Some of What

You Aren’t Supposed to Know

Waldorf schools usually guard their secrets well. Rudolf Steiner often urged Waldorf teachers to mislead the public, students’ parents, and students themselves about the real purposes of the school and a variety of other matters. Let's look at a few quotations, some of which I've posted prominently elsewhere. Here is Steiner speaking about secrets:

Some people are not human beings: “I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings ... we do not want to shout that to the world.” [1]

Islands float — but don’t tell the students — but get it across anyway: “[I]slands do not sit directly upon foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside ... Such things are the result of the cosmos, of the stars ... However, we need to avoid such things. We cannot tell them to the students ... we would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” [2]

Gravity doesn’t really exist, but we’ll have to teach kids about so-called gravity so that we don’t give the school a bad name: “Over there is a bench and on it is, let us say, a ball ... [T]he ball falls to the ground ... Saying that the ball is subject to the force of gravity is really meaningless ... But we cannot avoid speaking of gravity ... Just imagine if a fifteen-year-old boy knew nothing of gravity; there would be a terrible fuss.” [3] 

Very importantly: Do not reveal the school’s religious agenda. Don’t confess that we require students to pray aloud each morning — say that the students are reciting a “verse”: “We also need to speak about a prayer. I ask only one thing of you. You see, in such things everything depends upon the external appearances. Never call a verse a prayer, call it an opening verse before school. Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a faculty member, using the word ‘prayer.’” [4]

In general, don’t tell outsiders anything about what happens inside the school. This goes even for the parents’ of our students — treat them as outsiders: “[D]o not attempt to bring out into the public things that really concern only our school. I have been back only a few hours, and I have heard so much gossip about who got a slap and so forth ... We should be quiet about how we handle things in the school, we should maintain a kind of school confidentiality. We should not speak to people outside the school, except for the parents who come to us with questions, and in that case, only about their children, so that gossip has no opportunity to arise.” [5]

 

Information given to the faculty cannot be given to students' parents. Don't let them have inside information. “The things I say here [in a faculty meeting], I could not say to parents." [6]

 

Don't tell anyone that we will not prepare the kids for higher education. "The question of final examinations is purely a question of opportunity. It is a question of whether we dare tell those who come to us that we will not prepare them for the final examination at all, that it is a private decision of the student whether to take the final examination or not." [7]

 

Don't tell Westerners — such as, let's say, Americans — what we are all about. "[T]he western nations will not be able to understand what will arise out of the whole concrete Central European spiritual culture with regard to the art of education; on the contrary, it will annoy them, and it really ought not to be told them in its original form. It could have an undesirable effect on them." [8]

 

Pull the wool over visitors' eyes:  "Yesterday, I was sitting on pins and needles worrying that the visitors would think the history class was too religious." [9]

 

Protect the school's neck: “[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School’s neck.” [10]

 

The Apocrypha (teachings that contradict the Bible) "are more correct than what is written in the Gospels." But don't tell the students. [11]

 

  

◊◊◊◊

Let’s take a closer look at some of these secrets.

◊ Concerning the Waldorf School's neck: Rudolf Steiner established his new-age religion, Anthroposophy, in 1913. Six years later, the first Waldorf school opened in Stuttgart, Germany. Steiner was the head of the school. In that capacity, on Feb. 5, 1924, he had a long discussion with the school's teachers and administrators. The chief topic was the relationship between the school and the Anthroposophical Society (the formal organization responsible for Anthroposophical activities). Steiner had recently formalized his own connection with the Anthroposophical Society, becoming its official leader. The Waldorf School presented itself to the world much as Waldorf schools present themselves today: It claimed that it was not a religious school, and it claimed that it did not push Anthroposophy onto its students. But Steiner's remarks during the faculty meeting on Feb. 5 show that this was largely a pose — while not formally associated with the Anthroposophical Society, the school had always really been Anthroposophical to its core. During the meeting, Steiner exposed this secret as well as the other great secret underlying Waldorf schooling: He admitted that Anthroposophy is a religion.

Here's a play-by-play. (The entire discussion lasts for many pages. If you want to read it all — which I recommend — you'll have to get the book, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Vol. 2.) 

Toward the beginning of the discussion, Steiner said, "Formally, the Waldorf School is not an anthroposophical institution; rather, it is an independent creation based upon the foundations of anthroposophical pedagogy. In the way it meets the public, as well as the way it meets legal institutions, it is not an anthroposophical institution, but a school based upon anthroposophical pedagogy." [12] Note the careful phrasing. The school is not "formally" Anthroposophical. "In the way it meets the public" it is not Anthroposophical. But the underlying reality is quite different.

Picking up the same passage where it left off: "...a school based upon anthroposophical pedagogy. Suppose the Independent Waldorf School were now to become officially related to the School of Spiritual Science [the education wing of the Anthroposophical Society, based] in Dornach [Switzerland]. Then the Waldorf School would immediately become an anthroposophical school in a formal, external sense. Of course, there are some things that would support making such a decision. On the other hand, consider whether the Waldorf School can fulfill its cultural tasks better as an independent school with an unhindered form than it can as a direct part of what emanates from Dornach." [13] Steiner prefers the latter course — the school is not Anthroposophical "in a formal, external sense" (i.e., as perceived by outsiders). But we can see that informally, internally the school is deeply Anthroposophical. After all, the only reason to even consider attaching the school to the Society is that the school is committed to Anthroposophy. The school's Anthroposophical nature is what "would support making such a decision."

Steiner contemplates the possibility of tying the school more tightly to the Anthroposophical Society, but he also stresses the benefits of maintaining the legal and public-relations fiction that the school is independent. "[I]f the school suddenly became an [openly] anthroposophical school, that would upset both the official authorities and the public." [14] The public would be upset, in part, because the school would be exposed as an occultist institution. German educational authorities would be upset, in part, for this reason, but also because the school would be revealed as taking orders from a foreign organization, the Society based in Switzerland.

Steiner wants the public and the officials to be misled, but he speaks candidly to the teachers. "[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School's neck." [15] That, basically, says it all. Waldorf is Anthroposophical, but out of a need to mislead outsiders, the school has to pretend otherwise. The survival of the school depends on denying Waldorf's "anthroposophical character," a character that creates goals that "coincide with anthroposophical desires."

Steiner discusses various useful misrepresentations and misconceptions about the Waldorf School. The school was named "Independent," and the Waldorf School Association is generally perceived as the institution controlling the school. "You see, the outside world views the Waldorf School Association as the actual administration of the school." [16] But in reality, the school is run by Anthroposophists for Anthroposophical purposes. Specifically, the school is actually guided by Rudolf Steiner himself, who now is officially the head of the Anthroposophical Society.

The school's only openly acknowledged involvement with the Anthroposophical Society is that the Society provides some of the religious instruction in the school. This arrangement allows the school to deny that it is, itself, religious. Instead, the Anthroposophical Society and other, outside religious institutions provide religious instruction at Waldorf. "When the school was founded, we placed great value upon creating an institution independent of the Anthroposophical Society. Logically, that corresponds quite well with having the various religious communities and the Anthroposophical Society provide religious instruction, so that the Society provides religious instruction just as other religious groups do." [17] Pause again. THIS says it all. Steiner acknowledges that the Anthroposophical Society is a religious group: "the Society provides religious instruction just as other religious groups do." The Anthroposophical Society is one of a number of "religious groups" involved in the school. The Society is a religious group. Anthroposophy is a religion — and here we have Steiner saying so.

Picking up the last quotation where it left off: "...just as other religious groups do. The Anthroposophical Society gives instruction in religion and the services. That is something we can justifiably say whenever others claim that the Waldorf School is an anthroposophical school." [18] Discussing how to mislead outsiders, Steiner clearly states the very things he wants to deny. The Waldorf School is Anthroposophical; and Anthroposophy is a religion; hence, the Waldorf School is a religious institution. But Steiner remains committed to denying these realities — he stresses how Waldorf "can justifiably" make its denials. The justifications are, however, a matter of legalisms and hairsplitting: legally, formally, the school is not associated with the Anthroposophical Society; and, apparently, the school is run by the Waldorf School Association, which is not legally, formally Anthroposophical. But the truth is that the school is run by Anthroposophists who are devoted to the religion of Anthroposophy. (Offering instruction in other religions also conforms to the aims of Anthroposophy, which borrows doctrines from many faiths.)

During the meeting, Steiner both reveals the truth and continues to stress denials of the truth. "A teacher: `Hasn't a change already occurred since you, the head of the Waldorf School, are now also the head of the Anthroposophical Society?' Dr. Steiner: `That is not the case. The position I have taken [as head of the Society] changes nothing about my being head of the school." [19] Perhaps the teacher and Steiner found this answer cogent, but none of the rest of us are likely to. If Steiner, head of the Waldorf School, had recently become head of the Communist Party, there would clearly be reason to think that something important had been revealed concerning the Waldorf School. Steiner’s new post at the Anthroposophical Society has the same sorts of implications.

As the meeting continues, Steiner considers ways to bind the school more closely to the Society without getting the school's neck broken. He wants to satisfy the Waldorf faculty's desire for direct connection with the Anthroposophical Society's School of Spiritual Science: "I think you should decide to become members of the School of Spiritual Science as individual teachers, but with the additional remark that you want to become a member as a teacher of the Independent Waldorf School. I think this will achieve everything you want, and nothing else is necessary for the time being." [20] Thus, the Waldorf School itself would not be formally connected to the School of Spiritual Science, but the Waldorf teachers would establish connections for themselves as individual representatives of the Waldorf School. The effective result would be to tightly bind the school to the Anthroposophical Society without doing this openly or formally. "Through such an action, you would accomplish something you actually want, namely, making the Independent Waldorf School part of the overall cultural mission of anthroposophy." [21] Independent, my eye. The school would remain, in name, independent; but in reality, it has always been deeply immersed in Anthroposophy, and now the immersion will become even deeper: "part of the overall cultural mission of anthroposophy."

To summarize: We here see Steiner describing the deceptions that the Waldorf School has been involved in; he reveals the real nature both of the school and of Anthroposophy; and he proposes possible future steps that would bring the school into closer connection with the Anthroposophical Society without establishing an official bond (which might cause the school to get its neck broken).

Steiner's two biggest secrets were that Anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf schools promote Anthroposophy. Here we have seen him giving away both secrets.

The Waldorf school movement is built on lies, especially the lies we have examined just now. The deceptions practiced by many Waldorf schools today began with the establishment of the very first Waldorf School, in accordance with the wishes of Rudolf Steiner himself.

•••

 

◊ Concerning those floating islands: Steiner said that islands and even continents float in the sea. They are held in place by the powers of the stars. This is such nonsense that even Steiner — who was deeply ignorant about real science — knew it needed to be kept secret. Yet Steiner wanted Waldorf teachers to slip the idea across to the kids. How they could do this while still keeping it secret is a bit of a puzzle. “With the students, we should at least try to ... make it clear that, for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. In general, the cosmos creates islands and continents, their forms and locations ...  However, we need to avoid such things. We cannot tell them to the students ... we would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” [22] 

 

Even the Waldorf teachers found this hard to grasp, so they asked for a clarification. Did Steiner really mean what he had said? Yes, indeed. Pressed on the matter, Steiner essentially repeated himself: “[T]he continents swim ... All fixed land swims and the stats hold it in position.” [23]

•••

 

◊ Steiner’s ignorance of science is even clearer when we consider gravity. Here are two more remarks Steiner made on the subject: “Gravity is ... perceived only by those beings that live on a solid planet ... Beings who could live on a fluid planet would know nothing of gravity ... And beings who live on a gaseous planet would regard as normal something that would be the opposite of gravity ... [B]eings dwelling on a gaseous planet instead of seeing bodies falling towards the planet would see them always flying off ... Gravity begins when we find ourselves on a solid planet.” [24] In fact, gravity exists everywhere in the universe — it is tied into the very substance of the space/time continuum. But Steiner didn’t know this. So he told Waldorf teachers: “It would be wonderful if you could stop speaking about gravity. You can certainly achieve speaking of it only as a phenomenon. The best would be if you considered gravity only as a word.” [25] Gravity is a phenomenon, but a meaningless one, a concept that is really just an empty word.

•••

Reality.

[NASA.]

•••

 

◊ Calling the morning prayer a verse is just one of the many ways Steiner wanted to hide the religious nature of Waldorf education. Actually, Waldorf schools exist to spread Steiner’s religion, Anthroposophy. As Steiner himself said, “One of the most important facts about the background of the Waldorf School is that we were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one. The anthroposophical movement has become a large one.” [26] And the morning verses, which Steiner himself wrote, are definitely prayers: They address and praise God. Here’s part of one of them:  “I reverence, O God,/ The strength of humankind,/ That Thou so graciously/ Hast planted in my soul/ ... From Thee come light and strength,/ To Thee rise love and thanks.” [27] Waldorf students typically say this prayer in unison, standing behind their desks, before the first class of the day begins.

For more on this topic, please see my essay “Is Anthroposophy a religion?”

•••

 

◊ About telling faculty things that students' parents cannot be told: This may be a sensible policy, but it means withholding truth. It means deceiving parents.

Here's the context of the statement: The first Waldorf school had come under attack after it expelled some pupils. Also, some students' parents complained they were not being adequately informed about their children's progress — some had received assurances that all was well, only to find later that this was untrue. Perhaps written progress reports should be considered; or perhaps there should be a meeting with the parents. Steiner blamed the faculty for allowing a bad situation to get out of hand. His lengthy statement to the faculty includes the following: "Progress reports? Giving in to someone like Mrs. X (a mother who had written a letter to the faculty) is just nonsense ... Concerning the parent meeting, you could do that, but without me. They might say things I could not counter, if I hear something I cannot defend. The things I say here, I could not say to parents. We need to clear the air, and the teachers must take control of the school again. You do not need to talk about the things not going well." [28]

We see several worrisome but typical Waldorf problems, here. Parents are not fully informed. Secrets are kept from them ("The things I say here, I could not say to parents"). And even when it seems necessary to "clear the air," this is meant to be a mere public relations exercise: Secrets will still be kept ("You do not need to talk about the things not going well"). In general, Steiner's attitude is defensive and dismissive (complying with a parent's request would be "nonsense")

•••

 

◊ About not preparing students for final exams: The examination in question is a state-administered test. Steiner here clearly contemplates misleading parents and students about the goal of a Waldorf curriculum — and he hesitates not over whether to conceal the truth but whether to reveal it.

 

The primary mission of a Waldorf school is to promote Steiner's brand of occultism, Anthroposophy. Giving the students a strong academic education, and preparing them for higher education — these are secondary goals, not really very important. But of course this must be kept secret.

•••

 

◊ About not telling Westerners about the "art of education" arising from Central Europe (i.e., Germany): Steiner was a German nationalist, with a grounding in the sorts of mysticism found in Germany and the Nordic countries. Here we see him saying that people outside Central Europe should not be told the truth about the type of education Waldorf aims for. But it is worth noting that all the other deceptions I've listed here apply to Germans as well. Basically, Steiner wanted everyone to be misled about what Waldorf schools are all about.

•••

 

◊ About “outsiders” and treating students' parents as “outsiders”: Note that, among other things, Steiner wants to suppress information about which students have been slapped. Steiner permitted Waldorf teachers to slap students. He said that "astral" (spiritual, nonphysical) slaps are better, but... The slapping must have begun almost as soon as the first Waldorf School opened — the passage I quoted is dated September 25, 1919, during the first weeks of the school’s existence. In extenuation, we should recall that this was in Germany almost a century ago. Standards were different there and then. Still...

Here is another passage in which Steiner mentions slapping. Addressing Waldorf teachers on March 15, 1922, he said:

"Dr. Steiner: 'If you give them [i.e., students] a slap, you should do it the way Dr. Schubert[one of the Waldorf teachers] does.'

"Dr. Schubert: 'Did somebody complain?'

"Dr. Steiner: 'No, but you are always slapping them.'

"Dr. Schubert: 'When did I do that?'

"Dr. Steiner: 'Well, I mean astral slaps. There are physical slaps and astral slaps. It doesn’t matter which one you give, but you cannot slap a child sentimentally.'” [29]

Several points about this discussion are noteworthy. Here’s my perhaps slightly tendentious gloss:

• Steiner does not tell Waldorf teachers to stop slapping the kids. He assumes that slapping in some form will occur: “If you give them a slap....” At most, he tries to steer teachers away from physical slapping.

• “Astral” slapping might well be worse than the physical variety. If the term has any meaning at all, it refers to psychological and/or spiritual punishment. Is this really preferable? Ask yourself what sort of effects a teacher like Dr. Schubert would have on children if he is “always slapping them.” Assuming this means he is always punishing them psychologically and/or spiritually, students could well be traumatized. So, would you want Dr. Schubert to be your child's teacher?

• Dr. Schubert doesn’t deny slapping students. His first response to Steiner is simply to ask if anyone has complained. He then asks Steiner when the slapping occurred, which in context may simply mean he’s asking Steiner for particulars: What episodes does Steiner know about? This seems to rattle Steiner a bit — he isn’t accustomed to being challenged —  so Steiner introduces the surprising notion of invisible slaps. But then Steiner recovers with the undeniable observation that slapping children is not, or should not be, a sentimental action.

• This discussion between the Herr Doktors comes two-and-a-half years after Steiner first mentioned the gossip about slapping, etc., in the Waldorf school. Inferentially, teachers may have been slapping the kids — one way or another — at least occasionally during this two-and-a-half-year period. And, because Steiner does not ban it, some form of slapping probably continued after his discussion with Schubert

•••

 

◊ Deceiving visitors: Here's the full quotation. Speaking to a teacher about the way s/he conducts classes, Steiner said:

"[Y]ou are often too anthroposophical, like Mr. X [sic]. Yesterday, I was sitting on pins and needles worrying that the visitors would think the history class was too religious. We should not allow the history class to be too religiously oriented. That is why we have a religion class. The visitors seem to have been well-meaning people. Nevertheless, had they noticed that, they could easily have categorized the Waldorf School as being too anthroposophical and bringing that into the classroom." [30]

At first glance, this may seem exculpatory: Steiner is telling a teacher not to bring so much Anthroposophy into the classroom. Note, however, that he does not tell the teacher to bring no  Anthroposophy into class — he merely says to tone it down. Steiner proceeds from the premise that Anthroposophy will indeed be conveyed to students ("Anthroposophy will be in the school." [31]). Steiner's admonition to the teacher hinges on the presence of visitors. Steiner worries that visitors might see beneath the school's facade and figure out what the school is really doing: promoting Anthroposophy. Steiner says to tone down the Anthroposophy in class not because bringing it into class is wrong, but because the school's central secret must be guarded. The central secret is that the school is an Anthroposophical religious institution. Steiner is *extremely* concerned about maintaining this secret: "I was sitting on pins and needles worrying...."

Linger over the question of religion. I have written, elsewhere, on the question whether Anthroposophy is a religion. [32] In this passage, Steiner himself says that it is a religion or at least that it sure looks like a religion. If there were too much Anthroposophy in the class, the visitors would think the class was "too religious." In other words, infusing a class with Anthroposophy is effectively the same as infusing it with religion. Why? Because Anthroposophy is a religion — or, at a minimum, visitors would find it indistinguishable from religion. (Those foolish visitors. They would probably think that something that sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and flies like a duck — is a duck. Poor deluded souls. But as we saw, above, in the analysis of the Feb. 5, 1924 faculty meeting, Anthroposophy is quite clearly a religion, by Steiner's own admission.)

Here's a related passage. Again, Steiner is addressing a teacher during a faculty meeting:

"The problem you have is that you have not always followed the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children. You have lectured the children about anthroposophy when you told them about your subject. You did not transform anthroposophy into a child's level." [33]

Once again Steiner corrects a teacher's method of conveying Anthroposophy to the students. He does not say that Anthroposophy should be left out of classroom instruction; instead, he refers to a directive about *how* Anthroposophy should be presented. The errant teacher's mistake is not that s/he tried to bring Anthroposophy to the students, but merely that s/he lectured little children on the subject of Anthroposophy instead of finding a way to make Anthroposophy more understandable to the youngsters.

Linger again. "Little children." I have claimed that Waldorf schools indoctrinate even very young children in Anthroposophy. Here we see Steiner saying as much. And this is the grave danger in Waldorf schooling, especially for the very young. Waldorf teachers will try to find a way to "transform anthroposophy into a child's level." When they succeed at this, they indoctrinate little children in an occult religion — and, very often, they do this without the parents' consent. This is evil.

•••

Reality.

[NASA.]

•••

 

◊ Let’s look into Steiner’s statement that “there are people who are not human beings” — people who are “demons in human form.” That last phrase would almost always be metaphorical if used by anyone but Steiner. But Steiner meant it quite literally. Here is the complete section from which I took the quoted passage:

"Dr. Steiner: 'That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties [the 1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but are only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons.'

"A teacher: ‘How is that possible?’

"Dr. Steiner: 'Cosmic error is certainly not impossible. The relationships of individuals coming into earthly existence have long been [pre]determined. There are also generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence and be connected with physicality, or immediately leave at the very beginning. In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in. This is something that is now quite common, that human beings go around without an I; they are actually not human beings, but have only a human form. They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences.

'The riddle of life is not so simple. When such a being dies, it returns to nature from which it came. The corpse decays, but there is no real dissolution of the etheric body, and the natural being returns to nature.

'It is also possible that something like an automaton could occur. The entire human organism exists, and it might be possible to automate the brain and develop a kind of pseudomorality.

'I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts. Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form.

'Nevertheless, we do not want to shout that to the world. Our opposition is already large enough. Such things are really shocking to people. I caused enough shock when I needed to say that a very famous university professor, after a very short period between death and rebirth, was reincarnated as a black scientist. We do not want to shout such things out into the world.'" [34]

This very remarkable, and horrid, statement deserves close scrutiny.

 

• Having decided that Little L.K. “must have something really very wrong inside,” Steiner does not seek a sensible medical or psychiatric diagnosis. Instead, he passes what amounts to a spiritually damning judgment: The child is not human.  A little girl in the first grade, for whom he has responsibility, is — according to the great humanitarian Rudolf Steiner — subhuman.

• BUT! argue some Anthroposophists, he only says she isn’t human “in relation to [her] highest I.” Surely that minimizes the judgment? No, it does not. Humans have three nonphysical bodies, according to Steiner. We have etheric bodies, but this does not define our humanity — animals and plants also have etheric bodies. We also have astral bodies, but this does not define out humanity, either — animals also have etheric bodies. We are human because we have “I”s or human “egos.” If L.K. lacks a full-fledged, functioning human “I,” she is not human. This is precisely what Steiner asserts. L.K. is subhuman.

• Steiner proceeds to widen the circle of subhumanity. “Such cases are increasing,” he says. “Quite a number of people have been born ... without an I.” So there are a lot of subhumans walking the earth (“This is something that is now quite common”). You see, these beings have not been reincarnated — they have not participated in human evolution, which occurs over the course of many earthly lives alternating with lives in the spirit realm. Subhumans like L.K. are unevolved.

• These subhumans look like people, but they “really are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon.” As in the case of L.K., there isn’t much that we real humans can do for the subhumans. “We cannot ... create a school for demons.” Later in his comments, Steiner refers again to "demons in human form." He does not, in this passage, explicitly label demons as evil, but the implication is hard to ignore. Humans demons such as L.K. are evil.

• Some subhumans may appear on Earth due to “cosmic error.” The universe doesn’t always work as it should; in Steiner’s doctrines, there is no presiding, omniscient God; the cosmos is populated by zillions of gods, some good, some evil, none of them able to control the universe wholly. So demons may come to earthly life because of failures by the gods. The subhumans, then, are truly misbegotten.

• Some real humans elect not to return to earthly existence on schedule, which creates openings that subhumans can grab for themselves (i.e., the real humans give up their places in the queue). The subhumans are profoundly different from real humans: They differ from real “human beings in regard to everything spiritual.” Everything  spiritual. So the judgment Steiner passes on the little girl and the other subhumans is indeed severe.  • Subhumans are “natural” rather than reincarnated. They are, in essence, nature spirits — beings that have no real spirituality. When they die, they do not go to the spirit realm, like real humans — they sink into that sink hole called nature: “the natural being returns to nature.”

• Another possible reason some subhumans exist is that evil forces (e.g., evil gods, black magicians) have created “automatons” — fleshly robots that have no spirit or morality. I discuss some of the machinations of black magicians in “Double Trouble”.

 

• Then, too, subhumans may result from the degeneration of real humans. “[A] number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human.” This is the process Steiner describes elsewhere as falling out of evolution and sinking to the level of subordinate nature spirits. “Such souls lose the possibility of incarnation and find no other opportunity ... [T]here are no more bodies bad enough [to house them] ... Beings that stay behind at such stages appear in a later epoch as subordinate nature spirits.” [35]

• Almost inevitably, all this nastiness leads Steiner to explicitly voice his racism. Steiner says he was once compelled (by his utter commitment to Truth) to “say that a very famous university professor, after a very short period between death and rebirth, was reincarnated as a black scientist.” Talk about evil! This nasty univ. prof. failed to stay in the spirit realm the proper length of time between lives, so when he came back to Earth he was both black (i.e., member of a lowly, childish, always-cooking-inside-with-passions) race [36], AND he was a scientist (an advocate of scientific trash, crapola, unSteinerian lies). [37]

• Interestingly, Steiner almost admits that he once made a mistake. Perhaps he should not have revealed the truth about the nasty univ. prof. So, profiting from experience, he urges Waldorf teachers to keep the lid on. “Our opposition is already large enough. Such things are really shocking to people ... We do not want to shout such things out into the world.” Good, well-meaning Waldorf teachers: Don't reveal the truth. Bob and weave. Clam up. (And, if need be, lie.)

• In sum, the little girl L.K. is not human. She is a demon, and we can’t run a school for demons. This is very possibility the most unforgivable statement Steiner ever made. But we don’t want to shout that to the world.

•••

 

◊ And about the Apocrypha: Anyone who thinks that Anthroposophy is consistent with the Bible should think again. “The children are not mature enough to go through the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha contains [sic] many things that are more correct than what is written in the Gospels. I have always extended the Gospels by what we can verify [sic!?!] from the Apocrypha. Sometimes there are strong conflicts. When they take up the Gospels, the children must grasp them. It is difficult to explain the contradictions [duh],so if they took up the Apocrypha nothing would make sense anymore. I would simply study the Gospels [in class].”  [38]

 

 

◊◊◊◊

 

  

Early in June, 2009, I was asked to provide more information on some of these matters. Here is the response I posted. [26] It overlaps some of what we have already seen, but it also expands and extends the discussion. I have edited it slightly for inclusion here.

 

One day in July, 1923, Steiner and the teachers at the first Waldorf School were discussing what had gone well and what had not gone so well in various classes at the school. Steiner said:

"In the humanities, there is a danger of teaching unprepared. That is, you [i.e., the teachers] are in danger of leaving the material as you know it now, as you learned it yourself. You need to rework it. That is one problem.

"The other problem is that you are often too anthroposophical, like Mr. X [sic]. Yesterday, I was sitting on pins and needles worrying that the visitors would think the history class was too religious. We should not allow the history class to be too religiously oriented. That is why we have a religion class. The visitors seem to have been well-meaning people. Nevertheless, had they noticed that, they could easily have categorized the Waldorf School as being too anthroposophical and bringing that into the classroom.

"I came into one class, eurythmy, and it was immediately obvious not only that the students were well behaved, but that they had behaved well before I arrived ...." [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 654-655.] The rest of the paragraph and the following ones wander around, as Steiner's comments so often do.

The central point is that Steiner wants Waldorf teachers to present Anthroposophy but in a disguised form, so that visitors, parents, perhaps even the students themselves do not recognize the covert indoctrination in Anthroposophy that is the core reason for Waldorf schools to exist. Waldorf teachers consider themselves to be missionaries for Anthroposophy. They target Waldorf students for conversion to that religion.

•••

 

Concerning the presence of Anthroposophy in the school, Steiner said:

“...It is important that the youth of our Waldorf School talk less about world perspective. The situation is that we need to create a mood, namely, that the teacher has something to say that the children should neither judge nor discuss. That is necessary, otherwise it becomes trivial. An actual discussion lowers the content. Things should remain with simply asked questions....

"We also need a second thing. The older students often mentioned that we emphasize that the Waldorf School is not to be an anthroposophical school. That is one of the questions we need to handle very seriously. You need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and if this occasionally appears anthroposophical, it is not anthroposophy that is at fault. Things are that way because anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth. It is the material that causes what is said to be anthroposophical. We certainly may not go to the other extreme, where people say that anthroposophy may not be brought into the school. Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 494-495.]

This is quite revealing. Waldorf teachers are to be treated as  absolute authority figures — students have nothing to offer in a discussion. Students should neither judge nor discuss what the teachers say — they should just absorb it. Simple questions may be asked, but that's it. Note that not judging what the teachers say is equivalent to unthinking acceptance, which goes back to my point that Waldorf schools discourage thinking by the students.

 

 

Also, a "world perspective" is unimportant. What counts is the Anthroposophical perspective. And even though Steiner said, over and over, that Waldorf is not to be Anthroposophical school, he here contradicts himself, blatantly. Anthroposophy will in fact be present throughout the curriculum — i.e., "when it is objectively justified" — because Anthroposophy is the truth and surely a teacher's job is to convey the truth. And a student's job is to accept Anthroposophical "truth" without judging or discussing it. 

•••

 

In October, 1922, a Waldorf teacher asked Steiner if his (the teacher's) "teaching has become worse." Steiner replied:

"The problem you have is that you have not always followed the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children. You have lectured the children about anthroposophy when you told them about your subject. You did not transform anthroposophy into a child's level. That worked in the beginning because you taught with such enormous energy. It must have been closer to your heart two years ago than what you are now teaching, so that you awoke the children through your enthusiasm and fire, whereas now you are no longer really there. You have become lazy and weak, and, thus, you tire the children...." [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 402-403]

Steiner went on correcting the teacher for several more sentences. Aside from the essential point that Steiner was telling teachers to present Anthroposophy to little children in a way they can respond to, Steiner was also stressing his requirement that Waldorf teachers be wholly, deeply committed to their Anthroposophical work. Waldorf teachers should be zealots, and the students should not judge the fruits of the teachers' zeal.

 

— Roger Rawlings

 

  

---

 

---

---

 

For background on clairvoyance and other "psychic phenomena"

please use this link: "Clairvoyance"

For information on alchemy: "Alchemy"

For more on magic in general: "Magic"

For information on signs and symbols

you may see at a Waldorf school

(including pentagrams, hexagrams, bees, 

snakes, fish, Alpha, Omega, Tarok, and Tao)

see: "Signs"

For information about the Antichrist

and other evil powers, see "Evil Ones"

---

Orchid.

[R. Rawlings, 2008.]

---

Waldorf teachers — like Anthroposophists in general —

generally don't like to say this, but Anthroposophy has a cathedral,

designed by Rudolf Steiner. It is called the Goetheanum

and it is located in Dornach, Switzerland.

Steiner originally designed the building you see here.

Built of wood, it burned to the ground. So Steiner designed a second

version, to be built of concrete. You'll find pictures of that

building elsewhere here at Waldorf Watch.

Both versions of the Goetheanum were designed as places of worship

(although, again, this is usually denied) — both were designed to have,

stained glass windows, multiple occult murals and other paintings,

a large statue of Christ, an organ, and so forth.

The religion for which the buildings were erected

is the central religion of Waldorf schools: Anthroposophy.

[I drew this sketch in 2009, based on an image

on p. 135 of udolf Steiner, ARCHITECTURE

(Rudolf Steiner Press, 2003).]

---

---

 

 

 

 

From the Net

Be cautious about accepting messages like the following.

I substantiate my own work with careful documentation.

The following messages, more informal, are largely undocumented.

Still, they seem sincere, and they may be worth considering.

The problem of secrecy at Waldorf schools run wide and deep. Parents who visit Waldorf schools with questions may receive incomplete or misleading answers. Here are reports from parents who had this experience. (I have edited them slightly for inclusion here.)

Here's a message from a disillusioned father. [39]

Like many parents, we chose Waldorf for what is *is not* and — sadly — later we learned what it *is.* We initially toured the school, read a pamphlet (Internet was a toddler in those days) and learned that there were no junk food machines, no computers for young children, no televisions anywhere, no fluorescent lights, no standardized tests or mountains of homework. We also learned that the school promotes families sending kids to school with decent food — a biggie for us. We liked the walls and classrooms and a few of the teachers we spoke with sounded very calm and relatively intelligent. The festivals seemed wonderful. [Waldorf schools celebrate many annual festivals for occult reasons that are often not explained to parents or students.] There were lots of smiles everywhere and a sheet of Waldorf FAQ's made us believe we had found a wonderful little community school for our family. I do remember hearing the word "anthroposophy" and thought the person was having trouble pronouncing "anthropology". True. When I asked I was told it simply means "wisdom of man" and it came from a wonderful philosopher called Rudolf Steiner. Sounds fine to me — the goal is for each child to reach her true potential, each is an individual, no need to push through academics, etc. We were sold a false bill of goods. Nothing about the morning "verse" [a morning prayer, recited in unison] or the reality of "eurythmy" [a form of dance designed to connect students to the spirit realm] or "wet-on-wet" painting [a form of painting intended to have a similar effect] or the absolute authority of the teacher, the cookie-cutter main lesson books, the significance of Michaelmas, advent garden, etc.

We were misled and deceived by those who sold the product. THAT is my # 1 criticism of the Waldorf movement. Before purchasing any product (or enrolling a child in any school), is the duty of the buyer to assume the seller is lying about that product (school)? If we had chosen to send our kids to the local mainstream school, we'd have had a pretty good idea of what to expect — same with a Catholic school or Sudbury Valley school, etc.

As a result of being misled and deceived, we unwittingly put our kids into a dysfunctional educational/social (and heavily Anthroposophic) environment and we stayed for years. I *will* take blame for staying too long, but it's important to understand how very difficult it is for parents to remove their children from the only "community" they have ever known. When we finally made the gut-wrenching decision to pull the plug, it was VERY difficult for our entire family but *especially* for the children. Although many families had bailed out before us, our kids still had close friends there and starting over elsewhere does not come easily to many kids (and parents). Because of the cult-like atmosphere of the place, the kids picked up on the adult stuff — after we left, some teachers and Anthro-inspired parents would try to avoid us at the local health food store, etc. Very confusing and unhealthy for young children.

I think it is very important to at least try to understand what some children go through in Waldorf/Steiner schools — especially those where anthroposophic extremism is the norm. There are the obvious questions around "is anthroposophic education good for children?" And then there are other issues: I've known more than a few children who were hit, screamed and sworn at by Waldorf teachers — with virtually NO repercussions, other than pathetic suggestions that those who raise concerns do not understand karma. [Steiner taught that the things that happen to us in this life often come from our karma, which we created for ourselves in our previous lives — Steiner’s doctrines include reincarnation.] Fact is there were no other available teachers, so the wild ones stayed, believing (and being supported by peers) they were destined to be with the children in their class. That what Steiner says.

•••

Another message from a parent: A mother tells of being deceived when choosing a Waldorf school. [40]

I asked specific questions about Anthroposophy and its role in our local Waldorf school before enrolling our children. This was before the Internet was a part of people's lives. I later discovered the answers I was given were lies.

I had no reason not to trust the information I was given. I've interviewed numerous private school directors/principals and in those cases where my children ended up attending their schools there were no conditions or events that contradicted anything they told me about the schools. Because my father was in the army, my parents interviewed many private school principals before sending my brother and me to new schools. None of those schools had hidden agendas. There are some people you expect to lie: criminals, politicians, teenagers. It is not normal, however, for schools to lie to parents of prospective students.

•••

Here's another. Background: Steiner's doctrines include karma, reincarnation, and clairvoyance. Eugene Schwartz is a leading Waldorf educator. [41]

When I asked about karma, for instance, I was given the casually studied answer that "all it really means is that the children have a past and a future".

There seems to be a deliberate quest to make out that the questions we ask are outlandish and laughable, but Waldorf teachers are really down-to-earth simple creative folk, gently dealing with the children. They "only take what they want from Steiner".

Last year [my partner] received this reply from Alan Swindell, Education Co-ordinator at Devon Steiner School, when he emailed Martin Whitlock about Anthroposophy at the school.

"The importance of reincarnation and 'Anthroposophical tenets' to the teaching staff is a question for each individual teacher to answer. I would not dare attempt it on their behalf! As a school, however, [our]  colors can be nailed squarely to the mast. Teachers are urged to study Steiner's views on child development, teaching methods, and the age-appropriate curriculum he initiated with his books and lectures. Decisions made in the classroom will be influenced by this study."

One answer seems to negate the other. The teachers have their own personal beliefs about Anthroposophy, no one would dare presume otherwise, how absurd! Anthroposophy is all about freedom! Yet the school "urges" them to study Steiner (presumably Anthroposophy) and make decisions in the classroom based on this study. Where is the "individual freedom" in that? It doesn't make sense. Either they have a starting point of so called "truths" and "beliefs" or they don't. They can't have it both ways. Unless it's comparable to an atheist teaching Creationism in a faith school, which is entirely possible; it would just seem a bit ... hypocritical.

It's extremely hard to nail them down with any sort of straight answer. And when they are open, it's seen as a slip. When Eugene Schwartz  [42] said the schools are religious, or when Jeremy Smith of the Steiner Waldorf School's Fellowship said Steiner's insights were clairvoyant for instance. These are words which are never seen in the promotional material.

They are so practiced in euphemisms and vague terms which could translate in myriad ways.

◊◊◊◊

For an exploration of karma,

please use this link: "Karma"

 ◊◊◊◊ 

 

 

 

ENDNOTES 

 

[1] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER  (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 649-650.

[2] Ibid., pp. 607-608.

[3] Rudolf Steiner, PRACTICAL ADVICE TO TEACHERS (Anthroposophical Press, 2000), pp. 116-117.

[4] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 20.

[5] Ibid., p. 10.

 

Steiner was surely right to oppose gossip. But notice how his prohibition goes far beyond gossip to cover virtually anything that happens in the school. (And would you agree that, if students are being slapped, this is something that concerns only the school?)

 

[6] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 408.

 

[7] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 712 .

 

[8] Rudolf Steiner, quoted by Anthroposophist John Fentress Gardner in "The Founding of Adelphi's Waldorf School," ONE MAN'S VISION: In Memoriam, H.A.W. Myrin (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), p. 46.

 

[9] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 655.

 

[10] Ibid., p. 705.

 

[11] Ibid., pp. 615-616.

 

[12] Ibid., p. 698.

 

[13] Ibid., pp. 698-699.

 

[14] Ibid., p. 703.

 

[15] Ibid., p. 705.

 

[16] Ibid., p. 707.

 

[17] Ibid., p. 706.

 

[18] Ibid., p. 706.

 

[19] Ibid., pp. 706-707.

 

[20] Ibid., p. 708.

 

[21] Ibid., p. 709.

 

[22] Ibid., pp. 607-608.

Steiner said the teachers could convey the idea of floating islands this way:  "With the students, we should at least try to achieve what I have striven for with the workers in Dornach [to whom Steiner delivered lectures], pictures that make it clear that an island...." [p. 607]

[23] Ibid., p. 617.

[24] Rudolf Steiner, SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Press 2003), pp. 136-137.

[25] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 29.

[26] Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p.156.

[27] Rudolf Steiner, PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 45.

[28] FACULTY MEETING WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 408-409.

Steiner and the Waldorf teachers went on to consider a PR offensive they could undertake. They were concerned about reports that young Waldorf students lack basic academic skills."[W]e need to show why it only seems that students are not so far along at the end of the second grade. The examples of [a former student's] work we sent along show that Z [the former student] did not progress very far, that he could only write 'hors' instead of 'horse.' There are many such examples. 'He could only add by using his fingers.' That is not so bad. It is clear he could not add the number seven to another number ... The situation is quite tempting for someone [i.e., a critic] with a modern pedagogical understanding. That is how we can most easily be attacked. We will have to defend ourselves against that ... We need to ward off this matter with bitter humor ... We need to write back ... sarcastically." [Ibid., pp. 409-410.]

The underlying reality is that a Waldorf school does not view ordinary education (such as reading and arithmetic) as its primary goal. It is out to achieve occult aims, but it must keep these aims secret. Secrecy and deception are thus basic to the school's operations — and when the school is criticized, the criticism must be brushed off with sarcasm, since anyone who criticizes Waldorf is a dolt whose views are nonsense.

 

[29] Ibid., p. 323.

As is often true with Steiner, establishing the historical record can be complex. On February 6, 1923, Steiner professed not to know whether teachers at the school slapped children, and he said slapping should be avoided because it does not improve discipline and could damage the school's reputation. “There may be teachers in the Waldorf School who slap the children, and so forth ... I have heard it said that the Waldorf teachers hit children, and we have discussed that often. The fact is, you cannot improve discipline by hitting the children ... Perhaps no one [i.e., the teachers] wants to say anything about this, but my question is whether that is simply a story that has been spread like so many other lies, or have children, in fact, been slapped in the Waldorf School? If that has occurred, it could ruin a great deal. We must hold the ideal of working without doing that[i.e., hitting the students]; discipline will also be better if we can avoid it.” [ Ibid., p.547.] This statement seems disingenuous, in light of what we've seen previously. And, significantly, note that even in this apparently straightforward statement opposing corporal punishment, Steiner does not lay down an outright prohibition. Also, he is on record as permitting corporal punishment: “Under certain circumstances it may be necessary to spank a child ... I have to admit that there are rowdies ....” [Ibid., p. 22.] In sum, it would seem that Steiner allowed corporal punishment but wanted it to be minimized because of the harm it could do to the school's standing.

 

[30] Ibid., p. 655.

 

[31] Ibid., 495. “You need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and if this occasionally appears anthroposophical, it is not anthroposophy that is at fault. Things are that way because anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth ... Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself.” Since Steiner promoted Anthroposophy as the key to human wisdom, he is here effectively acknowledging that Anthroposophy will pervade every subject in the Waldorf curriculum. When will Anthroposophy be “called for by the material”? Almost always.

 

[32] See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"

[33] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 402-403.

 

[34] Ibid., pp. 649-650.

It is stunning to read of these Waldorf teachers sitting quietly, accepting Steiner’s insane and indecent teachings. Imagine what L.K.’s parents would have felt, if they had read the transcripts I’ve been relaying to you.

A “daemon,” a genius or spiritual force, may be good, but a “demon” is almost inevitably bad. For instance, Steiner identifies the Antichrist as Sorat, the Sun Demon. [Rudolf Steiner, READING THE PICTURES OF THE APOCALYPSE (Anthroposophic Press, 1993), p. 19.] Likewise, the “demon of love” represents corrupted love: “The demon of love lives in all this intellectualized talk about sexuality.” [Rudolf Steiner, WHAT IS ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 2002), p. 79.] Intellect, bad. Sex, bad. As for the “demon of materialism”: “[T]he spirit was squeezed out of human life, and in its place there appeared the demon of materialism.” [Rudolf Steiner, SOCIAL ISSUES (Anthroposophic Press, 1993), p. 100.] Here, Steiner uses the term "demon" figuratively, but the  "demon" is nonetheless clearly evil. In brief: When in doubt, assume that any demon you meet is a bad guy.

[35] Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 70.

 

[36] Steiner made numerous racist remarks. Concerning blacks, he said — among other things — “[A] centre of cosmic influence [is] situated in the interior of Africa. At this centre are active all those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil which can influence man especially during his early childhood ... The black or Negro race is substantially determined by these childhood characteristics.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 75.] And “[E]verything connected to the body and the metabolism is strongly developed in the Negro. He has, as they say, powerful physical drives. The Negro has a powerful instinctual life. And because he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body surface, in his skin, his whole metabolism operates as if he were being cooked inside by the sun. That is where his instinctual life comes from. The Negro is constantly cooking inside, and what feeds this fire is his rear-brain.” [Rudolf Steiner, VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE (Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1993), p. 55.] For understandable reasons, some of Steiner’s most outrageous statements are omitted from English-language editions of Steiner’s work. More secrets.

[37] Steiner dismissed real science often and in many ways. One pithy comment is the following, in which Steiner criticized a rationalist: “He did not want any fairy tales told to children, or to teach children anything other than scientific trash....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE RENEWAL OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 94.]

 

[38] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 615-616.

[39] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages/9051

[40] Message by Margaret Sachs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages/9075

[41] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/10956 

[42] See "Waldorf Now" here at Waldorf Watch.