Anthroposophy

Thoughts and considerations on life, the universe and anthroposophy by Daniel Hindes. Updated occasionally, when the spirit moves me.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 65


Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 21of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists today often attempt to excuse or explain away such outrageous utterances by contending that Steiner was merely a product of his times. This apologia is utterly unconvincing. First, Steiner claimed for himself an unprecedented degree of spiritual enlightenment which, by his own account, completely transcended his own time and place; he also claimed, and anthroposophists believe that he had, detailed knowledge of the distant future. Second, this argument ignores the many dedicated members of Steiner's generation who actively opposed racism and ethnocentrism. Third, and most telling, anthroposophists continue to repeat Steiner's racist nonsense to this day.


The apologia may not convince Staudenmaier, it is also virtually non-existant, and unnecessary; Steiner did not hold any view remotely resembling the ones here attributed to him. We can only wonder what counterargument to his blatant misrepresentations Peter Staudenmaier would be willing to entertain. It is little wonder that anthroposophists are unwilling to stand by and see Steiner's record of struggle for equality being maligned and his work towards racial equality turned into its opposite. It appears Peter Staudenmaier is unwilling to consider even the theoretical possibility that an argument counter to his thesis might have any validity; they are all apologias. Going further into the problems with Peter Staudenmaier's objections, Steiner was generally quite modest about his spiritual enlightenment. When he spoke about his abilities, it was usually in the third person, as in “when the initiate has reached the fourth stage of enlightenment, he is able to see...” and did not specify which stage he felt he had reached. Nor did he claim that his knowledge transcended time and space. And Steiner's indications about the future were in the most general terms, and are not detailed at all. The mere fact that Steiner spoke of events the he felt likely to happen in the future seems to bother Peter Staudenmaier. Steiner's statements are for the most part the equivalent of saying today that bioengineering will play a role in the future.

Finally, Peter Staudenmaier will try to build an entire case for the racism of present-day anthroposophists on a few examples below, attempting to characterize a movement of some half a million people by the actions of at most a few dozen black sheep. Yet even here it is necessary for him to mischaracterize events and misrepresent the actual facts.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 64


Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 20 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

But the worst insult, from an anthroposophical point of view, is Steiner's dictum that people of color can't develop spiritually on their own; they must either be "educated" by whites or reincarnated in white skin. Europeans, in contrast, are the most highly developed humans. Indeed " Europe has always been the origin of all human development." For Steiner and for Anthroposophy, there is no doubt that "whites are the ones who develop humanity in themselves. [ . . . ] The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race." (Footnote: Steiner quoted in ibid., p. 128.)


Once again we have a collection of short quotes strung together for effect, without any sort of context. Peter Staudenmaier writes confidently of the conclusions that we should draw from his arrangement. While doubtless effective polemic, this is not scholarship by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it in anyway resemble Rudolf Steiner's actual thought. And again, Peter Staudenmaier is doubtless faithful to Geden’s presentation. What he has not done is any critical examination of whether Geden accurately represents Rudolf Steiner.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 62


Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 19 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner propagated a host of racist myths about "negroes." He taught that black people are sensual, instinct-driven, primitive creatures, ruled by their brainstem. He denounced the immigration of blacks to Europe as "terrible," "brutal," "dreadful," and decried its effects on "blood and race." He warned that white women shouldn't read "negro novels" during pregnancy, otherwise they'd have "mulatto children." In 1922 he declared, "The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing but a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe." (Footnote: All quotes from Steiner as cited in Oliver Geden, Rechte ökologie, Berlin 1996, p. 127, 130, and 132. Steiner's typical remarks on Asian stupidity, French decadence, and Slavic primitiveness are of similar caliber.)


First to the footnote: The statement that blacks do not belong in Europe also has a specific context. It was made in at least two places in the complete works, and always referred to the French colonial troops, conscripted in the French colonies and made to fight on the French side of the First World War. These troops were then used in the occupation of the Ruhr around the time that Steiner made these statements. The German public at large was up in arms about the issue. What Steiner clearly meant was that it was not proper for Africans to be impressed into service in foreign European wars. Steiner did not imply that a black person who that wanted to come to Europe of his or her own free will ought not to.

These single-word quotes that Peter Staudenmaier found in Geden attributed to Steiner are doubtless accurate in the narrowest technical sense. That is, the word doubtless occurs in the place stated. Lost is any meaningful context. Peter Staudenmaier appears confident that he, following Geden, is fair and accurate. I submit that an analysis of Steiner’s original statements does not bear this out. The problems are deeper than the mere fact that Peter Staudenmaier has translated Steiner’s reference to black people as “Negroes” using a deliberately archaic formulation that does not reflect the fact that Steiner was simply using the universally accepted terms of his day.

And Peter Staudenmaier has again cited a secondary source. We have a bunch of disturbing single-word “quotes” - direct quotes attributed to Rudolf Steiner himself. Beyond the problem that Steiner did not speak of “Negroes” (for the simple reason that Steiner spoke German and not English) an objective reader wanting to examine the context is prevented by the fact that they are extracted from a secondary source with no reference to the original sources. Further, there is no indication that Peter Staudenmaier has investigated the context himself. Instead he presents single words plucked almost at random and arranged to suit his thesis. This is simple character assassination, not scholarship.

Friday, August 26, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 61


Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 18 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

The fourth root race which emerged between the Lemurians and the Aryans were the inhabitants of the lost continent of Atlantis, the existence of which anthroposophists take as literal fact. Direct descendants of the Atlanteans include the Japanese, Mongolians, and Eskimos. Steiner also believed that each people or Volk has its own "ethereal aura" which corresponds to its geographic homeland, as well as its own "Volksgeist" or national spirit, an archangel that provides spiritual leadership to its respective people.


In anthroposophical literature “Atlantis” is the period of time in human development that ended with the end of last great Ice Age about 10000 years ago. Yes, “Atlantis” is primarily a period of time, like “the Romans”. It is also a location. As to descendants, everyone alive today is a descendant of both the Lemurians and the Atlanteans: the Europeans no less than the Japanese, Mongolians and Eskimos.

Steiner did not tie racial characteristics to geographic “homelands”, nor has Mr. Peter Staudenmaier offered any citation as to where he thinks Steiner might have done so. Bold assertions appear sufficient for his purposes.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 60

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.


Rudolf Steiner's use of the word "Aryan" is amazingly broad, as it includes all who "comprise present-day civilized humanity" a definition that includes at the very least the Chinese, Burmese, Arab, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Indian and Tibetan civilizations. Perhaps that is why Steiner referred to them as "the so-called Aryans." The terms "Aryan" and "root races" Steiner inherited from Blavatsky, but he was well aware that he was using the term very differently than most others of the time. Shortly thereafter he replaced the words for the time periods, referring to root races as Epochs and the Epoch after Atlantis the Post-Atlantean Epoch. Steiner never revised these early articles after their publication. Had he done so, it would have been specifically to change this phrasing, as he had done with other of his early works. They were only published in book form 10 years after his death.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 59

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In his footnote, Peter Staudenmaier cites Rudolf Steiner's writing to support his contention. Here's what Steiner says on page 32 of Aus der Akasha-Chronik. This English translation taken from the online Rudolf Steiner eLib and Archive where the reader can find the whole book.


"The ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has disappeared, the main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia. In theosophical writings they are called the Lemurians. After they had passed through various stages of development the greatest part of them declined. These became stunted men, whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable of further development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed.

Later, something similar again took place. The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven. One always arises from another in the manner just indicated with respect to the Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are quite different from those of the preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it."

The key phrase in German is:

"Er wurde zu verkümmerten Menschen, deren Nachkommen heute noch als sogenannte wilde Völker gewisse Teile der Erde bewohnen."

I would translate this as:

"These languished, and their descendants inhabit certain parts of the earth as the so-called wild peoples to this day."

The word "verkümmerten" is the adjectival form of the intransitive verb "verkümmern." In the dictionary it is defined as: of growth: to become stunted; of muscles: to atrophy; of plants or talents: to wither, wilt; of people: to languish (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch, Berlin 1996, p. 1396). I feel that the adjective "languish" best fits the meaning of the original, though it is difficult to work into the flow of an the English. In German you can "become languish people" but in English it doesn't work. So as a translator, you either have to drop the "become" ("wurde zu") because it is implicit in the activity of languishing, or you keep the word "become" and go for a more active adjective. The translator, one Karl E. Zimmer, opted for the phrasing "became stunted men," which I disagree with.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Rudolf Steiner and the Great War

Journalist Robert Fisk was interviewed in The Progressive recently (June 2005) about Iraq . One paragraph in particular caught my attention.

"My father was a soldier in the First World War. When he died at the age of 93 in 1992, I inherited his campaign medal, on the back of which was written "The great war for civilization." In the 17 months that followed the Great War, the victorious powers created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, and most of the Middle East. I've spent my professional career watching the people on these borders burn – in Belfast, in Sarajevo, Baghdad, Beirut, across the Middle East."

It is claimed by opponents that Rudolf Steiner objected to the course and outcome of the First World War for petty Geman nationalistic reasons. This is completely mistaken. Steiner did have objections, but he was not German (he was Austrian, and later a naturalized Swiss citizen) and was not a nationalist. Rather, he was extremely far-sighted about the probable long-term results of the peace, and did everything he could to prevent the disaster. In the end he accomplished little in this area, but the motive for his efforts has been egregiously misrepresented. He did not want short-term benefits for Germany. He was, as usual, concerned with the long-term well-being of all humanity. Reading Rudolf Steiner's statements from this period makes this very clear. It is only those who are not familiar with Steiner's own work who could be fooled into thinking that Steiner was a German nationalist.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 58

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The statement that aboriginal peoples are devolving into apes I find nowhere in Peter Staudenmaier's cited source (which I have printed in its entirety below in my comments on Peter Staudenmaier's footnote 8) and is completely foreign to Steiner's Anthroposophy. Steiner's actual statement is: "These [the declining remnants of the Lemurian civilization] languished, and their descendants inhabit certain parts of the earth as the so-called wild peoples to this day." There is nothing about apes. Even Peter Staudenmaier's use of the word "degenerate" is a mistranslation, as we have seen. "Verfall" means "degeneration" only in biological contexts. When speaking of cultures or civilizations, it means "decline." Steiner did not say that they physically degenerated; he said that their culture declined.

In this paragraph we have here another fabrication and a mistranslation. Of course this is really the only way to make Steiner into a racist, but it is sad to see it being done so deliberately here.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 57

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner, a cosmopolitan humanist renowned for his calls for a universal brotherhood of man and the overcoming of racial and ethnic prejudice, is here depicted on the flimsiest pretenses as a heartless spiritualistic racist. Steiner deplored the treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans, yet a comment he made explaining their genetic susceptibility to diseases – a point today well established – is here offered as evidence of his callous disregard for their suffering and even overt racism. The quote offered here is greatly helped by some context. Steiner wrote:


"The Native American population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans, but because the Native American population had to acquire such forces as lead to their dying out."* 

This sentence does not make a lot of sense on its own. It is part of a larger thought that Steiner expressed over several pages on how the geography of the earth influenced the formation of racial characteristics in past epochs. (In the present time, indeed for the last 10,000 years, the task of humanity has been to overcome racial divisions, according to Rudolf Steiner. ) In the west, said Steiner, the forces that lead to the overcoming of the influence of racial characteristics are strongest, and this he tied to the physical weakness behind the death of so many Native Americans. Though not explicitly mentioned in this context, this weakness was immunological, as research from the last 40 years has indicated. Steiner strongly deplored the behavior of the Europeans towards the Native Americans, but the simple fact remains that most of the inhabitants of the Americas in 1491 would not have survived the contact with Europe even if not a single one as murdered directly at the hands of a white man. Steiner intuited this even though the science of his day had no concepts to express why.


* Translation by the author. In the original:  


"Nicht etwa deshalb, weil es den Europäern gefallen hat, ist die indianische Bevölkerung ausgestorben, sondern weil die indianische Bevölkerung die Kräfte erwerben mußte, die sie zum aussterben führten."

Steiner, Rudolf. Die Mission Einzelner Volksseelen. Dornach: Verlag der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1962. (GA 121, page 75).

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 56

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 17of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner didn't shy away from describing the fate of those left behind by the forward march of racial and spiritual progress. He taught that these unfortunates would "degenerate" and eventually die out. Like his teacher Madame Blavatsky, Steiner rejected the notion that Native Americans, for example, were nearly exterminated by the actions of European settlers. Instead he held that Indians are "dying out of their own nature." Steiner also taught that "lower races" of humans are closer to animals than to "higher races" of humans. Aboriginal peoples, according to Anthroposophy, are descended from the already "degenerate" remnants of the third root race, the Lemurians, and are devolving into apes. Steiner referred to them as "stunted humans whose progeny, the so-called wild peoples, inhabit certain parts of the earth today." (Footnote: Rudolf Steiner, Aus der Akasha-Chronik, Basel 1955, p. 32.)


This straw man, an unrecognizable Steiner, is further abused here, relegated to a pupil of Blavatsky who allegedly promulgated every nasty thing she ever wrote. Steiner's relationship to Blavatsky is a complex subject, but while many notice at a superficial glance that there are indeed similarities, a simple teacher-pupil relationship posited from their chronological succession does not find support in any in-depth investigation.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 55

Having set up the claim with a number of misrepresentations and some fabricated source material, Peter Staudenmaier then concludes: "The affinities with Nazi discourse are unmistakable." This is hardly surprising, and simply a sad indication of the level of Peter Staudenmaier's scholarship.

It is not in the least surprising that Peter Staudenmaier would rely on Treher as a source. Treher's self-published attempt at retroactively psychologizing both Hitler and Steiner in one volume was not taken seriously in 1966 (hence its failure to find a publisher) and is no more convincing today. The supposition that concentration camps are the logical culmination of Rudolf Steiner's life work is one of the vilest perversions of everything that Steiner stood for that I have yet encountered.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 54

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 16 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

The affinities with Nazi discourse are unmistakable. Wolfgang Treher makes a convincing case that Steiner's racial theories, especially the repeated scheme of a small minority evolving further while a large mass declines, bear striking similarities even in detail to Hitler's own theories. He concludes: "Concentration camps, slave labor and the murder of Jews constitute a praxis whose key is perhaps to be found in the 'theories' of Rudolf Steiner." (Wolfgang Treher, Hitler Steiner Schreber, Emmingden 1966, p. 70)


Wolfgang Treher's “important” work was considered so scholarly that it was unable to find a publisher, so it was self-published by the author. That Peter Staudenmaier finds it so compelling is an indication of the degree of critical thinking he brings to his investigation. Treher's thesis is that both Steiner and Hitler suffered from schizophrenia, that a mania, a physiological disturbance was at the root of both of their worldviews. Like Peter Staudenmaier, Treher admits he is uninterested in understanding Steiner's views; they are sufficiently odd to him to automatically indicate mental illness. According to Treher, the onset of Steiner's psychosis started already when Steiner wrote his Ph.D. thesis in philosophy. Steiner tackled one of the oldest problems in philosophy: epistemology, or how the thinking mind comes to terms with outer reality. Treher takes this as evidence of schizophrenia – a split in Steiner's mind between reality and delusion. This conclusion, by someone who admittedly never read the work in question, is mind-bogglingly moronic. Perhaps this is the reason why no publisher would touch it. Further "evidence" is demonstrated by a statement by a friend of Steiner's that once Steiner started lecturing on Theosophy, he was "changed" and no longer had time for old friends. This supposedly proves that Steiner was a full-blown schizophrenic the moment he started lecturing on esoteric subjects. If Peter Staudenmaier can find Treher "incisive" this can only be because he is either so predisposed to believing anything negative that he finds about Steiner as to completely overlook Treher's considerable problems, or he knows of this book only by reputation among anti-anthroposophist writers, and has not actually read it himself. I suspect the latter, since none of Treher's points are mentioned in the biographical overview of Steiner offered by Peter Staudenmaier.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 53


Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 15 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism: :

Anthroposophy's promotion of this ridiculous doctrine is disturbing enough. But it is compounded by Steiner's further claim that—in yet another remarkable coincidence—the most advanced group within the Aryan root race is currently the nordic-germanic sub-race. Above all, Anthroposophy's conception of spiritual development is inextricable from its evolutionary narrative of racial decline and racial advance: a select few enlightened members evolve into a new "race" while their spiritually inferior neighbors degenerate. Anthroposophy is structured around a hierarchy of biological and psychological as well as "spiritual" capacities and characteristics, all of them correlated to race.


So first it is claimed that Anthroposophy promotes the discredited idea of an Aryan race. This turns out to be untrue – based on a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the source material combined with a willful ignorance of the historical context. Now it is claimed anthroposophists believe the nordic-germanic sub-race to be the most advanced within the Aryan root race. This cannot even be called a misunderstanding; Steiner has not combined the words “nordic” or “germanic” with “sub-race” anywhere. I repeat, there is no such phrase in as the “nordic-germanic sub-race“ anywhere in Steiner's complete works. There are a few references to nordic-germanic mythology, and a few to nordic-germanic peoples, but nowhere is there such a sub-race.(Steiner had long since discarded the use of the term 'sub-race'; it is nowhere in the book Peter Staudenmaier cites.) Nor does such a sub-race exist anywhere in Blavatsky's work. This then culminates in Peter Staudenmaier's claim that anthroposophists believe in some sort of nordic-germanic superiority. Given that the nordic-germanic sub-race doesn't exist, it is not surprising that this, too, is nowhere present in any of Steiner’s work. And it certainly is not in Steiner's book The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls, where we hear him praise the importance of all races in human development and tell his listeners that they will reincarnate in every race. The description in the above paragraph can only be characterized as a complete fabrication. And this is the only way to make a racist out of Steiner: to fabricate quotes.

Thus the "narrative" of racial decline and advance is actually a description of cultural progression. Mr. Peter Staudenmaier has completely misunderstood his source material, or more likely limited himself to a very narrow range of secondary material that misrepresents the source material, and this, combined with a bit of imagination and a determination to prove his polemical point at all costs has resulted in this unrecognizable presentation of Steiner and Anthroposophy. The claim that all Anthroposophy is structured around a biological hierarchy correlated to so-called spiritual capacities and characteristics, and that this is correlated to race, is simply indefensible. Indeed, it can only be made by making up racist beliefs, beliefs nowhere evident in any of Steiner's work. And of course Peter Staudenmaier makes the claim without any sort of support in the form of citations from primary source material.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 52

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.


Stating that anthroposophists use the term “Aryan race” to this day is mistaken, and reveals an utter ignorance of all subsequent anthroposophical literature and a complete lack of familiarity with current anthroposophical discourse. Anthroposophy was barely three years old when Steiner dropped the use of the term "Aryan" as misleading, and the number of anthroposophists at that point was small. Since that time it has been universally referred to as the Post-Atlantean Epoch. The smaller epochs are named after the culture (culture, not race) that is considered most prominent during that era. However, it is explicitly clear that these are not the only cultures of importance during that era. As Steiner was quoted as saying above, every culture is an important part of the whole, just as every individual is an important part of the whole of humanity. The present 5 th Post-Atlantean Cultural Epoch is most frequently referred to only as “the 5 th Post-Atlantean Cultural Epoch.”* It has also been called, in numerous places, the Anglo-Germanic, after the dominant cultural trends of our time. I have not found a single reference to it being called the “nordic-germanic sub-race” in Steiner's works or in subsequent literature. In fact Peter Staudenmaier has not listed any reference for this alleged fact; it is stands as a fabrication. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is necessary to fabricate source material to make a case against Anthroposophy, a thoroughly cosmopolitan and progressively humanistic philosophy.


Peter Staudenmaier is clearly well versed in the literature of race and European racism. His explanation of race as a social construct is commonly accepted, and whether race has any scientific meaning has also been debated at quite some length, and the debate itself summarized numerous times. The history of "the Aryan Race" as an idea has been researched quite thoroughly (See among others Mosse, George. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1978, especially pages 39-45.)and Peter Staudenmaier has cited several excellent books on the subject. What he has failed to do is properly understand Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy before painting them racist with broad strokes.


* Among literally thousands of examples:

"We know that since the great Atlantean catastrophe… there have been five great epochs of civilization. We designate these as the ancient Indian, the ancient Persian, the Egypto-Chaldean, the Greco-Latin, and the epoch we presently live in."

Steiner, Rudolf. The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1990. Page 7.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 51

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

So although Rudolf Steiner did employ the term 'Root Race' as a technical designation for periods of time well know to Theosophical audiences in a few of his earlier works, Steiner did not share the Theosophical understanding of the meaning of the term, and specifically rejected it in favor of a more appropriate term.

Why did Blavatsky name the current Root Race “Aryan”? The word "Aryan" was originally a linguistic term for all languages in the Indo-European family. (For a concise overview, see: Mosse, George. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1978, especially pages 39-40.) It has nothing to do with racial characteristics. The term was borrowed by racists in the 19th Century, and by the end of the Nazi era had completely lost its original linguistic meaning, such that even linguists no longer use it. By 1906 Steiner had renamed the Theosophical "Aryan" epoch (which is described as lasting 15,120 years and starting about 10,000 years ago) the "Post-Atlantean," as he noticed that the word "Aryan" bore less and less its original meaning. Only in older documents (such as Cosmic Memory, from 1904) will you find that term “Aryan” used, and it is good to keep the historical context and the changing meaning of linguistic terms in mind. I think it is historically ignorant to call all 19th Century linguists who used the term racist; and likewise its use in most early Theosophical literature was not intended racially.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 50

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Already as early as 1906, just four years after starting his work as an independent teacher in the context of the Theosophical Society, Rudolf Steiner stated publicly the term 'Root Race' was a misnomer.* By the time he had come to this conclusion, Steiner had already written a number of articles and given numerous lectures employing the term, and to this day they are republished with the term 'Root Race' unaltered. Most editions have an introductory note about the possibly confusing issue of inconsistent terminology. Steiner did rework some of his earlier texts and changed the terms, but he did not update all his writing this way. (One prominent example is the book Cosmic Memory, which is a collection of Rudolf Steiner's early writings on Atlantis and Lemuria, initially published in serial form in the periodical "Lucifer". Theosophical terminology, including the term 'Root Race' is present throughout, and Steiner never revised the volume during his lifetime, and it wasn't published as a book until 10 years after his death.) Most scholars of Steiner consider his thought and the development of his concepts to be consistent even as the terminology changed. In fact Steiner deliberately and continually employed varying terms in order to force his listeners to focus on his concepts rather than his terminology.

* 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 is 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 4 th, 1909.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 49

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In addition, Rudolf Steiner's conception of “Root Races” differed in a number of important ways, particularly concerning of the nature of the time period that comprises the present 'Root Race' and its constituent 'Sub-Races'. Whereas Blavatsky really did consider the racial aspects of the time-division to be of importance, Steiner saw the defining characteristics of these time periods of time to be the cultural phenomenon that occurred and the cultural achievements of the people's living in them. Thus to Steiner, calling the time periods and their cultural achievements 'Root Races' and 'Sub-Races' appeared to be mistaken. Steiner said :


“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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 48

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The words “Root Races” (Würzelrassen) in Steiner's very early theosophical work aren't actually about race in the racial sense at all. When Rudolf Steiner was searching for an audience around turn of the century the only group he found that was in anyway interested in hearing in depth about the spirit and about spiritual matters were members of the Theosophical Society.* As a consequence, when speaking to these Theosophists Rudolf Steiner would employ terms familiar to them in order to convey the results of his own spiritual research.** Rudolf Steiner, who was an eminent scholar and thoroughly familiar with many areas of inquiry, had also read Blavatsky and was quite familiar with her work. His was not an uncritical take, and he once wrote privately that Blavatsky's work contained the highest spiritual truths mixed with the greatest nonsense***. Steiner of course admired certain aspects of Blavatsky's character and some of the things she was able to accomplish****, but his was not an uncritical admiration nor was he in complete agreement with all of her thoughts and views. But Steiner did use the terminology that Blavatsky had established in his early esoteric works. As his own work matured Rudolf Steiner moved away from more and more of Blavatsky's terminology, preferring to coin his own terms in German. The very first term that Steiner decided was inappropriate was the term 'Root Race'.*****

* "If I may once again introduce a personal note. I had to find a suitable opportunity on which to build. One could not simply crash in on our civilization with the spiritual world." Rudolf Steiner. The Anthroposophic Movement. Bristol, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993. Page 22.

" There was now no longer any reason why I should not bring forward this spiritual knowledge in my own way before the theosophical public, which was at first the only audience that entered without restriction into a knowledge of the spirit."

Steiner, Rudolf. The Course of My Life. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1951. Pages 297-298.

** “My first work of lecturing within the circles which grew out of the Theosophical Movement had to he planned according to the temper of mind of the groups. Theosophical literature had been read there, and people were used to certain forms of expression. I had to retain these if I wished to be understood. But with the lapse of time and the progress of the work I was able gradually to pursue my own course, even in the forms of expression used.” Rudolf Steiner. The Story of My Life. London: Anthroposophical Publishing Co., 1928. Page 313.

*** Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925 . New York: Rudolf Steiner Press 1988. Pages 17-18. He repeated this characterization publicly 20 years later in a lecture on June 10 th, 1923:

"In short, Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine is a peculiar book: great truths side by side with terrible rubbish." Rudolf Steiner. The Anthroposophic Movement. Bristol, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993. Page 23.

**** For an example of the high regard that Steiner nonetheless had for Blavatsky, see pages 61 to 63 of Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925. New York: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1988.

***** 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.

Anthroposophy & Ecofascism 47

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 14 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner asserted that root races follow one another in chronological succession over epochs lasting hundreds of thousands of years, and each root race is further divided into sub-races which are also arranged hierarchically. By chance, as it were, the root race which happened to be paramount at the time Steiner made these momentous discoveries was the Aryan race, a term which anthroposophists use to this day. All racial categories are purely social constructs lacking any scientific meaning, but the notion of an Aryan race is an especially preposterous invention. A favorite of reactionaries in the early years of the twentieth century, the Aryan concept was based on a conflation of linguistic and biological terminology backed up by spurious "research." In other words, it was a complete fabrication which served only to provide a pseudo-scholarly veneer to racist fantasies.


Aside from the fact that in the anthroposophical world-conception the periods of time described by the term "root races" are tens of thousands of years, and not hundreds of thousands of years, and that time is linear and not, as Peter Staudenmaier conceives, hierarchical, there are several further and more significant errors in his presentation. There is simply no talk of any Aryan race among anthroposophists today or during Steiner's time, and Steiner did not talk of an Aryan race either. Peter Staudenmaier's derision for the very notion of an Aryan race is clearly evident, but his indignation towards anthroposophists is simply misplaced. It is rather sad to see the vehemence with which he denounces so-called Aryan superiority directed against a philosophy that inherently opposes it.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 46

Continuing my commentary on the 13th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

We have already heard Steiner's comments on how little he “built” on any of Theosophy's “postulates.” (“No one was left in uncertainty of the fact that I would bring forward in the Theosophical Society only the results of my own research through perception.” (Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York 1951, page 297 ). The claim that Steiner and his disciples tied racial classifications to spiritual advancement is really a two-part claim. I have not studied the works of every last person who claims Steiner as an inspiration, so I cannot say with certainty that no disciple has ever done this. However, I am familiar with Steiner's work, so I will object to that part.

Steiner's “systematic racial classification” is hardly elaborate. Steiner considers there to be 5 races. Or rather, there were five races. Today racial characteristics are, in Steiner's view, unimportant and gradually disappearing. This he considers a natural development in the course of human evolution. Steiner explained that there can be no talk of racial purity; everyone is mixed to one degree or another, and this is natural. This is contained in the book Peter Staudenmaier has cited in the first paragraph: "The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in relation to Teutonic Mythology" so he ought to be familiar with it. How it came about that there are five races, and what their purpose might have been 20,000 years ago may be elaborate, but to Steiner, racial characteristics in the individual today are unimportant.

Once again we have here a paragraph that is factually inaccurate, partisan and without specific citations. Where, if anywhere, Steiner directly tied spiritual advancement to racial classification cannot be determined from the footnote.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 45

Paragraph 13 of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophy's Racialist Ideology


Building on Theosophy's postulate of root races, Steiner and his anthroposophist disciples elaborated a systematic racial classification system for human beings and tied it directly to their paradigm of spiritual advancement. The particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced. [Steiner's racial teachings, a crucial element of the anthroposophic worldview, are spread throughout his work. The most concentrated and most chilling presentation is to be found in volume 349 of his collected works, published by the International Anthroposophic Society in Dornach, Switzerland. For a concise overview in English see Janet Biehl's section on Steiner in Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, San Francisco 1995, pp. 42-43.]


A minor point is that Peter Staudenmaier cites the wrong publisher (which is actually the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung in Dornach) and misnames the General Anthroposophical Society, also located in Dornach (accuracy in details, I find, is the mark of serious scholarship).

This paragraph better describes Alfred Rosenberg than Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. Here and in the paragraph following Peter Staudenmaier fails to cite any sources. His footnote actually cites Steiner's collected works of 349 volumes (actually, the numbering goes to 354 volumes) of some 90,000 pages. Is this to indicate that Peter Staudenmaier has read all of them? I suspect not, as he has cited the wrong publisher. The International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach does not publish Steiner's complete works; the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassvervaltung is the publisher. Steiner set up a separate foundation to hold his copyrights after his death, and this foundation is a separate legal entity from the General Anthroposophical Society. I know that these are really just little nitpicking details, but getting the nitpicking details correct is the mark of serious scholarship. [For an overview of Steiner's complete works, see the Archives (online at RudolfSteiner.com). The volume numbers go from 1 to 354; however there are a number of gaps, as well as a few numbers that cover multiple volumes (for example volume 300 is actually 3 books: 300a, 300b and 300c). New volumes come out occasionally, so the total number of books is not yet fixed.]

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 44

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner's description of the Akasha Chronicle from the last post was also to take a position against C.W Leadbeater's (a prominent Theosophist) description of the Akasha in a 1903 book titled “Clairvoyance.”


"When the visitor to [the mental] plane is not thinking specifically of them in any way, the records simply form a background to whatever is going on, just as the reflections in a pier-glass at the end of the room might form a background the life of the people in it. It must always be born in mind that under these conditions they are really merely reflections from the ceaseless activity of a great Consciousness upon a far higher plane, and have very much the appearance of an endless succession of cinematographs, or living photographs. They do not a melt into one another like dissolving views, nor do a series of ordinary pictures follow one other; but the action of the reflected figures constantly goes on as though one were watching the actors on a distance stage. But if the trained investigator turns his attention special especially to any one scene, or wishes to call it up before him, an extraordinary change at once takes place, for this is the plane of thought, and to think of anything is to bring it instantly before you. For example, if a man wills to see the record of that event to which we before referred – the landing of Julius Caesar – he finds himself in the moment not looking at any picture, but standing on the shore among the legionnaires, with the whole scene being enacted around him, precisely in every aspect as he would have seen it if he had stood there in the flash on that autumn morning in the year 55 B.C. Since what he sees is but a reflection, the actors are of course entirely unconscious of them, nor can any effort of his change the course of their action in the smallest degree, except only that he can control the rate at which the drama shall pass before him – can have the event of the whole year rehearsed before his eyes in a single hour, or can at any moment stop the movement altogether and hold the particular scene in view as a picture as long as he chooses."

C.W. Leadbeater. "Clairvoyance." Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1903. 13 th Reprinting, 1978. Pages 141-142.

Neither classical Theosophy nor Steiner's Anthroposophy consider the Akasha Chronicle to be a written record. While throwing around words like "scripture" and "tenets of belief" is a clever way to impute religious character to Steiner's work (and blind faith on the part of his followers), it remains clear that Peter Staudenmaier has no actual understanding of that which he condescendingly denigrates.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 43

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.


As to the Akasha Chronicle, Peter Staudenmaier has failed to explain it properly in either the terms of Blavatsky's Theosophy or Steiner's Anthroposophy. Regardless of whether you believe in its existence or whether Steiner could access it, it is not at all that difficult to describe the anthroposophical understanding of its nature. Just read a few primary sources, for example Cosmic Memory (cited several times in this article). The original German title is, after all, Aus der Akasha-Chronik (translated: From the Akasha Record).

I can understand how, from the name alone, a Chronicle could be taken to designate a text, and referring to it as a scripture is quite an ingenious turn of phrase. However, the clever word-smithing here only reveals an utter failure to examine the actual subject matter. Rather than a scripture (scriptures are by definition text based), it is considered by Steiner to be a record, an impression, of the feelings, thoughts and will-impules of everyone who ever lived. As such, it is not a text to be interpreted, it is a residue of things to be experienced, and these experiences can then be described.


“What is the Akasha Chronicle? We can form the truest conception of it by realizing that what comes to pass on our earth makes a lasting impression upon certain delicate essences, an impression which can be discovered by a seer who has attained Initiation. It is not an ordinary but a living Chronicle. Suppose a human being lived in the first century after Christ; what he thought, felt and willed in those days, what passed into deeds — this is not obliterated but preserved in this delicate essence. The seer can behold it-not as if it were recorded in a history book, but as it actually happened. How a man moved, what he did, a journey he took-it can all be seen in these spiritual pictures; the impulses of will, the feelings, the thoughts, can also be seen. But we must not imagine that these pictures are images of the physical personalities. That is not the case. To take a simple example. — When a man moves his hand, his will pervades the moving hand and it is this force of will that can be seen in the Akasha Chronicle. What is spiritually active in us and has flowed into the Physical, is there seen in the Spiritual. Suppose, for example, we look for Caesar. We can follow all his undertakings, but let us be quite clear that it is rather his thoughts that we see in the Akasha Chronicle; when he set out to do something we see the whole sequence of decisions of the will to the point where the deed was actually performed. To observe a specific event in the Akasha Chronicle is not easy. We must help ourselves by linking on to external knowledge. If the seer is trying to observe some action of Caesar and takes an historical date as a point of focus, the result will come more easily. Historical dates are, it is true, often unreliable, but they are sometimes of assistance. When the seer directs his gaze to Caesar, he actually sees the person of Caesar in action, phantom-like, as though he were standing before him, speaking with him. But when a man is looking into the past, various things may happen to him if, in spite of possessing some degree of seership, he has not entirely found his bearings in the higher worlds.“ Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981, Page 40, also online.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 42

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Three more quotes show that Steiner did actually call Anthroposophy a science, and was at pains to claim that it could be "verified by reason, logic, and scientific inquiry.

From the Preface to the 16 th to 20 th editions of “An Outline of Occult Science”:


“The fact that I have entitled this book Occult Science has immediately called forth misunderstandings. From many sides was heard, 'What claims to be science must not be secret, occult.' How little thought was exercised in making such an objection! As though someone who reveals a subject matter would want to be secretive about it. The entire book shows that it was not the intention to designate anything 'occult' but to bring everything into a form that renders it as understandable as any science.”

Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Occult Science, Hudson 1972, p. xiii


From the Preface to the 1 st edition of “An Outline of Occult Science”:

“Although the book deals with the results of research that lie beyond the power of the intellect bound to the sense world, yet nothing is offered that cannot be comprehended by anyone possessing an unprejudiced reason, a healthy sense of truth, and the wish to employ these human faculties. The author says without hesitation that he would like, above all, to have readers who are not willing to accept on blind faith what is offered here, but who endeavor to examine what is offered by means of the knowledge of their own soul and through the experience of living their own lives (here is not only meant the spiritual scientific tests by supersensible methods of research, but primarily the test that is possible by healthy, unprejudiced thought and common sense). The author knows his book would have no value, were it dependent only on blind faith; it is only useful to the degree it can be vindicated before unbiased reason. Blind faith can so easily mistake the foolish and the superstitious for true. Many who are gladly satisfied with a mere belief in a 'supersensible world' will perhaps find that this book makes too great a demand on the powers of thought.”

Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Occult Science, Hudson 1972.

The fact that Steiner actually encouraged his followers to verify his statements independently means Peter Staudenmaier's accusation that "modern Anthroposophy is thus founded on blind faith in Steiner's convictions" is logically untenable. Even if it can be shown that a minority of his so-called followers tends to treat him as a guru against his wishes, it does not follow that everything done in a "far-flung network of public institutions" is "founded on blind faith in Steiner's convictions". Most anthroposophists and others involved in the "far-flung network of public institutions" have an agnostic attitude to Steiner's works. They find his thinking fascinating, and hold his conclusions as working hypotheses while they test his practical indications against reality as they experience it.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 41

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.


That Steiner did actually call Anthroposophy a science, and was at pains to claim that it could be "verified by reason, logic, and scientific inquiry is evident from the following three quotes.


Rudolf Steiner, from the preface to “How to Know Higher Worlds”:


“Naturally, to research these facts one must possess the faculties necessary to enter supersensible worlds. But once these worlds have been researched, and the findings communicated, even those who have not themselves perceived the facts can form an adequate judgment of them. Much of what spiritual science presents can, in fact, be easily verified by the application of healthy judgment in a completely unbiased way.”

Rudolf Steiner, How to Know Higher Worlds, New York 2002, page 8

Or from the Preface to the English edition of “Theosophy”:

“There may be those who say that this supersensible world can only have significance for such as already have the power to perceive it, but this is not so. There is no need to be a painter in order to feel the beauty of a painting, yet only a painter can paint it. In the same sense it is unnecessary to be a researcher in the supersensible in order to judge the truth of the results of supersensible research.”

Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, New York 1971, page xv

From the Introduction to “Theosophy”:

“Certain powers are required to discover the things referred to [the contents of the book], but if after having been discovered they are made known, every person can understand them who is willing to bring to them unprejudiced logic and a healthy sense of truth. ... Put yourself for a moment in the position of asking, 'If the things asserted here are true, do they afford a satisfying explanation of life'? You will find that the life of every man supplies a confirmation.”

Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, New York 1971, pages xx – xxi

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 40

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 12of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists maintain that Steiner's familiarity with the "astral plane," with the workings of various "archangels," with daily life on the lost continent of Atlantis (all central tenets of anthroposophic belief) came from his special powers of clairvoyance. Steiner claimed to have access to the "Akasha Chronicle," a supernatural scripture containing knowledge of higher realms of existence as well as of the distant past and future. Steiner "interpreted" much of this chronicle and shared it with his followers. He insisted that such "occult experience," as he called it, could never be judged or verified by reason, logic, or scientific inquiry. Modern Anthroposophy is thus founded on blind faith in Steiner's convictions. Those convictions deserve closer examination.



Here, yet again, Peter Staudenmaier presents statements that are in direct contradiction to the primary sources, and of course without any citations. Steiner did actually call his "occult experience" a science, and was at pains to claim that it could be "verified by reason, logic, and scientific inquiry". Whether one believes him or not is a separate matter, however it is factually incorrect to claim that he stated the opposite.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 39


Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 11 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner's doctrine of reincarnation, embraced by latter-day anthroposophists the world over, holds that individuals choose their parents before birth, and indeed that we plan out our lives before beginning them to insure that we receive the necessary spiritual lessons. If a disembodied soul balks at its own chosen life prospects just before incarnation, it fails to incarnate fully—the source, according to anthroposophists, of prenatal "defects" and congenital disabilities. In addition, "the various parts of our body will be formed with the aid of certain planetary beings as we pass through particular constellations of the zodiac. [Footnote: Stewart Easton, Man and World in the Light of Anthroposophy, New York 1975, p. 164.]"

The above description, it should be pointed out, is based on a secondary source, a summary of Anthroposophy written by Stewart Easton. While I won't go into the individual points, I should point out that Peter Staudenmaier appears not to have actually read the primary sources necessary to formulate such a sweeping overview, relying instead on someone else's efforts. While I have nothing against secondary sources for quickly surveying a field of inquiry, I would suggest that a serious scholar would then go the extra step and actually read the primary sources, citing those to establish a point. Were he to put in the effort, Mr. Peter Staudenmaier would find that the primary sources tend to speak of "should" and "could" and do not bear the dogmatic character that they acquire in his retelling. Doubtless the purpose of writing this three sentence summary is to portray Steiner as silly. While effective, I should point out that such a hack job does not constitute scholarship, and the central accusation of racism has not been established.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 38

Continuing my commentary on the 10th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In another amazing claim, Peter Staudenmaier writes: "Students in Waldorf schools are taught, for example, that good spirits live inside of candles and demons live inside of fluorescent light bulbs." It is not clear if this is to apply to all Waldorf students in all such schools worldwide, or if it is an anecdote, or even a joke Peter Staudenmaier heard once. As usual he has indicated no source, so we cannot determine what has caused Mr. Peter Staudenmaier to form this conclusion. Read one way, this statement is incredibly broad. Does Peter Staudenmaier really mean to claim that all Waldorf students everywhere are taught this, or only just a few? I have interviewed dozens of current and former Waldorf students, and none of them recall ever hearing about the good spirits of candles and the demons in florescent lights. Further, I was not able to find any reference to the spiritual characteristics of various lighting sources in the Waldorf Teacher Training materials or any of Rudolf Steiner's indications on pedagogy.

While an anti-technological bias is not unheard of in circles around anthroposophical initiatives and Waldorf schools, it is more a reflection of preexisting biases than something caused by Steiner's views. Steiner was emphatically pro-technology and saw it as a necessary development of the current stage of human consciousness. He did express reservations about the misuses of technology, but he stated explicitly and repeatedly that the fault did not lie in technology, but in how human beings used it. His concerns were quite forward looking, and anticipated the ecological awareness that arose broadly in the 1960's.