Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 135
Anthroposophists continue to uphold Steiner‘s racist teachings claiming that there is ―no
question of a racial doctrine.‖ This is documented in an article entitled No Question of a
Racial Doctrine, Dutch Report is Ready, published in the magazine about life in the
Anthroposophical Society, Anthroposophy Worldwide, No. 4, May 2000, page 3. The article
records that on April Fool‘s day, 2000, the ―Anthroposophy and the Question of Race
Commission‖—a panel of Anthroposophists appointed to study and report on whether or not
Steiner‘s doctrine is racist—presented a 720 page final report to the public which has not
yet been published in English (see van Baarda, et al, 2000 for source of the report in
Dutch). The magazine article states that the Dutch report ―confirmed the findings of its
1998 interim report that Rudolf Steiner‘s complete works contain neither a racial doctrine
nor racist comments‖. Critics of Anthroposophy who have studied Steiner‘s doctrine and the
Dutch report observed that notably racist works were not included in the study and that
some racist passages from included works were omitted. Despite their findings, however,
the Commission admits that there are sixteen discriminatory remarks by Steiner that ―would
be illegal in the Netherlands if proclaimed publicly by anyone today.‖ The Commission
recommended that ―these sixteen quotes, as well as sixty-seven, easily misunderstood
remarks‖ should be published with accompanying explanations in the future. ―[T]he
Commission found no racism in Dutch Waldorf schools, only some use of stereotypes in
ethnology lessons.‖ Some Anthroposophists in Europe have placed ads in major daily
newspapers distancing themselves from Steiner‘s racism, while other Anthroposophical
Society members criticized them for doing so. Ted van Baarda, head of the Commission,
was concerned about facing these questions due to Anthroposophists‘ ―loyalty to Steiner.‖
The Commission, however, was not to ―evaluate spiritual science but rather the effect of
such remarks on the public.‖ The report was to ―identify the facts in order to develop a
strategy for dealing with attacks,‖ because, as van Baarde emphasized, ―We cannot afford
to lose.‖ Presumably he means that initiates are obligated to proselytize Steiner‘s racist
doctrine for society‘s redemption and the fulfillment of his prophecies.
Peter Staudenmaier studied the Dutch report and commented on the Commission‘s
statement—‖The Commission confirmed the findings of its 1998 interim report, that Rudolf
Steiner‘s complete works contain neither a racial doctrine nor racist comments.‖ On
December 12, 2002, in a post to waldorfcritics@topica.com entitled ―It takes an expert‖
Staudenmaier wrote:
This is what Anthroposophists are asked to believe. Since nobody acquainted
with Anthroposophy‘s central works can possibly believe this, it raises an
obvious question about Anthroposophy‘s basic ability to deal with the
manifest content of its own teachings. The standard Anthroposophist
response is that, yes, indeed, it *does* take an expert to understand
Steiner‘s works. Aside from the patently elitist and authoritarian implications
of this stance, it is unconvincing even according to its own logic, because so
many of the self-proclaimed experts on anthroposophy know astonishingly
little about what Steiner actually wrote on racial topics and about the
historical and intellectual context of those writings. That is precisely why
informed critics of Anthroposophy are routinely greeted with the charge of
arrogance: even simple, unadorned quotations from Steiner are enough to
unsettle the Anthroposophist consensus on these matters, because they show
that any thinking person can make sense out of Steiner‘s racial teachings
without bowing to the self-appointed experts.
I very much hope that the Dutch report is made available in English soon, so
that people can peruse its pages and decide whether Steiner‘s quoted
passages—even if blatantly incomplete and decontextualized—contain racial
Anthroposophists continue to uphold Steiner‘s racist teachings claiming that there is ―no
question of a racial doctrine.‖ This is documented in an article entitled No Question of a
Racial Doctrine, Dutch Report is Ready, published in the magazine about life in the
Anthroposophical Society, Anthroposophy Worldwide, No. 4, May 2000, page 3. The article
records that on April Fool‘s day, 2000, the ―Anthroposophy and the Question of Race
Commission‖—a panel of Anthroposophists appointed to study and report on whether or not
Steiner‘s doctrine is racist—presented a 720 page final report to the public which has not
yet been published in English (see van Baarda, et al, 2000 for source of the report in
Dutch). The magazine article states that the Dutch report ―confirmed the findings of its
1998 interim report that Rudolf Steiner‘s complete works contain neither a racial doctrine
nor racist comments‖. Critics of Anthroposophy who have studied Steiner‘s doctrine and the
Dutch report observed that notably racist works were not included in the study and that
some racist passages from included works were omitted. Despite their findings, however,
the Commission admits that there are sixteen discriminatory remarks by Steiner that ―would
be illegal in the Netherlands if proclaimed publicly by anyone today.‖ The Commission
recommended that ―these sixteen quotes, as well as sixty-seven, easily misunderstood
remarks‖ should be published with accompanying explanations in the future. ―[T]he
Commission found no racism in Dutch Waldorf schools, only some use of stereotypes in
ethnology lessons.‖ Some Anthroposophists in Europe have placed ads in major daily
newspapers distancing themselves from Steiner‘s racism, while other Anthroposophical
Society members criticized them for doing so. Ted van Baarda, head of the Commission,
was concerned about facing these questions due to Anthroposophists‘ ―loyalty to Steiner.‖
The Commission, however, was not to ―evaluate spiritual science but rather the effect of
such remarks on the public.‖ The report was to ―identify the facts in order to develop a
strategy for dealing with attacks,‖ because, as van Baarde emphasized, ―We cannot afford
to lose.‖ Presumably he means that initiates are obligated to proselytize Steiner‘s racist
doctrine for society‘s redemption and the fulfillment of his prophecies.
Peter Staudenmaier studied the Dutch report and commented on the Commission‘s
statement—‖The Commission confirmed the findings of its 1998 interim report, that Rudolf
Steiner‘s complete works contain neither a racial doctrine nor racist comments.‖ On
December 12, 2002, in a post to waldorfcritics@topica.com entitled ―It takes an expert‖
Staudenmaier wrote:
This is what Anthroposophists are asked to believe. Since nobody acquainted
with Anthroposophy‘s central works can possibly believe this, it raises an
obvious question about Anthroposophy‘s basic ability to deal with the
manifest content of its own teachings. The standard Anthroposophist
response is that, yes, indeed, it *does* take an expert to understand
Steiner‘s works. Aside from the patently elitist and authoritarian implications
of this stance, it is unconvincing even according to its own logic, because so
many of the self-proclaimed experts on anthroposophy know astonishingly
little about what Steiner actually wrote on racial topics and about the
historical and intellectual context of those writings. That is precisely why
informed critics of Anthroposophy are routinely greeted with the charge of
arrogance: even simple, unadorned quotations from Steiner are enough to
unsettle the Anthroposophist consensus on these matters, because they show
that any thinking person can make sense out of Steiner‘s racial teachings
without bowing to the self-appointed experts.
I very much hope that the Dutch report is made available in English soon, so
that people can peruse its pages and decide whether Steiner‘s quoted
passages—even if blatantly incomplete and decontextualized—contain racial
