Waldorf Problems

Did you ever wonder why things go so wrong so often? This wasn't the gods' intention. In fact, it violates the divine cosmic plan [1]. But as things turn out, there are some real S.O.B's out there. Satan, for one. Don't meet him in a dark alley. On the other hand, some argue that Satan gets a bum rap. His other handle is Lucifer—the bearer of light. Surely he's not the real culprit behind all earthly sorrow. In fact, according to Rudolf Steiner, he isn't—or, at least, he isn't the only major demon trying to do us harm. He is equaled, or perhaps even outshone, by a little-known Zoroastrian thug called Ahriman. On this page, I'll confine myself to three illustrative quotes. For the first, I'll turn to a much-used, widely accepted all-American reference work. For the other two, I'll hand the mike to R. Steiner. I won't  say much to rebut  Steiner. I consider Steiner's own words to be the best evidence for the prosecution. I'll let the man convict himself.

"Ahura Mazda is the chief god in a religion of ancient Persia called Zoroastrianism. The deity is also called Ohrmazd. The god is the creator of all things and the judge of all peoples. Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda is in continuous conflict with the evil spirit Ahriman. At the end of time, Ahura Mazda will triumph and Ahriman will be destroyed. All people must decide whether they will follow Ahura Mazda or Ahriman. They will be rewarded or punished after their death, depending on their choice." [2]

What can we learn from this? a) Drive a Mazda. b) Attend to the brilliant insights of Rudolf Steiner. c) Do neither.
 
Consider the following: one of the All-Timers, in my book: a Steiner statement that everyone with even a minimal interest in Waldorf education should know: (I’ve said this before and probably will again): here’s what the great man said: "Lucifer and Ahriman..fought [the] harmonious tendency of development in the evolution of humanity...While there should have been basically only one form of human being...Lucifer and Ahriman preserved [earlier human types, i.e., races]...older racial forms remained unchanged and newer ones began to evolve at the same time." [3]
 
A few explanations, then we'll move on. Steiner was a racist. He taught that some races are higher or more evolved than others. What you've just read is his explanation for racial differences. Demons did it.

Suppressing the revulsion we should properly feel, let's give R.S. one more shot on the question of Ahriman's guilt. The following statement refers to the German author, Goethe. Steiner considered Goethe a sort of pre-Steiner, a seer who could penetrate cosmic mysteries (although not as well as Steiner said he himself could). Steiner corrects Goethe, saying that Goethe's drama "Faust," about a man who seeks total knowledge of everything (what Steiner effectively claimed to possess), should have pinned at least half of the blame for Faust's troubles on Ahriman: "If Goethe in his day had thoroughly understood how things stand...he would never have represented the Mephistophelean power as Faust's only enemy and seducer...rather, he would have shown Lucifer as complementing and opposing this Mephistophelean power whom we recognize as identical with Ahriman...." [4] So whereas before we saw Lucifer and Ahriman working together, here we find Lucifer "opposing" Ahriman's nastiness. Conclusion? Lucifer bad (except when he's helping us); Ahriman badder (except when Lucifer is just as bad, and/or in any instances when Ahriman may relent a little...)

 
Enough said?

 

If you want to read more about Steiner's horrid racism—please use the following links:

http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/nine.html

and

http://steiner-predicts.com
 
---
 
By the bye: I realize that the excisions I make in Steiner's statements may seem fishy. You can either take my word that I am just cutting out verbiage (Steiner was long-winded, and he tended to ramble—I'm doing him a favor, editing him down to more reasonable length without altering his meaning) or you can check up on me by consulting the books I cite. All of my work is verifiable in this way: I tell you what Steiner said, and I tell you in which book he said it. So, please, take nothing on faith. Check. Taking things on faith is, in fact, one of the targets of my essays. Anthroposophists take amazingly silly things on faith. Let's not follow their bad example.
 
By a different bye: Let me reiterate: I laugh at Steiner, and I urge you to do the same, because so much of what he said or wrote was obvious, utter hogwash. Laughter doesn't solve problems, perhaps, but it can be beneficial, stripping the cloak of plausibility from charlatans, hate-mongers, and fools who pretend to wisdom. If, at Steiner's first lecture, the audience had burst into derisive howls of scorn, and pelted R.S. with tomatoes and tubers, a noxious career might have been nipped in the bud, and the rest of us would have been spared a lot of fuss and bother (and pain, and distress, and benighted searchings...) So: Laugh at him. He deserves it.

ENDNOTES

[1] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education  (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 55.

[2] The World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, Mac OS X Edition, Version. 6.0.2.

[3] Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: The Evolution of Individuality (Anthroposophic Press, 1990), p. 75.

[4] Rudolf Steiner, THE INCARNATION OF AHRIMAN: The Embodiment of Evil on Earth (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2006), p.1.