige die Deutschfehler)

    Dieser Kommentar habe ich auch schon publiziert auf Waldorfblog, es gibt kleine Aenderungen.

  • #4
    buddy

    @ Jan Luiten

    I hate to be rude, but could you simply shut up, Mr. Luiten?

    everybody knows you are just another anthroposophical freak, spamming the world wide web …

  • #5
    Jan Luiten

    @Buddy
    See what I mean about „das Niveau der Kritiker“.
    Schwer verständlich dass die Ruhrbarone das gut heissen.

  • #6
    Jan Luiten

    Ich beschaffe mich seit 1985 mit den Kritikern der Anthroposophie.
    Es fällt mich auf dass es unter den Kritikern grosse Unterschiede gibt.
    Ich habe keine Probleme mit Kritikern die Ihre Kritik sachlich vorbringen, aber schon mit denen die ein Punkt oder Komma falsch finden weil ein Anthroposoph diesen Punt oder diese Komma gesetzt hat. Dann ist doch keine Ausendersetzung möglich. Auch finde ich es problematisch wenn man die Kritik anonym bringt wie unser Held Buddy oder auch wie Thetis Mercurio
    Ich werde bestimmte Kommentare sammeln und mal hören was seriöse Kritiker wie Peter Staudenmaier oder Helmut Zander davon halten. Andreas Lichte rechne ich nicht mehr zu den seriösen Kritiker.

  • #7
    Ex-Steiner

    @ Jan Luiten

    Du schreibst: ‚Wenn Peter Staudenmaier sagt daß es schwierig ist für Anthroposophen objektiv die eigene Subkultur an zu schauen hat er einfach recht.‘

    Quelle??

  • #8
    Andreas Lichte

    @ ThetisMercurio – Ruhrbarone comment #1:

    http://www.ruhrbarone.de/waldorf-schools-rudolf-steiner’s-books-are-“an-incitement-to-racial-hatred”-says-bpjm/comment-page-1/#comment-68328

    thanks for your comment !

    You write: „I examine the epistemology and history of Anthroposophy, with reference to historians Olav Hammer, Helmut Zander and Peter Staudenmaier.“

    Dr. Helmut Zander was asked by the “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (BPjM) (”Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons”) to give his expertise. This is what he said about Rudolf Steiner’s racism, quote from the decision of the BPjM:

    „Der Bundesprüfstelle wurde zudem von einem Wissenschaftler der Berliner Humboldt-Universität, Dr. Helmut Zander, dessen Abhandlung „Anthroposophische Rassentheorie – Der Geist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte“ übersandt. Darin kommt der Autor zu der Schlussfolgerung, dass Steiners Theorie aus heutiger Sicht das Prädikat „rassistisch“ zu Recht trage, aufgrund der Abwertung von Rassen und Völkern und der Überhöhung der weißen Rasse.“

    my translation:

    „Furthermore, Dr. Helmut Zander, a scientist at the Humboldt-Universität Berlin submitted to the Bundesprüfstelle [BPjM] his treatise „Anthroposophische Rassentheorie – Der Geist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte“ [„Anthroposophical Race Theory – The Path of the Spirit through Racial History“; my translation]. In this, Zander comes to the conclusion that Steiner’s theory is, from a present-day standpoint, justifiably be judged ‚racist‘ given that it defames certain ‚races‘ and peoples and glorifies the white ‚race‘.“

    So no need to discuss any further with Anthroposophists: Rudolf Steiner is a racist for sure.

    Moreover Dr. Helmut Zander in his book „Anthroposophie in Deutschland“ explains that Rudolf Steiner’s racism is ever-present in the WHOLE of his teachings.

    „Anthroposophie in Deutschland“, quote:

    „Steiner ordnete die Rassen einer Fortschrittsgeschichte zu, in der beispielsweise heutige Indianer als »degenerierte Menschenrasse« im »Hinsterben« (GA 105, 106, 107 [1908]) oder schwarze Afrikaner als defiziente Spezies der Menschen- und Bewusstseinsentwicklung, als »degenerierte«, »zurückgebliebene« Rasse (ebd., 106) erschienen. Umgekehrt habe die weisse Rasse »das Persönlichkeitsgefühl am stärksten ausgebildet« (GA 107, 288 [1909]). Dies sind nur Kernsätze einer Rassentheorie, die Steiner 1904 erstmals formulierte, um sie 1910 in einem komplexen System und in zunehmender Abgrenzung zu theosophischen Positionen auszufalten. Mit seinem Ausstieg aus der Theosophie hat er diese Vorstellungen keinesfalls über Bord geworfen, sondern sie 1923 nochmals in Vortragen vor Arbeitern des Goetheanum in vergröberter, »popularisierter« Form wiederholt, aber ohne Revision im inhaltlichen Bestand. Die weisse war nun »die zukünftige, die am Geiste schaffende Rasse« (GA 349, 67 [1923]). (…)

    Steiner formulierte mit seinem theosophischen Sozialdarwinismus eine Ethnologie, in der die Rede von »degenerierten«, »zurückgebliebenen« oder »zukünftigen« Rassen keine »Unfälle«, sondern das Ergebnis einer konsequent durchgedachten Evolutionslehre waren. Ich sehe im Gegensatz zu vielen Anthroposophen keine Möglichkeit, diese Konsequenz zu bestreiten.“ (Helmut Zander, „Anthroposophie in Deutschland“, Göttingen 2007, p. 631, 636)

    Could you please try to translate this CRUCIAL passage of „Anthroposophie in Deutschland“?

    I contacted Helmut Zander, but he told me that there isn’t yet an authorized translation.

  • #9
    Hollywood Tomfortas

    Lieber Andreas,

    Jetzt arbeite ich auf die Übersetzung deines obigen Abschnitts von Zander. Auch möchte ich seinen offiziellen englischen Übersetzer werden. Bitte kannst du mir seine Addresse schicken? Wohnt er auch in Berlin wie du? Ich möchte mit ihm in Kontakt haben um diese Möglichkeit zu diskutieren. Meine e-mail Addresse: Tombuoyed [at] AOL [dot] com

    Danke vielmals!

    Tom Mellett
    Los Angeles, CA, USA

  • #10
    Hollywood Tomfortas

    Hier die Zander Übersetzung
    von Tom Mellett

    —————————–

    Anthroposophy in Germanyquote:

    “Steiner arranged the races into a progressive history where, for example, today’s [American] Indians are a “degenerate race of people” in the process of “dying out.” (GA 105, 106, 107 [1908]),

    or black Africans are a species of people who are deficient in their development of both consciousness and [civilized] humanity — they emerged as a “degenerate” or “retarded” race. (ibid., 106)

    Conversely, the white race was “the most skilled in developing a sense of individuality.” (GA 107, 288 [1909]).

    These are just the highlights of a race theory that Steiner first formulated in 1904, and then by 1910 had structured it into a complex system that would increasingly define itself apart from theosophical positions.

    But even after he phased out theosophy, he still never did throw these ideas overboard, but once again reiterated them in 1923 while lecturing to the workers at the Goetheanum in a coarse, “popularized” form but without any revision in the essential content. The white race was now “the future race, the race that is spiritually creative.” (GA 349, 67 [1923]). (…)

    Along with his Theosophical “Social Darwinism,” Steiner formulated an ethnology, in which the vocabulary of “degenerate”, or “retarded”, or “future races” was not spoken “inadvertently”, but rather as the result of a systematic and sophisticated theory of evolution. Unlike many anthroposophists, I see no way to dispute this conclusion.”

    (Helmut Zander, Anthroposophy in Germany, Göttingen 2007, p. 631, 636)

  • #11
    Jan Luiten

    „So no need to discuss any further with Anthroposophists: Rudolf Steiner is a racist for sure“.

    This is off course a refusal to have a debate.
    To have a debate however is a democratic value. Am I deaing with democrats here?
    There are scholars who, according to their definitions, would agree with me that Steiners theory is not racist. The definition of Albert Memmi is a leading definiton. Is he crazy ? Not worthy to debate with? Where is the clear definition of Zander?
    A racist theory must content the legimation of agression against an inferior race.
    You will not find such a legitimation of agression in Steiners work.
    Steiner was an opponent to Darwinism. Did not the nazi’s use this theory to claim the superiority of the germanic race?
    Steiner on the contrary advocates a poltical system of equal rights for everybody, the threefold social order. Discrimination and racism always mean violation of these rights.

  • #12
    Jan Luiten

    After having posted a reaction before I wrote the following comment to the article „Antrhoposophy and ecofascism“ of Peter Staudenmaier, on 11 december 2010

    Hello Peter,

    In your reaction on my comment you are saying that I discern racism as an ideology and racism in actions.
    “racism as a worldview or set of ideas and racism as a practice or institution. Both aspects of racism are important, but my article does not address the latter form of racist activity; my article offers an analysis of racist ideas, not racist actions”
    But when you read closely Memmi nor I are making this discern. Memmi says that also in the ideology there should be aspects of legimation of superiority and oppression to call an ideology racist.
    I agree with you that we need to look as objectively as possible to the phenomenon anthroposophy. And when you are saying that doing so is difficult for persons within the anthroposophical subculture I think you are right. Because I did not visit a Waldorf School and my parents weren’t anthroposophists and I am not working in an anthroposophical institution I may have some more distance. But I call myself anthroposophist and will stand for it. Because the anthroposophy is of great concern to me I think it is necessary that there should be a renewal within the anthroposophical subculture. We have to see our own faults to develop us. Because of the fact that this work is not done by anthroposophists we need critics like you. This off course does not implicate that I agree with you in all points.

    As I see it – but this is not mainstream anthroposophy- anthroposophy is not an end in itself.
    Anthroposophy is merely a method or a methodology. This is the most important part of anthroposophy. The second part is the knowledge you can gain from this method, call it the body of knowledge of the anthroposophy. This body of knowledge is not a fixed, unchangeable amount of knowledge, but knowledge should be added here (there is a lot of misunderstanding on this point by both anthroposophists and their critics). The third part is what I call the anthroposophical subculture e.g. schools and other institutions, family life etc. I am a critic of anthroposophical subculture myself.

    When you are criticizing the connections between anthroposophists and nazism you are criticizing partly the anthroposophical subculture and partly “the body of knowledge”.
    From the essence of the anthroposophy, the anthroposofical method, we should renew the subculture, and recognize the faults from the past.

    Regards,
    Jan Luiten, Holland

    http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism-2/

  • #13
    Andreas Lichte

    @ Hollywood Tomfortas #10

    Thank you very much for your translation of Helmut Zander !

    It’s fine but there are some inaccuracies:

    ………………………………………………….

    „Anthroposophie in Deutschland“, „Anthroposophy in Germany“, quote:

    „Steiner ordnete die Rassen einer Fortschrittsgeschichte zu, in der beispielsweise heutige Indianer als »degenerierte Menschenrasse« im »Hinsterben« (GA 105, 106, 107 [1908])

    “Steiner arranged the races into a progressive history where, for example, today’s [American] Indians are a “degenerate race of people” in the process of “dying out.” (GA 105, 106, 107 [1908]),

    – „Fortschrittsgeschichte“ is meant as an evolutionary development, later on Helmut Zander uses the term „Evolutionslehre“, see below

    – there is no full stop after „dying out“

    oder schwarze Afrikaner als defiziente Spezies der Menschen- und Bewusstseinsentwicklung, als »degenerierte«, »zurückgebliebene« Rasse (ebd., 106) erschienen.

    or black Africans are a species of people who are deficient in their development of both consciousness and [civilized] humanity — they emerged as a “degenerate” or “retarded” race. (ibid., 106)

    – „erschienen“ in Steiners Fortschrittsgeschichte, roughly: „in Steiner’s evolutionary history black Africans appear [i.e.: are depicted] as …“

    Umgekehrt habe die weisse Rasse »das Persönlichkeitsgefühl am stärksten ausgebildet« (GA 107, 288 [1909]).

    Conversely, the white race was “the most skilled in developing a sense of individuality.” (GA 107, 288 [1909]).

    Dies sind nur Kernsätze einer Rassentheorie, die Steiner 1904 erstmals formulierte, um sie 1910 in einem komplexen System und in zunehmender Abgrenzung zu theosophischen Positionen auszufalten.

    These are just the highlights of a race theory that Steiner first formulated in 1904, and then by 1910 had structured it into a complex system that would increasingly define itself apart from theosophical positions.

    – „Kernsätze“ maybe better (?): „key elements“, „key sentences“

    Mit seinem Ausstieg aus der Theosophie hat er diese Vorstellungen keinesfalls über Bord geworfen, sondern sie 1923 nochmals in Vortragen vor Arbeitern des Goetheanum in vergröberter, »popularisierter« Form wiederholt, aber ohne Revision im inhaltlichen Bestand. Die weisse war nun »die zukünftige, die am Geiste schaffende Rasse« (GA 349, 67 [1923]). (…)

    But even after he phased out theosophy, he still never did throw these ideas overboard, but once again reiterated them in 1923 while lecturing to the workers at the Goetheanum in a coarse, “popularized” form but without any revision in the essential content. The white race was now “the future race, the race that is spiritually creative.” (GA 349, 67 [1923]). (…)

    – „Ausstieg“: Steiner left the Theosophical Society

    Steiner formulierte mit seinem theosophischen Sozialdarwinismus eine Ethnologie, in der die Rede von »degenerierten«, »zurückgebliebenen« oder »zukünftigen« Rassen keine »Unfälle«, sondern das Ergebnis einer konsequent durchgedachten Evolutionslehre waren. Ich sehe im Gegensatz zu vielen Anthroposophen keine Möglichkeit, diese Konsequenz zu bestreiten.“ (Helmut Zander, “Anthroposophie in Deutschland”, Göttingen 2007, p. 631, 636)

    Along with his Theosophical “Social Darwinism,” Steiner formulated an ethnology, in which the vocabulary of “degenerate”, or “retarded”, or “future races” was not spoken “inadvertently”, but rather as the result of a systematic and sophisticated theory of evolution. Unlike many anthroposophists, I see no way to dispute this conclusion.”

    – „rather“ is WRONG: Helmut Zander is positively saying that what Steiner says about „races“ IS the result of Steiners systematic and sophisticated theory of evolution

    (Helmut Zander, Anthroposophy in Germany, Göttingen 2007, p. 631, 636)

    ………………………………………………….

    my annotations make clear why I didn’t translate Helmut Zander:

    – I think it’s really difficult

    – I didn’t want to be blamed by fanatical Anthroposophists of falsifying Helmut Zander …

  • #14
    Hollywood Tomfortas

    Andreas,

    Thank you for the analysis. Here are the changes I have made. Then I’ll post the new edited version.

    [1] Ah yes, I see now what you mean about “erschienen.” It is here passively appearing rather than actively emerging. Therefore I chose what you said “are depicted as”

    [2] Kernsätze. I would have used what you suggested “key words” or “key terminology.” However, the problem is the “nur” that precedes it.
    “Dies sind nur Kernsätze einer Rassentheorie.”
    “These are merely [only, just] key words of a race theory.”

    That makes little sense in English. The “nur” indicates restriction or limitation — indicating that there are many more such key words. But they are all key words. I also see that my choice of “highlights” is not that good either. However, I looked in Chemnitz and they provide the best word = “labels”

    Thus “These are merely labels of a race theory.”

    [3] Ausstieg. Here you also see that the difficulty is with Zander’s writing. Yes indeed, “Steiner left the Theosophical Society” , but it’s not quite right to say that he ever “left theosophy.” He left the TS and he abandoned theosophy. However, I did find a word that would fit better and that is “his departure from theosophy.”

    [4] You say “rather” is wrong, but I believe that you misread this sentence. Let me re-arrange the sentence to make the contrast clearer.

    . . . in der die Rede von »degenerierten«, »zurückgebliebenen« oder »zukünftigen« Rassen keine »Unfälle«, sondern das Ergebnis einer konsequent durchgedachten Evolutionslehre waren.

    Die Rede von “____” war(en) keine Unfälle, sondern das Ergebnis einer . . . “

    (First, poor grammar from Zander: should be: entweder “die Reden waren” oder “die Rede war,” nicht wahr?)
    Secondly, the “sondern” refers back to “keine Unfaelle” for the contrast.

    The speaking of these terms, the use of this vocabulary was “no accidents” d.h. “not accidental” oder “not inadvertent” oder “not umplanned” — but rather the use of this vocabulary was the result of …
    What I will do is change “spoken” to “used” and delete the “rather” and put in “knowingly” to bring out the crucial contrast to “inadvertently.”

    Thus: “. . . in which the vocabulary . . . was not used “inadvertently,” but knowingly as the result of . . .”

    Now for the new edited version.

    ==============================
    _Anthroposophy in Germany_ quote:

    “Steiner arranged the races into a progressive history where, for example, today’s [American] Indians are a “degenerate race of people” in the process of “dying out” (GA 105, 106, 107 [1908]),
    or black Africans are a species of people who are deficient in their development of both consciousness and [civilized] humanity — they are depicted as a “degenerate” or “retarded” race. (ibid., 106)

    Conversely, the white race was “the most skilled in developing a sense of individuality.” (GA 107, 288 [1909]).

    These are merely labels of a race theory that Steiner first formulated in 1904 and then by 1910 he had structured it into a complex system that would increasingly define itself apart from theosophical positions.

    But even after his departure from theosophy, he never threw these ideas overboard, but once again reiterated them in 1923 while lecturing to the workers at the Goetheanum in a coarse, “popularized” form but without any revision in the essential content. The white race was now “the future race, the race that is spiritually creative.” (GA 349, 67 [1923]). (…)

    Along with his Theosophical “Social Darwinism,” Steiner formulated an ethnology, in which the vocabulary of “degenerate”, or “retarded”, or “future races” was not used “inadvertently”, but knowingly as the result of a systematic and sophisticated theory of evolution. Unlike many anthroposophists, I see no way to dispute this conclusion.”

    (Helmut Zander, _Anthroposophy in Germany_, Göttingen 2007, p. 631, 636)

  • #15
    Andreas Lichte

    @ Hollywood Tomfortas, #14

    I think your translation of Helmut Zander is great ! (in German: „Klasse!“)

    You may try it with fanatical Anthroposophists … heart attacks, hemorrhagic strokes, screaming tantrums … mmh, a judge might say that’s manslaughter

  • #16
    Jan Luiten

    @13,14,15
    Wauw, great entertainment, gentlemen. Much better then Laurel and Hardy.
    Hollywood Tomfortas, fantastic translation. But you forget the most important.
    The big Question Mark at the very end of it.

  • #17
    "Helmut Zander test program"

    @ Jan Luiten

    you are the first victim of the „Helmut Zander test program“:

    but I’m afraid you did the test of your own accord so no way to sue anybody …

  • #18
    Jan Luiten

    @Hollywood Tomfortas & Co.
    So I can’t sue you eh? Well that’s a terrible disappointment. But…I will take it as a man.
    Now I have a surprise for you. As chairman of the Committee that organizes the Contest of Famous Duos of the year 2010 I have the honor to inform you that you are right on time to take part in this contest. But I also have to tell you that there is a strong competition. Your fellow-competitors are:
    Poetin and Medvedev; Batman and Robin; Don Quichote and Sancho Panza. I wish you good luck.

  • #19
    Hollywood Tomfortas

    Jan,

    I was amazed and gratified to read your early comment above #3. I have made a translation of it into English (skipping the racial passages) which I would like to post on the Waldorf Critics Yahoo group addressed to Peter Staudenmaier. May I do so? You can read it below and make corrections.

    You see, as an American Anthroposophist, I have been dismayed at the way just about all of my fellow Anthros so fiercely despise and demonize Peter Staudenmaier for his outsider’s view of anthroposophy.

    And yet, because of my experience over the last 3 years with the Steiner blogs in German, especially the magnificent blog of Michael Eggert called Egoisten, I have realized that there are many younger European Anthros who do value and cherish Peter’s scholarship and even clamor to have his work translated into German and Dutch.

    I want to offer your views about him to the Waldorf Critics forum as a way of letting my fellow American Anthros know that European Anthros appreciate Peter’s work and do not demonize him.

    Thank you for what you have written. It is really a godsend to me!

    Here is what I have translated.

    ——————————

    This quote of Peter Staudenmaier addressing the Frankfurt Memorandum offers room for discussion/debate. He sometimes criticizes anthroposophy severely, but he advances this criticism objectively and with respect. It’s totally OK with me if scholars study, describe, explain and criticize Anthroposophy “from the outside.” It may very well be the best thing that can happen to us right now. The fact that it’s not all cheerleading and jumping for joy, but instead very critical — so much the better. Why? Because so many within the anthroposophical subculture are manifestly obstructing anthroposophy. The view of an outsider can make that obvious.

    For anyone who grows up in the anthroposophical subculture, it gets more and more difficult to correctly perceive the subculture with all its customs [traditions]. I myself do not work in an anthroposophical institution, nor were my parents anthroposophists. I did not attend a Waldorf school. I’m not even a member of the AS. Therefore, I probably have more distance.

    When Peter Staudenmaier says that it is difficult for anthroposophists to look at their own subculture, he is absolutely right. At this point then, outside “help” is necessary.

    (However, I must also mention that there are vast differences among the critics. You can hardly compare the level of Peter Staudenmaier with that of Andreas Lichte.)

    Personally, I am more and more convinced that we need a new beginning for anthroposophy.

    The changes in the AS move at a snail’s pace. The Anthroposophical subculture is riddled with sectarianism. A false conception of anthroposophy prevails within the anthroposophical subculture. So much work still to be done! Maybe we need a federation of free anthroposophists?

    For me, Anthroposophy is above all else a method and not a doctrine.

    An anthroposophist should not be a person who believes in Steiner, but someone who grasps the importance of the Anthroposophical method and who understands and values the results of this method. Through continuous research in the future more and more results will be added to the „body of knowledge“ of anthroposophy. We will then also see to what extent the results of Steiner’s research will remain standing or not.

    ———————-

    translated by Tom Mellett
    Los Angeles, California, USA

  • #20
    Paul

    @ Andreas Lichte Hollywood Tomfortas

    to get things clear:

    was Helmut Zander in favor of putting Steiner’s books on the index ?

    quote lichte, from #8:

    Dr. Helmut Zander was asked by the “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (BPjM) (”Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons”) to give his expertise. This is what he said about Rudolf Steiner’s racism, quote from the decision of the BPjM:

    “Der Bundesprüfstelle wurde zudem von einem Wissenschaftler der Berliner Humboldt-Universität, Dr. Helmut Zander, dessen Abhandlung „Anthroposophische Rassentheorie – Der Geist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte“ übersandt. Darin kommt der Autor zu der Schlussfolgerung, dass Steiners Theorie aus heutiger Sicht das Prädikat „rassistisch“ zu Recht trage, aufgrund der Abwertung von Rassen und Völkern und der Überhöhung der weißen Rasse.”

    my translation:

    “Furthermore, Dr. Helmut Zander, a scientist at the Humboldt-Universität Berlin submitted to the Bundesprüfstelle [BPjM] his treatise “Anthroposophische Rassentheorie – Der Geist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte” [„Anthroposophical Race Theory – The Path of the Spirit through Racial History“; my translation]. In this, Zander comes to the conclusion that Steiner’s theory is, from a present-day standpoint, justifiably be judged ‘racist’ given that it defames certain ‘races’ and peoples and glorifies the white ‘race’.”

  • #21
    Jan Luiten

    @Hollywood Tomfortas
    Thank you for your positive comment. I think the translation of the passages is correct, (once again a fantastic translation), so to me it ’s ok to bring it in the Yahoo group.
    You left out the racial passages. I think it is good that there will be no misunderstanding about how I think in this question. Peter Staudenmaier knows that my argumentation is founded on the theory of Albert Memmi. Sooner or later this debate has to be held.

    Do you have a link for me to the Yahoo group?

    Many thanks !

  • #22
    Hollywood Tomfortas

    @Jan

    Thank you for the permission. I also want to post it on the DC Improbable Science blog article that Thetis wrote.

    Yes, I took the racial passages out because you already covered them in your exchange with Peter S. on his Social-Ecology blog. I see that he has given you a very long response in the last few days.

    And as far as the debate goes, I agree. However, the debate must start within and among anthroposophists first. However, given the sectarian subculture that exists and rules, there is hardly any chance for discussion let alone debate. (You call it „subculture“; I call it a „cult mentality“)

    You can read all the messages here. Yahoo Groups have a good archive, so use the Search Box with keywords to search through the archives. In between so many great postings from Peter S. you will find a lot of argumentation, even more contentious than what happens here.

    In fact Andreas Lichte is so beautifully belligerent here that I would bestow on him the title of „Honorary American Waldorf Critic.“ 😉

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages

  • #23
  • #24
    Anthroposophy is a version of spiritual eugenics

    [Anthroposophy’s racial doctrines] „are built around a stratified framework of racial hierarchy and mapped onto a sweeping narrative of evolutionary progress“

    [Anthroposophy is] „a version of spiritual eugenics leading to the emergence of higher racial forms at the expense of lower racial forms“

    Peter Staudenmaier, „BETWEEN OCCULTISM AND FASCISM: ANTHROPOSOPHY AND THE POLITICS OF RACE AND NATION IN GERMANY AND ITALY, 1900-1945“, Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University, August 2010

  • #25
    Jan Luiten

    @Hollywood Tomfortas.
    About A.L.: I think that’s to much honor for him.
    He is permanently disqualifying himself as a critic and as a discussion partner.
    Furthermore he is a very naughty boy who should be punished by writing down 300 x „I am a very naughty boy and I will not use more than five nicknames a day“.

  • #26
    Andreas Lichte

    @ everybody & Hollywood Tomfortas #22

    this is how Jan Luiten introduced himself to Ruhrbarone:

    ………………………………………………….

    http://www.ruhrbarone.de/die-waldorfschulen-informieren/comment-page-1/#comment-37386

    #25 | J. Luiten sagt am 13. Dezember 2009 um 00:56

    Wie damals die alte Kräfte der Kirche Gallileo Gallileis Auffassung des Heliozentrismus nicht erkannten, so sind jetzt neo-reaktionäre Kräfte da die die Anthroposophie nicht erkennen und vernichten wollen, die festhalten an materialistischen Dogmen. Während dieses Leben hat Andreas Lichte gewählt ein Gegner der Anthroposophie zu sein im Dienste dieser alten Kräften, die Entwicklung der Geschellschaft hemmend.
    Ja, Menschen schick ihre Kinder in die stink-normale Staatsschule wie immer. Es hat uns zwei Weltkriege und Hitlertum geliefert.

    ………………………………………………….

    and this is how he was welcomed by Ruhrbarone author Arnold Voß:

    http://www.ruhrbarone.de/die-waldorfschulen-informieren/comment-page-1/#comment-37468

    #26 | Arnold Voss sagt am 14. Dezember 2009 um 13:42

    Herr Luiten, wenn es einen Grund gibt Waldorfschulen nicht zu besuchen bzw. seine Kinder vor dieser Art von geistiger Verwirrung zu schützen, dann ist er selten so klar und anschaulich formuliert worden wie in ihrem Kommentar.

    ………………………………………………….

    Congratulations to have hired Jan Luiten as a „Waldorf critic“!

    Jan Luiten will prove as a „Wunderwaffe“ against Waldorf schools!

  • #27
    Andreas Lichte

    @ Hollywood Tomfortas

    Jan Luiten shows what you call “cult mentality”:

    Rudolf Steiner = Galileo Galilei, see Luiten’s comment:

    http://www.ruhrbarone.de/die-waldorfschulen-informieren/comment-page-1/#comment-37386

    „(…) Wie damals die alte Kräfte der Kirche Gallileo Gallileis Auffassung des Heliozentrismus nicht erkannten, so sind jetzt neo-reaktionäre Kräfte da die die Anthroposophie nicht erkennen (…)“

    well that’s no news … you can find Anthroposophical Cult comments against Helmut Zander here:

    http://www.ruhrbarone.de/kampf-bis-zur-erleuchtung/

    „Kampf bis zur Erleuchtung – Lorenzo Ravagli und der Glaubenskrieg der Anthroposophie gegen Helmut Zander

    (…) „Autor: Wolfgang Dengler“ (…): „Nichts ist lebenssinn- und lebenskraftgebender als das Weltbild der Anthroposophie, das die Errungenschaften der Naturwissenschaft auf sinnlichem Gebiet voll anerkennt. Die Veränderung eines Weltbildes benötigt eben Jahrhunderte und erzeugt heftigste Widerstände, wie dies bei dem kopernikanischen Weltbild auch geschah.“ (…)

    Enjoy!

  • #28
    Jan Luiten

    @26
    Have I said nothing more?
    I must have been in a mild mood that day !
    Is the regular school system in Germany above all criticism?
    It would be very interesting to compare the German ( Dutch, English, American) school system with the Finnish school system. Why is the Finnish system so successful? ( This really is an open question, I am not making propaganda for Waldorf schools here).

    @27
    Yes, I think the comparison with Gallilei is a very good one. On the other hand comparisons will never be 100% valid. In both cases both thinkers are bringing something new into the world but are confronted with a dogmatic surrounding. The difference lays in the instruments they use. Gallilei the telescope (developed in Holland by the great Christiaan Huygens) and off course the human senses and Steiner the non-physical human senses. Everybody has these senses and can develop them. This is not a question of believing but of seeing , which is again a parallel between Gallilei and Steiner.

    I my opinion the Waldorf schools are a part of the what I call the “anthroposofical subculture”.
    What do I mean by that.
    In sociology a subculture is a group of people with a culture which differentiates them from the larger dominant culture to which they belong. A subculture deviates in several points from the dominant culture.
    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
    It is a neutral concept to indicate the culture of a certain group. In Germany you have the dominant German culture. The anthroposophical subculture deviates in certain points from that dominant culture. E.g. to celebrate Christmas is a part of the German culture. In the anthroposophical subculture Christmas could be celebrated with traditional folkloristic theatre plays and the use certain ornaments.
    As said before one should not mix up the anthroposophical subculture with anthroposophy itself. It will be necessary to examine the characteristics of this subculture. In my opinion these characteristics are in a way obstructing the further development of the anthroposophy. Anthroposophists have to learn to look in a far more objective way to their own subculture. For some reasons this is very tough. This reasons should also be a subject of examination.
    The Waldorf schools are also a part of this subculture. Again: you cannot say that the Waldorf schools ARE anthroposophy. In the Waldorf schools we thus find the same characteristics of the general subculture. When I criticize the anthroposophical subculture I am criticizing the Waldorf schools to.
    Apart from this there are off course special Waldorf problems.
    One of the anthroposophists I highly respect was Dieter Brüll. Dieter Brüll described himself as a paria within the anthroposofical subculture. Because of his criticism on parts of this subculture he was maneuvered to the edge of the scene and his works are therefore remained unknown.
    In his book “The Waldorf School and the Threefold structure, the embarrassing mandate: the risk of being an anthroposophical organization” he strongly criticizes the Bund der freien Waldorfschulen for imposing a model on the individual Waldorf schools not leaving room for this schools to develop themselves in a free way. The main problem here is a lack of consciousness for the threefold social order. See also about this problem Rudiger Iwan in an interview with süddeutsche.de
    http://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere/waldorfschulen-schueler-sind-keine-leeren-saecke-die-man-fuellt-1.44213-2

  • #29
    Andreas Lichte

    http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853#comment-8697

    …………………………………………………………….

    Andreas Lichte // Dec 27, 2010 at 12:09

    @ David Colquhoun [at „DC’s Improbable Science“]

    I completely agree with you, quote: “My main objection to Steiner is that he seems to have been a rather potty mystic. Anthroposophy, gnomes, “biodynamic” farming and so on are simply preposterous made-up junk.”

    Or as “krazykraut” put it:

    http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853#comment-8641

    “(…) This man [Steiner] wasn’t just a racist, he was a complete nut (…)”

    “Scholars” – like historians – have to avoid the topic of Steiner’s insanity since they would have immediately to stop working on Steiner: the only competent expert would be a psychiatrist.

  • #30
    Jan Luiten

    I have posted this reply on yahoo-groups

    Hello Peter
    Here you have some interesting opinons in the discussion about Steiner and anthroposophy.
    I think they will raise the level of the discussion substantially.
    Especially I would like to hear your opinon about the following:
    „“Scholars” – like historians – have to avoid the topic of Steiner’s insanity since they would have immediately to stop working on Steiner: the only competent expert would be a psychiatrist.“
    Do you agree with this statements? You find them here:

    http://www.ruhrbarone.de/waldorf-schools-rudolf-steiner%E2%80%99s-books-are-%E2%80%9Can-incitement-to-racial-hatred%E2%80%9D-says-bpjm/comment-page-1/#comment-69115

  • #31
    Hollywood Tomfortas

    @Jan #30

    Did you join the Waldorf Critics Yahoo group? I did not see any posting from you yet, but since it is your first one, that one always stays under moderation. I’m sure it will appear tomorrow. After that first one, your future posts will appear immediately.

    In the meantime, I made an introductory post about you just today
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/16444
    Title: Dutch Anthro not existentially threatened by Peter!

    Tom

  • #32
    Aldina

    Interesting read! I don’t know much about the Waldorf Schools or Rudolf Steiner’s teachings/philosophy. It does look like, based on the citations, that he is a racist in some regards. I think no school should be based solely on principles and ideas laid out by one person.
    I’m curious to know, if a board in England (or anywhere in Europe) declares a schools teachigns as too racist and dangerous to society-even a private institution-can that place be shut down?
    In a way that would be dangerous as well…

  • #33
    Andreas Lichte

    comment from „DC’s Improbable Science – Steiner Waldorf Schools Part 3. The problem of racism“:

    http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853#comment-8979

    ……………………………………………………………………………….

    Hollywood Tomfortas // Jan 4, 2011 at 23:10

    (…) I fully acknowledge the charge that Rudolf Steiner was a racist and taught racist doctrine.

    He is guilty as charged. In fact, not only do I acknowledge all the particulars of the racism charges, I even go farther and admit that I — as an anthroposophist for the last 34 years — can categorically state that racism in anthroposophy is not just INCIDENTAL to the doctrine; it is actually FUNDAMENTAL to the doctrine. Take away the racism, and you have no anthroposophy left. (…)

    Tom Mellett
    Los Angeles, CA“

  • #34
    anthroposophy and fascism

    „Rudolf Steiner was a true ideal precursor of the new Europe of Mussolini and Hitler. The aim of this essay has been to reclaim the spirit and the figure of this great modern German mystic for the movement – a movement not only political but spiritual – introduced into the world by the two parallel revolutions, the Fascist revolution and the National Socialist revolution, to which Steiner ideally belongs as a true predecessor and spiritual pioneer.“

    Ettore Martinoli, „Un preannunziatore della nuova Europa: Rudolf Steiner“, in: „La Vita Italiana“, June 1943, page 566

    more information on Ettore Martinoli:

    „anthroposophist spiritual racism: Martinoli

    by Prof. Peter Staudenmaier

    Ettore Martinoli (1895-1958) was a lawyer from Trieste and a prominent anthroposophist. He co-founded the Italian Anthroposophical Society in 1931 and was its Secretary General for many years. He vigorously promoted Steiner’s work throughout the Fascist period. Martinoli was also a dedicated Fascist from the very beginning, joining Mussolini’s movement in 1919. His career is a case study in the confluence of spiritual racism in theory and practice under Fascism (…)“

    continue: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/23166

  • #35
    Andreas Lichte

    „Hitler, Steiner, Mussolini – Anthroposophie und Faschismus, gestern und heute

    (…)

    »Rudolf Steiner war ein wahrhaft idealer Vorläufer des neuen Europa von Mussolini und Hitler. Ziel dieser Schrift war es, den Geist und die Figur dieses grossen, modernen, deutschen Mystikers für die Bewegung zu beanspruchen – eine Bewegung, die nicht nur politisch, sondern auch spirituell ist – eingeführt in die Welt von den zwei parallelen Revolutionen, der Faschistischen und der Nationalsozialistischen Revolution, denen Rudolf Steiner als echter Vorläufer und spiritueller Pionier in idealer Weise angehört.«

    So das Fazit von Ettore Martinolis Artikel „Ein Vorankünder des neuen Europa: Rudolf Steiner“, in dem er vor allem die perfekte Übereinstimmung zwischen Rudolf Steiners Denken und den grundlegendsten Tendenzen des Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus im politischen, sozialen, und spirituellen Feld betont. Martinoli berichtet auch, dass Rudolf Steiner in seiner Wiener Periode „als Anti-Semit wohlbekannt wurde“.

    Ettore Martinoli war eine der einflussreichsten Persönlichkeiten der italienischen Anthroposophie. Als Rechtsanwalt verantwortete er das Zustandekommen und Fortbestehen der „Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft Italiens“ [„Società Antroposofica d’Italia“], deren Sekretär er seit ihrer Gründung 1931 war.

    (…)“

    read more: http://www.ruhrbarone.de/hitler-steiner-mussolini-anthroposophie-und-faschismus-gestern-und-heute/

  • #36
    Andreas Lichte

    “Anthroposophie und Nationalsozialismus: ‘Die Waldorfschulen erziehen zur Volksgemeinschaft’

    (…) Anthroposophen arbeiteten in allen für sie wichtigen Praxisfeldern mit nationalsozialistischen Organisationen zusammen, im Überblick:

    – Waldorfschulen: „Das Motto der Waldorfbewegung im »Dritten Reich« lautete: »Die Waldorfschulen erziehen zur Volksgemeinschaft.«1 Ihrer Selbstdarstellung zufolge lieferte die anthroposophische Pädagogik einen wesentlichen Beitrag zum Aufbau des neuen Deutschlands durch »die Pflege des völkischen Gedankens und die Betonung des Wesens und der Aufgaben des deutschen Geistes« und stand damit »im Einklang mit der Grundgesinnung des nationalsozialistischen Staates«.2“3

    – Anthroposophische Medizin: „Die Vereinigung anthroposophischer Ärzte stellte eine Hauptstütze der NS-treuen »Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für eine Neue Deutsche Heilkunde dar«.“4

    – „Biologisch-dynamische“ Landwirtschaft: „1935 wurde der »Reichsverband für biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise« korporatives Mitglied der nationalsozialistischen »Deutschen Gesellschaft für Lebensreform« (Motto: »Die Weltanschauung der Deutschen Lebensreformbewegung ist der Nationalsozialismus«).“5 (…)

    Credits: Die Darstellung der Geschichte der Anthroposophie im Verhältnis zum Nationalsozialismus ist eine Kurzzusammenfassung der Forschung von Peter Staudenmaier, seit August 2011 Professor für „Modern German History“ an der Marquette University. Haupt-Quelle ist Peter Staudenmaiers Beitrag: „Der deutsche Geist am Scheideweg: Anthroposophen in Auseinandersetzung mit völkischer Bewegung und Nationalsozialismus“, in: Uwe Puschner/Clemens Vollnhals (Hrsg.), „Die völkisch-religiöse Bewegung im Nationalsozialismus. Eine Beziehungs- und Konfliktgeschichte“,Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2012. Die Darstellung wurde von Peter Staudenmaier durchgesehen.”

    zum vollständigen Artikel mit Quellenangaben: http://www.ruhrbarone.de/anthroposophie-und-nationalsozialismus-die-waldorfschulen-erziehen-zur-volksgemeinschaft/

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *