Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Among the 95 works Steiner published during his time in Weimar was a book on Nietzsche, which Staudenmaier makes a great deal of later in this article. This period comprises about a quarter of Steiner’s autobiography that Staudenmaier will make a big deal of in a follow-up piece. (See Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York, 1951. Chapters X to XXIII - chapters 10 through 23 of 38 total) deal with this period – pages 119 to 249 out of 358.) These were arguably very formative intellectual years, and would have taken only two words to include. Staudenmaier has repeatedly claimed that he is a true scholar and expert on anthroposophy (though he has backed off these claims recently). If he had read Steiner's autobiography before putting pen to paper for this “fair and balanced” (Staudenmaier's own words) study, he would also find that his next statement above factually incorrect: Steiner claims "he was able to see the spirit world” from early childhood, and not from age 36 as claimed above (though the phrase “and communicate with celestial beings" is a typical Staudenmaier slant and not Steiner's actual wording). This Steiner mentions very early in his autobiography . (Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York 1951, page 12. Speaking of himself as an 8 year old: “For me the reality of the spiritual world was as certain as that of the physical.”)

Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

In Staudenmaier's single-paragraph overview of Steiner's life before 1900 we are missing two words: “and Weimar.” Steiner's years in Vienna and Berlin are mentioned, but the seven years in Weimar are neglected. Apparently they don't fit the thesis, as Berlin and Vienna can be easily shown to be a hotbed of German nationalism and other discredited theories; however, provincial Weimar is somewhat difficult. Up to age 29 Steiner lived in or near Vienna, and at age 36 moved to Berlin. However, from age 29 to 36 Rudolf Steiner worked in Weimar at the Goethe Archives editing Goethe's scientific papers, as well as finishing his doctorate and publishing a total of 95 titles.

Steiner moved to Weimar in the autumn of 1890 and left for Berlin in early 1897. For a very concise overview of Steiner's activity during this time see Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, London 2000, pages 39 to 71. The summary of Steiner's written work from this period is on page 65. In addition to the many articles and the volumes of Goethe's scientific writings, Steiner wrote his doctoral thesis, published an expanded version as Truth and Science, wrote an epistemology, a book on Nietzsche and the book he considered to the end of his life to be his most important work: his Philosophie der Freiheit. Whether these books are inconsistent with Steiner's later “occult” work will be considered later in this piece. For a more in depth treatment of the period, see Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 192-272.

Examining Paragraph 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Who was Rudolf Steiner?
Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder. Born in 1861, Steiner grew up in a provincial Austrian town, the son of a mid-level civil servant. His intellectually formative years were spent in Vienna, capital of the aging Habsburg [sic]empire, and in Berlin. By all accounts an intense personality and a prolific writer and lecturer, Steiner dabbled in a number of unusual causes. At the age of 36, he reports, he underwent a profound spiritual transformation, after which he was able to see the spirit world and communicate with celestial beings. These ostensible supernatural powers are the origin of most anthroposophist beliefs and rituals. Steiner changed his mind on many topics in the course of his career; his early hostility toward Christianity, for example, gave way to a neo-christian version of spiritualism codified in anthroposophy. But interest in mysticism, occult legends and the esoteric was a constant throughout his life.

To the statement “Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder” I would like to point out that while the phrase attempts to impute that anthroposophists are quasi-religious by virtue of the fact that they generally have a reverential attitude toward their founder, it does not follow logically. That any group that has a reverential attitude towards its founder is not also thereby quasi-religious is evident when considering the attitude of many Americans towards the founders of their country. While often in many ways reverential, it does not make those Americans a quasi-religious group. And why does Mr. Staudenmaier employ the phrase “quasi-religious"? Are anthroposophists not religious enough for him? If Staudenmaier feels that anthroposophy is a religion, with Steiner as its prophet (or even God) it would be more honest to come out and say so.

Ernst Bloch's ramblings are worth quoting at some length. The following is from Bloch's central book, a three volume philosophical work titled “The Principle Of Hope” (Die Prinzip der Hoffunung). It serves to give a little insight into Bloch's thinking. I find it telling that Staudenmaier relies on such insightful writing as this to establish his case: "And let us not forget what second-rate clairvoyance achieves here. … At the peak of 'Knowledge of Higher Worlds' the occult journalist Rudolf Steiner established himself, a mediocrity in his own right. A mediocre, indeed unbearable curiosity, yet effective, as if mistletoe were still being broken off here, as if something shoddily druidical were fermenting, soaking, murmuring and chattering an newspaper. Whether the chatter and the low level are necessary for this kind of 'initiation' or occult activation it is difficult to say. There are a few, a very few, serious writings from the Steiner circle, for example Poppelbaum's biosophical study 'Man and Animal' and several chemical-astrological boldnesses with imitations of alchemy; but everywhere else the mere chorus of a hundred thousand fools predominates. Nevertheless there sometimes also appears a dash of mediumistic disposition, an atavistic capacity for parapsychic phenomena, above all for atavistic clairvoyance. There can be no doubt that such phenomena and such dispositions still exist, nor that they rose extremely high in characters like Blavatsky and the somnambulistic Steiner. Atavistic clairvoyance was linked as it were sub¬terraneously with mythic customs and cults, with world-pictures constructed on a different state of consciousness from that of today. Thus Rudolf Steiner was after all able to touch an elements and secret teachings which from the outside are almost closed to modern consciousness, however great its philosophical empathy. Sometimes types such as these, shallow mermaids or minotaurs of tripod and journalism at the same time such as Blavatsky or Rudolf Steiner, had in their consciousness a feedpipe from the unconscious, from the long-past, not-past. Or, like deep-sea fish, deformed and flattened, but still in a twilight form scarcely accessible to mythological research, old under-, inter- and hinter¬worlds rose putrefied to the surface."  

I wrote an article for the Waldorf Critics Observer about PLANS' stinging defeat in US Federal court.

On September 14 th, 2005 PLANS lost its seven-year old lawsuit attempting to have public-methods Waldorf Charter schools in two California school districts declared religious schools and shut down for violating the Constitutional separation of Church and State (known as the Establishment Clause, because it reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".)

The reason for the loss? In seven years, PLANS failed to submit sufficient evidence to substantiate the contention that Anthroposophy is a religion. The trial lasted 31 minutes. The judge, the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr., awarded the case to the school districts under Rule 52(c), meaning that the plaintiff, PLANS, failed to provide enough evidence to prevail. The result is that PLANS lost their lawsuit.

This is the culmination of PLANS' seven year farcical effort to have Anthroposophy declared a religion.

PLANS has blathered a lot of illogical nonsense over the years. The difference here is that in a court case, the rules of evidence are strict and fair. Under these rules, PLANS was completely unable to offer any evidence that Anthroposophy is a religion. Snell and Dugan may one day realize that the US Court system functions differently from the Internet. On the Internet you can make all sorts of wild allegations, and then insist that the people you slander bear the burden of proof in defending themselves. In court, such wild allegations must be substantiated by the person filing the suit, or they lose the case. PLANS lost.

In the final analysis,

Both the court case and the reaction by PLANS are typical. The court case revealed PLANS to be a fanatical, disorganized group with no clear arguments, and the press release following PLANS' stinging defeat showed an organization partially out of touch with reality. In actual fact, Anthroposophy is not a religion, a position that the court agreed with, based on the evidence presented. The individual members of PLANS (all 10 of them) may feel differently, but they had their day in court, and utterly failed to prove otherwise.

The real losers in this case are the children of the State of California. PLANS' baseless seven year crusade has cost taxpayers over $300,000 in legal fees, taking much-needed money away from programs that benefit students.

I have a few other Blogs out there. Most are mirrors of this one in some form or other.

• My main blog at my website
• Anthroposophy at weblogs.us
• Daniel at BraveJournal.com
• Thoghts on Anthroposophy at BlogSpot.com
• Daniel at BlogSpirit
• Anthroposophy at Bravewriting.com
• Daniel at LiveJournal.com
• Anthroposophy at Blog-City.com
• Daniel at 22blog.com
• Daniel at BlogDrive.com
• Daniel at LiveLogCity.com

Continuing my comments on the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'. The implication that anthroposophists attempt to hide their "highly esoteric doctrine" because they consider it only "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" seems laughable in light of the fact that nearly every Waldorf School sells Rudolf Steiner's highly esoteric books openly in their bookstores. Has Peter Staudenmaier ever actually visited a Waldorf School? In actual fact Bloch did not oppose anthroposophy "from the beginning." The book cited to this effect ( Heritage of our Time, in German Erbschaft der Zeit) was first published in 1935. (I should note that the essay that mentions anthroposophy was written around 1923 according to the book’s editor. However, to actually "oppose" anthroposophy requires publishing, speaking publicly, or otherwise undertaking action on the subject.) Anthroposophy was at that point about 35 years old, and Steiner was already 10 years dead. By indulging in such rhetorical flourishes, Staudenmaier undermines his credibility as a historian.

Moving on to the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'.

Peter Staudenmaier writes inParagraph 5: In light of this broad public exposure, it is perhaps surprising that the ideological underpinnings of anthroposophy are not better known. Anthroposophists themselves, however, view their highly esoteric doctrine as an "occult science" suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite. The very name "anthroposophy" suggests to many outsiders a humanist orientation. But anthroposophy is in fact a deeply anti-humanist worldview, which is why humanists like Ernst Bloch opposed it from the beginning.PS2 Its rejection of reason in favor of mystical experience, its subordination of human action to supernatural forces, and its thoroughly hierarchical model of spiritual development all mark anthroposophy as inimical to humanist values.

So let me summarize this absurd and illogical paragraph: Anthroposophists are doing a lot of work that is getting positive publicity in the world, but their evil ideology is somehow overlooked. Further, this evil ideology, this "highly esoteric doctrine" they consider "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" (note the classic leftist tactic of decrying elitism). And even their name is misleading, suggesting humanism when in fact, because one Ernst Bloch "opposed it from the beginning," it must not be. And finally, because Peter Staudenmaier has now labeled it anti-reason, pro mystical experiential, subordinating of human action to supernatural forces, and hierarchical (without having offered any examples or even citations of primary of secondary sources to support these allegations) it must be "inimical to humanist values." Or the even shorter version: Ernst Bloch didn't like it, I called it names, and you must consider it evil. This type of writing seems more reminiscent of Pravda under Stalin than serious historical scholarship. (Pravda was the state-run party newspaper of the U.S.S.R. Under Stalin it published raving denunciations of those targeted by the state for elimination. Their supposed crimes were described in lurid detail. Mostly these crimes were fabricated to create the illusion of justice, though few people in or outside the country believed these accusations, either at the time or since.)

Next up is the fourth paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophyand Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier's writes in Paragraph 4: Organized anthroposophist groups are often best known through their far-flung network of public institutions. The most popular of these is probably the Waldorf school movement, with several hundred branches worldwide, followed by the biodynamic agriculture movement, which is especially active in Germany and the United States. Other well-known anthroposophist projects include Weleda cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and the Demeter brand of health food products. The new age Findhorn community in Scotland also has a strong anthroposophist component. Anthroposophists played an important role in the formation of the German Greens, and Germany's current Interior Minister, Otto Schily, one of the most prominent founders of the Greens, is an anthroposophist.

This paragraph attempts to establish that Anthroposophy is a movement that is, by implication, centralized, organized, and everywhere. "Organized groups... [have a] far-flung network of public institutions." Next the Waldorf School movement is mentioned. One would gather from this that a network of Waldorf Schools is an organized public institution of some unmentioned anthroposophist group. Actually, most Waldorf schools are independent and self-governing (many of the European Waldorf schools even have the word "Free" in their name to indicate this). A Waldorf School, like most anthroposophical initiatives, is a grassroots organization, usually founded by a group of parents, and in every legal and moral way independent of any outside hierarchical control. In fact, every component of the "far-flung network of public institutions" mentioned above is legally independent of all the others. This is true all over the world, and not just in the US. Just about every Waldorf School is a legally independent nonprofit institution. Exceptions include the few US charter schools based on Waldorf methods. Many of these alleged dangerous anthroposophical initiatives do exactly the same thing that Peter Staudenmaier also spends his time at: they are organized grass-roots social initiatives. But rather than having Karl Marx as their ideological inspirer, they have Rudolf Steiner, which seems to bother our author considerably. By naming all these initiatives Staudenmaier inadvertently confers quite a bit of praise on the accomplishments of various anthroposophists, though doubtless it was not his intention. It is also an attempt to link all these initiatives. Are the very real accomplishments of the German Green Party now somehow worthless if one of its founders happens to be an anthroposophist and a few other misguided anthroposophists happen to have been Nazis?

The concept of Sub Races is related to Root Races, in that Sub Races are a subdivision of Root Races. In Theosophy there are seven Sub Races for each Root Race. Steiner maintained the structure, but renamed the Root Races "Epochs" and the Sub-Races "Cultural Epochs" and specifically de-emphasized the racial aspects. In 1908 Steiner said:

"When people speak of races today they do so in a way that is no longer quite correct; in theosophical literature, too, great mistakes are made on this subject ... Even in regard to present humanity, for example, it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of races. In the true sense of the word this development of the races applies only to the Atlantean epoch ... thus everything that exists today in connection with the [different] races are relics of the differentiation that took place in Atlantean times. We can still speak of races, but only in the sense that the real concept of race is losing its validity."

Steiner, Rudolf. Universe, Earth and Man (GA 105), London 1987, lecture of 16 August 1908. Steiner:

"For this reason we speak of ages of culture in contra-distinction to races. All that is connected with the idea of race is still a relic of the epoch preceding our own, namely the Atlantean. We are now living in the period of cultural ages ... Today the idea of culture has superseded the idea of race. Hence we speak of the ancient Indian culture, of which the culture announced to us in the Vedas is only an echo. The ancient and sacred Indian culture was the first dawn of post-Atlantean civilization; it followed immediately upon the Atlantean epoch."

Steiner, Rudolf. The Apocalypse of St John (GA 104), London 1977, lecture of 20 June 1908. Explaining the issue at length in 1909, when he was still the General Secretary of the German section of the Theosophical Society in Germany, Steiner said:

"If we go back beyond the Atlantean catastrophe, we see how human races were prepared. In the ancient Atlantean age, human beings were grouped according to external bodily characteristics even more so than in our time. The races we distinguish today are merely vestiges of these significant differences between human beings in ancient Atlantis. The concept of races I only fully applicable to Atlantis. Because we are dealing with the real evolution of humanity, we [theosophists] have therefore never used this concept of race in its original meaning. Thus, we do not speak of an Indian race, a Persian race, and so on, because it is no longer true or proper to do so. Instead, we speak of an Indian, a Persian, and other periods of civilization. And it would make no sense at all to say that in our time a sixth "race" is being prepared. Though remnants of ancient Atlantean differences, of ancient Atlantean group-soulness, still exist and the division into races is still in effect, what is being prepared for the sixth epoch is precisely the stripping away of race. That is essentially what is happening. Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character. That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races, and each of these root races was divided into seven sub-races. These seven periods were said to repeat in a cycle so that one could always speak of seven races and seven sub-races. However, we must get beyond the illness of childhood and clearly understand that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time."

Rudolf Steiner. The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1990. Pages 12-13. Lecture of December 4th, 1909.