WC Observer: Spotlight on the Waldorf Critics

Steiner and Treitschke

Last week someone e-mailed me a post that Peter Staudenmaier wrote to the Waldorf Critics list nearly a year ago about a page I put up on this site. It took me a little while to get around to investigating it, but upon careful examination of the claims that Peter Staudenmaier has made, I find it appropriate to write the following response.

]]> I make mistakes. Flipping the “e” and the “i" in Treitschke is the type of typing error I am prone to. I went through the site and found eight instances where I had misspelled Treitschke, writing Trietschke instead. Sloppy? Yes. But this hardly constitutes misspelling the name "in several different ways", precisely the type of exaggeration that Staudenmaier is prone to, and cannot resist, when he gets on his polemical rolls.

Now to the central argument: Can Rudolf Steiner be said to be "an admirer" of Heinrich von Treitschke? Well now, I suppose that really depends on how you define "admirer". For Staudenmaier's purposes, any hint of sympathy to any aspect of Treitschke’s work is sufficient to merit the label, so that this "admiration" can be rapidly and broadly extended to every aspect of Treitschke’s work, and especially the nationalistic portion, whether this is actually merited or not. This continues his "guilt by association" line of argumentation that he has been using against Steiner since he first published "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".

So I will make a concession. I will confess that it is inaccurate to state without qualification that Steiner was not an admirer of Treitschke. For there were some aspects of Treitschke’s work that Steiner did profess to find useful. On the other hand, it is just as inaccurate to state that Steiner was an admirer of Treitschke, for this too is misleading. It is just as misleading because Treitschke left a large body of work ranging across a number of topics, though German and especially 19th century Prussian history was his specialty. Today he is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world, and therefore can be easily defined as a one dimensional character. During his lifetime he was a very famous and highly popular historian and politician.

When I wrote about Steiner's relationship to Treitschke in the article that Staudenmaier attacks, I concluded with the following statement:

Steiner did speak favorably of certain aspects of Treitschke's works in a number of places, but his praise was always narrowly directed. And Steiner was careful not to praise Treitschke's person, only aspects of his work. Thus I do not feel that it is accurate to call Steiner an admirer of Treitschke.

As is typical, Peter Staudenmaier did not engage in the subtlety of my argument, but rather made a quick straw man and proceeded to knock that down rather vigorously. Staudenmaier writes that I insist “that Steiner, who met Treitschke personally and referred to him frequently throughout his anthroposophical works, did not admire Treitschke”. You would think from reading this sentence Treitschke was a frequent subject of praise and discussion in Steiner's nearly 6000 lectures. But that is simply not the case. There are under 20 references in these 330 volumes, a statistically highly infrequent occurrence. Staudenmaier has searched through these, and as usual as selectively quoted from a few trying to make the case that Steiner did utter laudatory statements about the person of Treitschke. Why is this important? Again it is to establish the "guilt by association" argument. What Staudenmaier has utterly failed to find, and this is because there are not any, are blanket endorsements of Treitschke nationalism. These simply do not exist, because Steiner was a vigorous and lifelong anti-nationalist. What you do find is what I described in my article over three years ago: narrowly directed praise to certain aspects of Treitschke work.

Still, to make the case against Steiner, Staudenmaier quotes extensively from a lecture Steiner delivered on January 13, 1917, (Zeitgeschichtliche Betrachtungen - Das Karma der Unwahrhaftigkeit - 2. Teil GA 174; Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1983) attempting to show Steiner's great praise of the man. But Staudenmaier could not help selectively quoting, for if he actually reproduced or summarized Steiner's entire description, he would undermine his own case. In the lecture where Steiner supposedly praised Treitschke extensively, Steiner's description starts off with an explanation that Treitschke was the subject of a demonic possession (page 109, the page before Staudenmaier begins his quotations). Now you may think what you wish of Steiner's diagnosis of demonic possession, but that is hardly the way someone starts off praising an author whom they admire. It was, Steiner explained "not an evil demon, but nonetheless a demon” (109). Treitschke was driven, Steiner explains, by a demonic force towards a materialistic explanation of history. Anyone familiar with Steiner's praise of the spiritual perspective and frequently expressed concern with materialism would hardly consider this to be praise of Treitschke’s person. But Staudenmaier, our polemical historian, has omitted this entire section as he tries through selective quotation to make a case to the opposite.

It is further interesting to note what of all of Treitschke’s work Steiner singles out for praise. Steiner praises Treitschke’s essay on freedom, and another essay in which Treitschke discusses the necessary limitations on the power of the state over the individual. Hardly the type of work that nationalists focus on. Nationalism, after all, is the philosophy that the nation and the state representing the nation has primacy over the individual.

So while Staudenmaier has clipped his citations such that they might be plausibly read as possibly indicating some form of praise for Treitschke, if you read the portions that he has left out, they are the contextualizing and critical portions. This is a point I have frequently raised in analyzing Staudenmaier's writing: namely that he selectively quotes, which in itself is necessary, but that he does so in such a way that the original passages are distorted, frequently into the opposite of the authors original statements.

So while Steiner delivered a lecture in which he sought to explain Treitschke work and significance both critically and from the occult perspective, describing Treitschke as possessed by a demonic force and also criticizing aspects of Treitschke work, Staudenmaier has selected only the slightly positive sentences, reproducing them as full paragraphs, to make his point. This is nothing less than intellectually dishonest. Steiner did not "specifically and effusively praised Treitschke’s contributions to the German national project”. The closest that he remotely came was to pointing out that a nationalist historian such as Treitschke is understandably appreciated by the Germans in a different way than by non-Germans. Had Staudenmaier left in the full context, it would be clear that Steiner was speaking in an objective way about international criticism of Treitschke and the German reaction to it; he was not taking sides. And Steiner, I must again emphasize, was emphatically not endorsing Treitschke’s nationalism. This is clear if you read the entire lecture, and not the heavily edited version Staudenmaier has offered and interpreted in trying to make his point.

Peter Staudenmaier likes to complain that anthroposophists do not "get" his arguments, and he practically laments the fact that they frequently do not agree with him. But there is a reason for that which goes beyond stubbornness, ignorance, or stupidity. His argumentation is faulty, his research highly selective, and his treatment of sources is repeatedly, deliberately, and blatantly dishonest. The only way that Peter Staudenmaier is able to continue to plausibly argue his tired and mistaken point of view is that almost none of his readers are able to check his citations against the original, and a few that are generally do not want to spend their lives as his research assistant. Were he to attempt such a hatchet job on an intellectual figure who worked primarily in English, he would be laughed off the Internet.

I will stand by my original summary of Steiner's relationship to Treitschke, even as I concede that some of my phrasing can be as misleading as Staudenmaier's.

Steiner did speak favorably of certain aspects of Treitschke's works in a number of places, but his praise was always narrowly directed. And Steiner was careful not to praise Treitschke's person, only aspects of his work. Thus I do not feel that it is accurate to call Steiner an admirer of Treitschke.

Is Wolfgang Treher a reliable author?

Peter Staudenmaier is certainly the master of spin. Consider a post to the Waldorf Critics list that someone forwarded to me recently. In this post Peter Staudenmaier discusses the obscure 1966 self-published book “Hitler, Steiner, Schreber” by the psychologist Wolfgang Treher. Treher attempted to link Daniel Paul Schreber (d. 1911) with the very notorious Hitler and the obscure Steiner by their supposed symptoms of a common psychological illness.

]]> When Peter Staudenmaier first trotted out Treher’s book in his poorly researched “Anthroposophy and Ecofascism” it was to suggest that Steiner’s ideas about cultural progression were the basis for Hitler’s concentration camps, a perverse insinuation made by Treher in 1966 which any historian ought to be able to find problematic. After all, Steiner was on a right wing hit list in the early 1920s and there was an intense mutual dislike between Steiner in the early fascists. Staudenmaier ignored the remainder of Treher’s book, including its central thesis, that Steiner was schizophrenic. When I first published my criticism of Staudenmaier’s article in 2005, here is what I wrote:

This “important” work [Treher’s book] was considered so scholarly that it was unable to find a publisher, so it was self-published by the author. That 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 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 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 Staudenmaier.

Years later Staudenmaier is still trying to defend Treher’s posthumous retroactive psychoanalytic forensics. The main difference is that he appears at this point have actually looked at the book. He does admit that he does not care much for Treher’s central thesis; that is, Steiner does not appear to of been an insane schizophrenic. But that will not stop him from arguing that the book is important, especially for the part where Treher attempts to make links between Steiner’s philosophy and Hitler’s National Socialism.

So how does Staudenmaier spin Treher’s influence? First, he argues for the books broad availability. I had called it obscure and very difficult to find. Staudenmaier counters that “dozens” of libraries carry it. From what I was able to determine, exactly six research university libraries have a copy in Germany. That is, six university libraries that have between 10 and 30 million volumes each have a single copy on the shelf. These libraries are accessible to university students, professors, and visiting scholars such as Peter Staudenmaier. Under certain circumstances, the volume is available through interlibrary loan. In addition, a couple large municipal library systems list a copy as available, including New York, Toronto, Frankfurt and a few others. So I suppose that dozens of libraries have access to it, through an interlibrary loan system. And arguably, that means it is fairly “easy” to get. Unless you are not in Germany or do not have a German student ID, in which case it’s virtually impossible (unless you happen to live in New York City, or Toronto). I asked several people in Germany to find me a copy, and the only person was able to was a friend who is enrolled in the University there. And he was only able to get it because he photocopied the whole thing for me; actually purchasing a copy was not possible (the book is, after all, over 40 years out of print).

Now, why is the book even in university libraries in Germany? Because it is a landmark volume in the history of Rudolf Steiner scholarship? Actually, no. The part of the book that has kept it available is the section on Daniel Paul Schreber. Schreber was a German judge who later in life succumbed to paranoid schizophrenia, was institutionalized and died. Along the way he wrote an autobiography memoir of his descent into madness. But what really kept his name alive in history was the fact that Sigmund Freud used him as a case study. As Freud’s theories aged and started to attract widespread criticism, Schreber became a point of interest because of his connection to Freud. That is, scholars attempting to discredit Freud went back to look at Schreber’s experiences in order to re-examine Freud’s theories. And thus Treher’s book is occasionally useful, and occasionally cited in this context. The fact that it contains Hitler and Steiner is actually incidental. This is demonstrated by all of the citations Staudenmaier he brings up to show the book’s importance. The citations are primarily in articles that reference Freud and Schreber; none of them mention Steiner.

Staudenmaier provides the following list with comments:

Ellen Gibbels, "Hitlers Nervenkrankheit: Eine neurologisch- psychiatrische Studie", Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte vol. 42 no. 2 (1994) pp. 155-220.
Gibbels discusses Treher's book on p. 219, disagreeing with its diagnosis of Hitler as schizophrenic.

Zvi Lothane, In Defense of Schreber (London 1992) discusses Treher's book on p. 373, criticizing its treatment of both Schreber and Hitler. Neither Gibbels nor Lothane dismisses the book; instead they explain why they do not share its conclusions.

Gerhard Grimm, "Führung, Struktur und Aussenpolitik des "Dritten Reiches": Ein Literaturbericht", Politische Studien no. 198, vol. 22 (1971) pp. 423-434. Grimm reviews Treher's book on p. 424, a more thorough discussion than Gibbels or Lothane. Grimm's review is very positive, and briefly mentions the material on Steiner.

Fritz Redlich, Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet (Oxford 1999) cites Treher's book respectfully on p. 333 and disagrees with its diagnosis of schizophrenia.

James Webb, The Occult Establishment (Chicago 1976) discusses Treher's book on p. 493, particularly its "detailed and convincing comparison of the private worlds of Rudolf Steiner and Adolf Hitler." Webb's appraisal of The book is very positive. On p. 515 Webb again mentions Treher's book and especially highlights its treatment of Steiner, remarking aptly: "I would not accept it all, but there is much of great interest in Treher's account."

Six citations in 40 years are supposed to indicate a book is important? And virtually all of these citations disagree with the author and find his conclusions misguided if not silly? This is supposed to establish that we should take the book seriously when it talks about Steiner, even though scholars do not pretend to take it seriously when dealing with the retroactive diagnosis of schizophrenia in the case of Hitler? And Schreber scholars find it misguided in its treatment of Schreber? We are supposed to accept that an author who is wrong on two counts is actually right on the third? Now that is an example of spin. If the best scholarly endorsement of the Steiner section is that “I would not accept it all, but there is much of great interest in Treher’s account” then this is indeed a profoundly insightful scholarly book.

So is it fair to call Treher’s book obscure and unbalanced? Well, first it is never been translated out of German and to any other language. Second, it was self-published and exists only in a few university libraries and other very large collections. Third, it is fairly easy to access if you are a scholar physically in Germany, but if you are anywhere else except New York or Toronto, good luck. What about the balanced portion? Every single author to cite it disagrees with the least part if not all of the portions they looked at. Most of them skipped the Steiner part. And overall, very few authors cite it (six in 40 years).

Obscure and unbalanced? Or incisive mainstream scholarship? We report, you decide.

PLANS case lives on, almost 10 years later

Two years ago I wrote about how PLANS had failed in its lawsuit seeking to have the curriculum changed at two California charter schools on the basis that Waldorf pedagogy as it was practiced in these charter schools was inherently religious and therefore contrary to the current case law on the separation of church and state, which prohibits public money from funding religious education. PLANS hopes such a ruling would effectively prevent any public school in the United States from employing Waldorf methods, though in reality the response by the dozen or so Waldorf-inspired charters in five states would probably be that to make a few modifications and continue as before. The California school districts, as well as almost everyone in the Waldorf movement, disagreed that Waldorf methods are at all religious. The suit was filed in 1998. Given the high stakes involved, the suit moved rapidly through the system (I am being ironic), finally coming to trial in 2005. The actual trial lasted 31 minutes, and the suit was dismissed on its merits. The judge ruled that PLANS had failed to prove any of its contentions. PLANS appealed on a technicality (the only thing you can appeal on), alleging that the exclusion of the testimony of two witness was improper. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considered the specifics, and decided that the judge had improperly excluded the witness. The case was remanded to the lower court, where more hearings are scheduled for mid-January, 2008. The lawsuit will be re-run, this time with the testimony of the two additional witnesses, sometime in the coming years. Doubtless PLANS hopes the retrial will last longer than 31 minutes. To this end PLANS is also trying to introduce new evidence, since the evidence they had originally presented was ruled inadequate. It is not clear whether the judge will allow this, hence the January hearings. At this point it seems unlikely that the retrial will come to any different of an outcome, but hope springs eternal. At last reckoning the baseless PLANS lawsuit has cost the taxpayers of California $300,000 (the school district’s declared legal costs back in 2005) taking much needed money away from educating children. This amount will escalate as the school districts continue to defend themselves. Meanwhile the Waldorf-methods charter schools named in the original suit have been in operation over ten years, graduating at least two 1st Grades from 8th Grade. The schools are largely successful, and much loved by students and parents alike. PLANS’ quixotic, narrow ideological crusade continues.

Another non-PLANS member

"Pete is a fervent representative of the PLANS group."
This, of course, is an outright LIE. Said by Pete on the

Comments on "Deny, Deny, Deny"

Back in August 2005, Linda wrote two blogs about the odd discrepancy between the description on the PLANS web-site and the actual membership of PLANS.
Lies on the PLANS Web-site and Recap on PLANS membership

Linda wrote:

"People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds." Really? Who are they? Where are they? Very few I met there over the years would admit to being part of PLANS. In fact, I was scolded and lectured on several occasions for presuming anyone to be so. Besides those individuals (seven) who are identified as members of the board of directors of PLANS, I found just *one* other person willing to admit to actually being a member of this supposed "worldwide network".

So, now we have it on record. Pete is another person who is absolutely not to be considered as a member of PLANS, much less any sort of representative thereof.

Which leaves me wondering. Why are these folks so vehemently opposed to being publicly connected with this organization?

Deny, deny, deny

Diana Winter posted on AT on May 7, 2006

Did PLANS tell lies to obtain a grant? Is there some reason you might think this? What kind of lie? To who, about what? Is there some evidence for this, or any reason you can think of PLANS would lie to obtain a grant? I can certainly agree that telling a lie is usually unethical, but until you bring this into the realm of something that actually might have happened, and explain why you think so, it is your own behavior that is unethical.

Diana Winter posted on AT on May 8, 2006

Christian fundamentalists are also entitled to religious freedom, which is the basis of the lawsuit. You or I don't have to like their religion, I don't like it any more than they like anthroposophy, but they have a right to support, via grant giving, a lawsuit that protects their rights. It was a *good* thing to do - it was not ethically "murky." Nor did PLANS, in accepting it, do anything ethically "murky." (It's a PR disaster, I agree; but not ethically wrong.)

Well, the telling lies in the grant applications turned out to be pretty bad for the fundamentalists, in this particular case, although I think they got what they deserved. No, not for being fundamentalists, nor for funding a case against waldorf in public education. They got what they deserved for skipping out on their responsibilities as grantors and not bothering to do a smidgen of research and some critical reading. Where did these folks get the money to make grants? Obviously, from donors. Donors to a cause deserve fiscally responsible behavior from the people they give their money to. PLANS and their lawyers were a bad investment and this should have been obvious within a couple of days of the receipt of the grant application. Would you give money to a group to pursue a lawsuit if they can't get their facts straight? If they call something Wicca when it is something else entirely? PLANS and their lawyer have done a pathetic job on this lawsuit (see PLANS Loses Waldorf Court Case, Lies About it in Press Release ) and the clues were there to begin with. It is too bad someone wasn't paying attention.

Diana Winter posted on May 9, 2006

When confronted, deny, deny, deny

Later that same day I put up a couple of quotes from the grant application.

We didn't hear from Diana again until May 13. I've already quoted her initial (feeble) response on this blog Responses to: A Peculiar Grant Application--Part I

Here, at 9:08 a.m. on May 13 is Diana Winter's final response (at least on AT).

No, Deborah. This game is finished. You simply make yourself appear desperate when you immediately abandon one accusation the moment it is challenged, and start a new one. The whole question of who accused who of Wicca is not going to be revived here now, at least not with my participation. I've gone on record about it several times. Nice try changing the subject though!

The quotes I posted included the Wicca bit, so in what way was I changing the subject? Obviously, by raising a topic Diana wanted to ignore. I presented a package deal, not of accusations, but of direct quotes from an actual PLANS grant application. The question I asked was if these quotes were lies. Diana decided that one item could have been a mistake, rather than a lie. So, until I concede that it could, indeed, have been a mistake, rather than a lie, I'm not allowed to discuss anything else? Odd concept of the rules of online discussion.

So who is desperate? Who ran away to hide back in the cozy WC where it is possible to pretend that everything is okay?

Warm thanks to Diana W!

Why did Dan Dugan have to write the following explanation for the, um, mistatements in the grant application?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/26186

Because of Diana W., of course. Her over-the-top, totally ridiculous response to my mild, light-hearted hint that PLANS just might have lied in a grant application, forced me to actually publish quotes from that grant application. I wouldn't have cared if she had ignored my remark. Nobody else would have noticed if she had ignored my remark. Within days, everyone would have forgotten that anyone had said anything at all about PLANS lying on a grant application. But Diana, in her attempt to defend PLANS from attack, opened them up to public humiliation and made it necessary for Dan to go out and try to explain the unexplainable and justify the unjustifiable. I just hope Dan appreciates her efforts to protect him.

While I'm at it, I'd like to acknowledge a couple of other achievements from Diana.

One of my favorites is her role in getting Pete kicked off of Mothering. I won't go into details, but she probably knows what I'm talking about and I'm sure that Pete has figured it out.

Her outstanding ability to present the Waldorf Critics as nutcases and fruits has been very useful over the years and is highly valued by everyone who tries to protect Waldorf education from defamation.

So, I just wanted to take this opportunity to express my warm appreciation of Diana. My favorite Critic and a truly thoughtful and courteous human being. One who can be depended upon to open her mouth and insert not only her foot, but her leg, and beyond.

I dunno...I dunno...I dunno

PLANS is supposed to be made up of people who have developed expert knowledge about waldorf schools and waldorf education. However, whenever anyone asks them an awkward question, they suddenly either disappear or become exceedingly ignorant. Consider, for example, the snippet below, taken off of the the Waldorf Critics discussion list.

The children were also required to say a pledge to the sun
flag, and other Wicca based religious practices.

I don't know what he was talking about there.

-Dan Dugan

Dan was quoting from the grant application, submitted by PLANS, with the name of PLANS lawyer as author and the name of PLANS president, Deborah Snell listed as responsible person. But Mr. Dan Dugan has no idea what his lawyer could be talking about. No idea where he could have gotten the idea that Waldorf Education and Waldorf Schools could be related to Wicca. Just no idea at all.

However, consider this snippet:

On May 26, 1997, PLANS president Debra Snell responded that while allegations of witchcraft were not part of PLANS' agenda, she had done nothing to correct them, and she was "happy" that they were made in the media.
Debra Snell: We did not phone the Sacramento Bee to dispute Sac. City Unified School Officials statement that PLANS claims is based on rumor either...
Anyone who knows PLANS' claims, knows that witchcraft has not been our handle.
[But] We're frankly happy to see the issue in the news, and it has certainly been there lately.

So PLANS was happy to have false claims of witchcraft associated with waldorf schools and waldorf education, but Dan has no idea, no idea at all, where his lawyer got the idea, just not the slightest bit of comprehension as to why this blatant falsehood turned up in the grant application.

And yes, the lawyer did it.

Now, where have I heard that excuse before?

Responses to: A Peculiar Grant Application

The response has been dismayingly feeble. So, I think I'll start with some quotes from Diana Winter, berating me in her inimitable manner for implying that PLANS might have lied on their grant application.

You made innuendos that you are refusing to explain. You should explain them, or your own tactics are sleazy, while you wax eloquent that other people are doing things that are supposedly "murky." You retract the word with your exaggerated politeness, but offer no explanation. Have you no shame? Perceive no irony? Other people are up to dirty tricks, but these tactics you are using, these are honorable? You planted the suggestion here that PLANS lied in a grant application. This is really not costing you a little sleep?

So, I explained, I substantiated, I quoted directly from the PLANS grant application. I'm sure that no one acquainted with Diana Winter will be surprised that she failed to apologize for her abusive remarks. In fact, her behavior was quite murky. First she disappeared from the AT for a few days. Complete and total silence, after she insisted that I had to substantiate my claim, or commit hari-kiri or the online equivalent. Then she returned, offered the feeble explanation that:

The name of the school is wrong on the grant application? I have no idea the meaning of this, but it looks like an error to me. So conspiracy hounds, if they'd written "Yuba River Charter School" on that form instead of "Yuba City," PJI would have said; "There is no school by that name. The correct name is blah-blah. Funding denied." LOL.

Just in case somebody is having trouble following this somewhat murky discussion, Diana chose the most extremely minor point in the quote from the grant application, that one of the school names is incorrect. The far less minor point is the claim that the school, still unnamed, was compulsory. There is NO compulsory elementary school and there WAS NEVER a compulsory elementary school. But Diana doesn't touch on the real point, just says, "Gosh, a boo-boo, but it isn't important."

I review grant applications for a foundation. I've been reviewing grant applications for over ten years now. If I received a grant application with an obvious error, or with questionable claims, I would call up the grantee and ask some pointed questions about the content of the grant application. I would be irresponsible if I recommended a grant to somebody who was spouting inaccuracies, and way beyond irresponsible if I recommended a grant to someone who included obvious falsehoods in their grant application.

It isn't okay to lie in a grant application. A grant application is a request for money for a particular purpose. Requesting money using false information is fraud. Certainly, it is possible to make a mistake on a grant application. An HONEST applicant who discovers they have made a mistake, contacts the grantor and submits a correction.

So, even if the lawyer did the whole thing all by himself, as Dan Dugan claims (a most unlikely story), at some point Dan received a copy of the grant materials. At that point he could have corrected the various errors. Ms. Snell, whose name is on the grant application could have corrected the various errors. Neither of them bothered.

I don't think, at this point, that holding them responsible for the statements that appear on this grant application is particularly harsh.

The folks they submitted the application to? Either incompetent, stupid, or longing to be suckered. They obviously didn't make the slightest attempt to verify ANY of the information submitted.

A Peculiar Grant Application Submitted by PLANS

Did People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools lie on their grant application to the Alliance Defense Fund which was submitted in 1997? You be the judge. Below are some quotes from the grant application, followed by questions and concerns about the accuracy of these statements. I’m also hoping to include explanations and excuses offered by friends and representatives of PLANS, to provide a full picture of the controversy.

As a public magnet school, Oakridge Elementary School in the Sacramento City Unified School District established a Waldorf educational program. This program included requiring children to fold their arms and chant, say a pledge to the sun flag, and other Wicca based religious practices. Rougly [sic] a third of the parents requested that their children be opted out of these religious based activities. The school district refused and told them that they would simply need to take their children to another school. Many of these parents are low income and cannot afford to drive their children to another school. Additionally, in Sutter County, students are sent on a compulsory basis to a Waldorf school (Yuba City Elementary School) when they have discipline problems at their former school.

1) “fold their arms and chant”
a)What does this mean?
b)What is being described here?
c)Is this supposed to be something weird going on just at this one school?
d)or is it supposed to be a universal practice?

2)”say a pledge to the sun flag”
a)What sun flag?
b)What pledge?
c and d same as number 1

3)”other Wicca based religious practices.”
a)What does Wicca have to do with Waldorf?
b)Please explain the following statements by Dan Dugan in relation to the “Wicca” quote in the grant application:
Question to Mr. Dugan:
"Is it your belief that students at John Morse (public school) are learning witchcraft?"
Mr. Dugan:
"No."
Question to Mr. Dugan:
"Is it your belief that students at Yuba River (public school) are learning witchcraft?"
Mr. Dugan:
"No."
Question to Mr. Dugan:
"It’s not your belief that Waldorf (Education) is the work of Satan?"
Mr. Dugan:
"I do not believe that Waldorf is the work of Satan."
(Source: Sworn deposition by Mr. Dugan in the case of "PLANS vs Sacramento Unified School District and Twin Ridges School District" lawsuit, Volume II, April 1, 1999, pp. 160 and 163.)

4)”Rougly [sic] a third of the parents requested that their children be opted out of these religious based activities.”
a)This is stated as though the parents spontaneously noticed that there was a problem at the school and demanded relief. The actual series of events are described here: http://www.americans4waldorf.org/History.html So, PLANS provoked the parents into outrage by feeding them false information about witchcraft, and then used that same outrage and misinformation to request grant support. Please provide ethical justification, or an alternative explanation.
b)Please also provide a copy of the leaflet distributed by PLANS “outside the school, protesting that Waldorf methods had been implemented at the school in September 1996.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
‘Several pickets said they were 'in the dark' as to what was happening at Oak Ridge until PLANS - People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools - began distributing leaflets outside the school.’ [from AWE, see link above])
c)does the leaflet in question include allegations of Wicca practices?

5)Additionally, in Sutter County, students are sent on a compulsory basis to a Waldorf school (Yuba City Elementary School) when they have discipline problems at their former school.”
a)There has only been one compulsory Waldorf public school in California: T.E. Mathews School. TE Mathews is not an elementary school and is in Yuba County. Yuba City is indeed in Sutter County, but Mathews school is in Marysville, Yuba County. Additionally, there is no Yuba City Elementary School at all.
b)So which school is the grant application referring to? It needs to exist (or have existed in 1997) and be compulsory (or have been compulsory in 1997). And it should be an elementary school.

Response from Dan Dugan of PLANS:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/26186

Response to Dan’s response by Linda Clemens:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/26197

"The Bet" Chapter II

It’s been over six months ago now that Deborah made this very simple
offer.

**
This example of something that Steiner supposedly
"said" has been up on the PLANS web-site for years. It
is the first paragraph of an article by Peter
Staudenmaier entitled: Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of
anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a
lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The
lecture series was titled "The Mission of National
Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In
the Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of
"national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's
native tongue) and paid particular attention to the
mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The
"national souls" of Northern and Central Europe
belonged, Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic"
peoples, the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic
group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest
of five historical "root races." This superior fifth
root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was
naturally the "Aryan" race. [1]

I would like to challenge the Waldorf Critics to
verify this quote by providing:

1)The full quote.
2)The date and title of the lecture in question.
3)The GA number of the volume wherein it was
published.

I will personally donate $50 to PLANS for their court
case if anyone can verify this quote.
A few ground rules - the lecture proffered must have
been given in Norway. The quote needs to be translated
into English, but it would be best if it could also be
provided in German. If the quote provided includes
ellipses, the amount of skipped text must be
identified in brackets. I have ten days after a quote
is offered to research the quote and confirm that it
is indeed an accurate reflection of Steiner's spoken
words. The sample quotes need to be offered as
comments on this blog. Any irrelevant quotes (attempts
to prove that Steiner was indeed a racist by quoting
other stuff, not connected with the example above)
will result in $5 being subtracted from the proposed
donation each time such a quote is put forward. And,
to be even meaner, I will only publish the citation
for such quotes, not the quote themselves.
I'm waiting...I have a feeling I'll be waiting a very,
very long time.
***

And indeed Deborah was right. It has been a long
time.

I offered to match her challenge, and having seen no
entry made here to meet it, I was about to urge Deborah to
to declare victory and celebrate by sharing a few episodes of
a similar defeat dealt Peter Staudenmaier by Sune Nordwall.

I was perturbed to find Diana Winters today accusing
Deborah of ducking it, pronouncing that we’d lost
the bet at the Waldorf Critics List. Upon investigating there
I found Peter Staudenmaier had made the same assertion
against me there—accusing me of ducking the bet as well.

Peter Staudenmaier’s quite a thinker, or so he would like us to
believe, and he certainly should be in comparison to the simple
minded ‘grandmotherly librarian’ and ‘anthropology
student’ who came together to put forward this
challenge. How is it that a man that pure smart
couldn’t for the life of him figure out just how in
the heck to actually conform to the rules of this
contest and submit his entry into this blog?

He didn’t deliver his entry to the contest. Apparently
we were expected to go out LOOKING for it. Hmm.
Where to look? Did he enter it on the WC list. Wrong.
Not that I could find after wasting considerable time
looking. Apparently, we’re not only expected to go out
looking for it. We’re expected to look under every rock
and behind every tree to find it.

And lo……………eventually, I have. Peter didn’t post it here.
He didn’t post it there. It was more like a relay.
Peter handed it off to Dan. And Dan posted it to the
WC list. But it never posted here. Come to find out
from Deborah just now, a communication from Dan Dugan
was submitted, but it was half e-jibberish, probably
on account of it having been forwarded and reforwarded
several times before it was actually submitted to the
blog. She returned it requesting that it be cleaned
up first so that a body could actually read it, and
never heard another word from either of them. It
would appear somebody on that relay team plumb dropped
the baton.

The treasure hunt itself has been tedious enough, but
now that I have found it, I discover I have to
continue digging because if there’s really a direct
answer in there somewhere, it sure is bundled up in a
lot of excess padding.

So Peter—if you’re out there listening, are these
posts I found at the WC, sent by Dan, but forwarded to
him from you—are they really what you want to enter
into this contest? Because if you say ‘yes’, I have
to ask---‘why’? Why do you need to submit a twenty
page long, 7000 word explanation to validate this One
Single Paragraph of your article??????????????? This
explanation is just about as long as your entire
article itself. It’s longer than every one of
Steiner’s Christiana lectures, save the last one. And
it sure doesn’t seem to me something so simple could
possibly need so many words to say.

But if this is what you really want to submit, go
ahead. See that section below where it says
“Comments”? That’s where your entry needs to go.
Just as it says in the original directions Deborah
outlined when she offered this challenge.

Belated Response to Dan Dugan

I was delighted to see that Dan claimed (well, sort of) to have identified the mystery quote. This "quote" is described in an article written by Peter Staudenmaier. Oddly, the actual text that Staudenmaier was supposedly drawing on in his article has never been identified, either by anthroposophists, nor by any of the faithful waldorf critics. The offer has been boosted up to $100, as Linda has decided to put in another $50. Both of us feel that our money is very safe. Please see: The Big Lie from PLANS and And There it Sits for the previous installments in this exciting non-event about the non-existent Steiner quote (one of the most quoted non-quotes ever).

Dan wrote (on Sept. 1), quoting from the article by Peter Staudenmaier (which is published on the PLANS web-site):

In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture series was titled "The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race. [1]
I'm sure you understand that the [1] refers to a footnote. The note is:

[1] See Rudolf Steiner, Die Mission einzelner
Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit der
germanisch-nordischen Mythologie, Dornach,
Switzerland 1994. These lectures are available
in English under the title The Mission of the
Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic
Mythology, London 1970. The "Nordic spirit" of
Scandinavia continues to fascinate European
anthroposophists; see, for example, Hans Mändl,
Vom Geist des Nordens, Stuttgart 1966.

I have the book before me. I highly recommend
that you, or anyone who claims that Steiner
wasn't a racist, read this lecture series before
going on any further. Have you read it?

My response:

Dan, the question is not whether Steiner was or was not a racist. The question is whether PLANS publishes lies. If the lecture series you cited includes the material in question you should be able to offer up confirmation of the quote, claim the $100, and smear mud all over anthroposophy and anthroposophists. What is stopping you? The utter non-existence of this quote, perhaps?

I'll even offer some helpful hints.

Mr. Staudenmaier provides some brief quotes that should be able to guide you to the right material (if it exists). Look for the following words or phrases:
"national souls" "germanic-nordic" "root races" "Aryan" (Note: Real scholars rarely use single word quotes, and they do provide notes that link the reader not to an entire lecture series but to the page on which a quote occurs.)

Quote the paragraphs in which these words or phrases show up. If this lecture series contains the points in question: you have won the bet! I'll even stretch the point and allow you to pick and choose passages from several different lectures, as though Staudenmaier's summary covers the entire lecture series.

Just a reminder. If it turns out that Peter made a teensy little mistake and just happened to footnote the wrong lecture series--my bet was easy and open. I asked that the passage merely occur in a lecture given in Norway. This gives you at least one more lecture to search for the mysterious quote.

You do know that the "quote" in question was a fabrication. So why is this article still up on PLANS web-site? Why do you publish lies?

Another peculiarity. The footnote says that the title of the lecture series is: The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology. Staudenmaier gives the title as: "The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." How did the word "folk" become "national"? Did someone have an agenda? The word volk in German has a very similar meaning to the word folk in English. German has a word for national, just as we have in English. We don't say: national tales instead of folk tales. Neither do the Germans. We don't say national arts instead of folk arts. Neither do the Germans.

I can think of some reasons for the odd translation of volk into national. None of them reflect well on Staudenmaier or PLANS.
Just had an amusing thought: the material in question was never offered up by Rudolf Steiner at any time. It was written by Peter Staudenmaier and published by PLANS. So if anyone is spreading racism...

Dan's PLANS Scams

It's all over now. There's nothing left to do with PLANS' seven year long lawsuit except give it a proper burial.

But PLANS has signalled their intention to take the smoldering remains of this case Uptown, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As if they haven't suffered enough indignity~~

Nearly a decade spent gathering evidence for this case, and yet still somehow PLANS failed to show up with a single piece of qualifying evidence during the trial. You'd think this cold splash of reality would give even the band of loyal merrymen at the Waldorf Critics List at least a moment or two of sober reflection. If so, there are no signs of it so far.

Dan Dugan, ably assisted by co-founder Debra Snell, spent the last several days peddling a PR cover story. It wasn't a rout, he assured his absurdly gullible followers. No, Dan declared, PLANS actually staged a walk-out. In protest, he suggested, over the judge's "unfairness" in an earlier ruling to disallow some of the PLANS witnesses. If PLANS couldn't use those witnesses, it seemed, then by God, PLANS would just dig in their heels and take a principled stand against calling any other witnesses either. So there. Humph!

Dan reassures everyone, PLANS "has plenty of witnesses". But they simply "opted" not to call any of them. "We quit.."

I must admit, this was a stunningly bold legal tactic, by any measure. It's time for the opening move of the trial, and the Plaintiff passes? Of course, this daring tactic makes it absolutely assured that the Plaintiff will lose their own case, but hey---it does have one indisputable advantage. It's probably the only tactic used in over two hundred years of American jurisprudence that has never once triggered a defense attorney's objection.

PLANS Loses Waldorf Court Case, Lies About it in Press Release

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

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

If you file a lawsuit, you have the burden of proof of supplying evidence to support your complaint. PLANS' complaint is that the religion of Anthroposophy is being taught in California Charter Schools. The school districts argued in defense that 1.) Anthroposophy is not a religion, and 2.) even if it is a religion, it is not being taught in the Waldorf-methods Charter Schools. The trial examined these two issues, one at a time. In 31 minutes the Judge determined that PLANS had submitted no evidence to support the first contention, while the school districts had offered substantial arguments for why Anthroposophy is not a religion. The judge then ruled in favor of the school districts.

What happened next was interesting. PLANS issued a press release claiming that they had not actually lost, and promised to appeal. (Comments in red)

PUBLIC WALDORF SCHOOLS CHURCH/STATE TRIAL ABORTED OVER EVIDENCE ISSUE

The trial was not "aborted". The trial concluded successfully, and PLANS lost.

In a move that shocked participants and observers in a Sacramento federal courtroom during the opening of its September 12 trial, People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS) refused to present its case without key witnesses and evidence that had been excluded by the the Hon. Frank C. Damrell.

The only people "shocked" were PLANS. The outcome was widely predicted since the Pretrial Conference Order of February 18 th, 2005 was issued. (http://waldorfanswers.org/PretrialConferenceOrder-2005-02-18.pdf ) Given the evidence PLANS had submitted in the timeframe allowed, it was hard to imagine any other outcome.

Judge Damrell said he intends to dismiss the case.

The case will not be dismissed. The case was awarded to the school districts. The districts prevailed. They won. They proved their point, and PLANS did not. The result is not a dismissal.

As a result, PLANS will take its case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

PLANS will appeal the exclusion of two witnesses to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will not decide whether Anthroposophy is a religion or whether Waldorf-methods Charter Schools violate the separation of church and state. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the exclusion of two witnesses was procedurally incorrect.

Two witnesses--Betty Staley, creator of the Rudolf Steiner College public school teacher training program, and Dr. Crystal Olson, a Steiner College staffer who teaches courses on music education--had been listed as expert witnesses by the defendant school districts, and as percipient witnesses by PLANS. In fact, PLANS' attorney, Scott Kendall, had taken lengthy depositions from the two in 1999. However, the defense team's three attorneys changed their minds and withdrew both Staley and Olson's names from their list of expert witnesses after reading each woman's testimony. (Presumably, the lawyers recognized that the women's testimony would do the schools' case more harm than good.)

The two witnesses mentioned by PLANS were disallowed because PLANS failed to follow proper legal procedure and give copies of the depositions to the school districts within the timeframe required. For this reason they lost the right to use these two witnesses. Their appeal concerns the issue of whether the exclusion was valid. If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case and rules in favor of PLANS' (a very unlikely scenario) the case will be retried by the lower court, and the new trial will include the two excluded witnesses. The outcome will likely be the same, because the two excluded witnesses are sympathetic to the school districts, and hostile to PLANS.

The school districts were certain that both Ms. Staley and Dr. Olson would support their side. PLANS took a deposition from both, but when they failed to make copies available to the school districts within the require timeframe, the judge then disallowed Staley and Olson as witnesses for PLANS. They could still be called as witnesses for the school districts, but the districts decided that, with overwhelming amount of other evidence, they did not need the additional testimony of Ms. Staley and Dr. Olson. It makes absolutely no sense for PLANS to object to the exclusion of these two witnesses, since these two witnesses, by their sworn testimony, disagreed with PLANS' position, and offered testimony to refute it. A new trial that includes these two witnesses will very likely come to exactly the same result, with the school districts prevailing. That is why the appeal makes no sense.

Judge Damrell then accepted an objection from the defense, who alleged that PLANS had not properly disclosed those witnesses according to the federal court rule of "automatic disclosure" (rule 26a). This rule requires parties in lawsuits to give all their information about witnesses and evidence to the opposing party immediately, without being asked. PLANS' attorney Scott Kendall asserts that the rule does not apply in this case because it was not in effect in this court in 1998, when this case originated.

PLANS is asking the appeals court to rule that, if you take a deposition in 1999, but you filed the lawsuit in 1998, then the 1999 rule does not apply to you. Judge Damrell disagrees, and is unlikely to be overruled by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the 9th Circuit does overrule Judge Damrell, then the case will be retried with the two witnesses hostile to PLANS, and PLANS will in all probability lose again.

"PLANS was unable to put on its case because of the court's evidentiary rulings, which we believe to be both erroneous and prejudicial," Kendall stated. "Therefore, PLANS is taking this case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

PLANS did put on its case. It filed the suit, put on its case, the case was heard, and PLANS was found not to have any evidence to support its contentions. The two excluded witnesses are not materially relevant, since their testimony was hostile to PLANS anyway.

Debra Snell, President of PLANS, said "After seven and a half years of dealing with legal technicalities, we expected that we'd finally be able to have a trial of the real issues in court. We are disappointed, but also more determined than ever to continue to press our case, no matter what we have to overcome. Steiner's books—which form the foundation of Waldorf education and the basis for Waldorf school teacher training--are shelved in the spirituality section of the bookstores, not the philosophy section! We have plenty of evidence that Steiner's doctrines leak into the public Waldorf schools that citizens pay taxes to support. If that's not a breach of the Establishment Clause, I don't know what is."

Debra Snell does not appear to know what a breach of the Establishment Clause is. Nor does she have much understanding of Steiner's philosophy. PLANS has blathered a lot of illogical nonsense over the years. The difference here is that in a court case, the rules of evidence are strict and fair. Under these rules, PLANS was completely unable to offer any evidence that Anthroposophy is a religion. Snell and Dugan may one day realize that the US Court system functions differently from the Internet. On the Internet you can make all sorts of wild allegations, and then insist that the people you slander bear the burden of proof in defending themselves. In court, such wild allegations must be substantiated by the person filing the suit, or they lose the case. PLANS lost.

The Administrative Director of the Anthroposophical Society in America, Jean W. Yeager, attended the trial, despite the fact that public Waldorf schools claim they have no connection with Anthroposophy whatsoever. On February 4, 2004, Yeager intervened in a Waldorf charter school application by writing to the Benecia, California, school board, and the Anthroposophical Society submitted an amicus curiae brief in the PLANS lawsuit.

Jean Yeager attended the court case. Upon consideration it should be obvious that the Anthroposophical Society has a strong interest in not being misclassified as a religion.

When a court is asked to decide whether or not Anthroposophy is a religion, the Anthroposophical Society has an interest in the outcome. In this particular case the Anthroposophical Society filed an Amicus Curiae Brief [http://waldorfanswers.org/BriefAmicus0407091.pdf] explaining why Anthroposophy is not a religion. An Amicus Curiae Brief can be filed when a person or group who is not party to the lawsuit nevertheless has an interest in the outcome.

Jean Yeager's presence has nothing to do with Waldorf education, and everything to do with the fact that the court was being asked to determine the status of Anthroposophy, something the Anthroposophical Society has an interest in. The Anthroposophical Society will likely always be involved when the material status of Anthroposophy is a point of contention, such as was the case in the Benecia Charter application. The Anthroposophical Society became involved in Benecia in order to set the record straight when PLANS mischaracterized the nature of Anthroposophy. Otherwise it has no interest in Charter schools, Waldorf-methods or otherwise.

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

PLANS often complains, without substantiation, that Waldorf-methods Charter Schools harm children. PLANS frivolous lawsuit has cost the school districts over $300,000 in legal fees, money that could have gone towards educating children. Twin Ridges School District Superintendent Stan Miller is "…outraged at the amount of taxpayer dollars it's taken to defend this case that could have been spent on student programs." The irony is that by filing this baseless suit, PLANS has done substantial harm to children of California, and the Twin Ridges Waldorf-methods Charter School has not.

And there it sits-

My previous blog on the "Big Lie" [http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2005/08/the_big_lie_fro.html#comments] hasn't brought forward any attempts to verify the quote from Peter Staudenmaier.

I do believe that I could offer the Waldorf Critics and PLANS a thousand dollars, ten thousand dollars or even a million dollars and the quote would remain - unverified.

"Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they might be corrected." Posted by Dan Dugan on Waldorf Critics a month ago. I guess "might" is the operative word.

Did Steiner say it? Put up the quote or remove the article!

The Big Lie from PLANS

Yes, the web-site of PLANS includes a lot of lies. This quote is a particularly glaring example. The untruth of this particular example has been pointed out over and over and over again. It has been pointed out on the Waldorf Critics discussion list. It has been pointed out on Anthroposophy Tomorrow. Daniel Hindes provided a detailed analysis of the first half of this article, coming up with 66 pages worth of paragraph by paragraph analysis of the problems with the article. But the article is still up on PLANS site. [Link to Daniel's article can be found starting from his page of Refutations: http://www.defendingsteiner.com/refutations/index.php
This example of something that Steiner supposedly "said" has been up on the PLANS web-site for years. It is the first paragraph of an article by Peter Staudenmaier entitled: Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture series was titled "The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race. [1]

I would like to challenge the Waldorf Critics to verify this quote by providing:
1)The full quote.
2)The date and title of the lecture in question.
3)The GA number of the volume wherein it was published.
I will personally donate $50 to PLANS for their court case if anyone can verify this quote. Since I am a very poorly paid public librarian, $50 represents a lot of money. I am putting up this offer to show that I am quite serious about the claim that PLANS and the WC publish lies.

A few ground rules - the lecture proffered must have been given in Norway. The quote needs to be translated into English, but it would be best if it could also be provided in German. If the quote provided includes ellipses, the amount of skipped text must be identified in brackets. I have ten days after a quote is offered to research the quote and confirm that it is indeed an accurate reflection of Steiner's spoken words. The sample quotes need to be offered as comments on this blog. Any irrelevant quotes (attempts to prove that Steiner was indeed a racist by quoting other stuff, not connected with the example above) will result in $5 being subtracted from the proposed donation each time such a quote is put forward. And, to be even meaner, I will only publish the citation for such quotes, not the quote themselves.

I'm waiting...I have a feeling I'll be waiting a very, very long time.