More “truths” from the PLANS web-site

I was fascinated by the question and answer quoted below. Like most of the material coming out of PLANS it isn’t totally false, but there is very little resting on solid ground, to put it mildly.
Most of the waldorf parents I’ve known, confronted with this sort of “explanation” would be irritated, disgusted, or, I must admit, amused at such bare-faced exaggerations and distortions.
So, I’ll take it bit by bit.
First, throughout, the writer acts as though the “school” and the “parents” are two very separate entities. This is odd because most waldorf schools are founded not by teachers, nor by groups of anthroposophists, but by groups of parents. These parents choose to start a waldorf school. They raise money, find a location, hire a teacher or teachers, take care of administration, incorporate, join the board, do everything involved in creating the waldorf school except teach. And, due to the extreme shortage of waldorf teachers in the U.S., some budding schools send someone (usually a parent) off to a teacher education program so they will have a teacher.
Schools that have been around for a few years are also full of parents. The majority of the staff are parents. Most of the teachers are parents. The board consists largely of parents. If “the school” is hiding something from parents “the school” includes…parents! And parents in positions of power and authority.
What sort of people are waldorf parents? Helpless victims who will continue to keep their children in schools that are failing them year after year (and paying high tuition for the privilege besides)? Well, they are a varied group. Many are self-employed entrepreneurs, bossy, domineering, argumentative and very clear on what they expect and want from a school. Others are successful professionals, many are educators (lots of Chicago Public School teachers had their children in the Chicago Waldorf School), some are eccentrics, some are ex-hippies, some are devoutly religious, and so on and on. I’ve never met any who saw themselves as helpless victims of a waldorf school. This rare species seems to thrive only in online circles.
I suppose I should deal with a few of the actual points raised.
It is true for example, that children in a waldorf school would have trouble transferring for the first 3 or 4 years, due to the different approach to teaching reading. I’ve never heard of any waldorf school that wasn’t totally upfront with parents on this matter and parents are warned that there could be problems transferring their children in the lower grades. It isn’t a problem in the upper grades. Children frequently transfer in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and very often after 8th grade. I suppose children occasionally have problems, but most of the families I’ve known had no difficulties at all. At the Chicago school the 8th grade students moved on into the best high schools (private and public) in the city and suburbs. The school newsletter would have several articles a year telling about one student or another who had won an award, starred in a play, received a scholarship and so on. The demand for waldorf graduates by other schools actually undermined the first few years of the waldorf high school: parents who were offered a generous scholarship by another school with a well-established high school usually took it.
On the retention rates: While I was working at the Chicago Waldorf School we began our accreditation process. This involved simultaneous accreditation through the regional private school association and AWSNA. After we joined the regional group we gained access to their numbers: tuition, attrition rates and lots of other interesting stuff. Our attrition rate was slightly below that of most of the other schools in the region. If I remember correctly, we lost 7% per year, most schools were hovering around 8%.
The most obvious point is that waldorf schools couldn’t stay in business if they were as bad as PLANS makes out. Not only are most of the waldorf schools in North America doing quite well, new ones keep opening, year after year.
My daughter recently attended her 20 year class reunion at the Toronto Waldorf School. Twelve out of sixteen graduates managed to make it to the reunion. All of them had positive memories of their waldorf experience, all of them have done well in life, several of them have children in waldorf schools.
Happy parents and happy students and happy graduates are the norm. The victims described below are the exceptions. Whoever they are…they have my sympathy.

Many parents decide not to get involved in the religious nature of the school (Anthroposophy study groups, various workshops, etc.)

One more comment: this represents a catch-22 for waldorf schools. If they do offer information on anthroposophy they are imposing their beliefs on the parents, but if they don’t offer information on anthroposophy they are hiding the awful truth. A perfect example of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And typical of the careful reasoning offered by PLANS.

Question: Why don’t parents simply pull their children out of Waldorf schools when/if they learn of the occultism?
Answer: Many parents do pull their children from Waldorf schools. PLANS would like to see data from Waldorf Schools for a statistical comparison with other independent schools’ enrollment/retention records.
Waldorf education differs from other schools in many ways. It is difficult to simply pull a child and enroll him/her elsewhere. For example, Waldorf discourages reading until the second grade; a child arriving in a public school for grade two after a year at Waldorf would find it very difficult, academically, to catch up. Many ex-Waldorf students require private tutors. Waldorf Education involves learning-by-copying in the elementary years – virtually every lesson is copied from the teacher. Changing to another school can be difficult for young children.
Many parents decide not to get involved in the religious nature of the school (Anthroposophy study groups, various workshops, etc.) They leave their children in Waldorf – hoping it will all work out. Waldorf schools do not have a reputation for answering questions or being forthright with information about the connection between themselves and Anthroposophy. Eventually, when the religious/occult nature of the school is seen, many parents feel their options are limited. Some parents simply put up with it and others get more involved in Anthroposophy, changing their lifestyle and losing touch with old friends. They call their schools Waldorf communities. Some parents become engulfed by their school, spending many hours volunteering, attending meetings. Some parents end up donating most of their spare time (and money) for their school. Many parents who leave Waldorf schools find it difficult to adjust and refer to their time there as time spent in a cult. It is not at all unusual for parents and children to seek professional help after leaving a Waldorf Community.

PLANS – accurate? Responses and comments thereon (cont further)

Walden wrote:

And this is it? This is the propaganda???

in reference to my first blog on this topic. I’ve been observing Walden’s style on the WC and he has this tendency to put words into people’s “mouths.”
Cheer up Walden. I’ve only just begun. I’m rather impressed with the number of distortions that have turned up from the analysis of one short paragraph from PLANS. Doesn’t look as though the site is actually the result of careful thought and research, does it?
Most of what Walden points out has already been covered in my exchanges with Dan (see the earlier blogs on this site).
He does write:

Better still, there is a very informative book on the esoteric background of Waldorf Education – “oddly” enough, the book has those words right there in the title. I doubt the author is attempting to smear the movement. See: “Esoteric background of Waldorf Education – The Cosmic Christ Impulse” by R. Querido

Ah, Walden, please note the word “background” in the title. Nobody I’ve come across in these discussions has been trying to pretend that waldorf education has no connection to anthroposophy and anthroposophy is full of esoteric material. The argument is whether children are indoctrinated with esoteric material as part of their education at waldorf schools. The paragraph I originally quoted (here it is again)

Parents should be told that although Waldorf bills itself as “arts-based” education to attract holistically minded parents, creativity is actually discouraged, and many of the “artistic” activities in Waldorf are more accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols important in Anthroposophy. Children spend a lot of time copying the teacher’s work directly off the board. Fourth graders embroidering a purse
must all use the same pattern (often with esoteric symbols).

tries to describe waldorf education as using religious rituals, meditation on symbols, embroidering symbols, suppressing creativity…but so far neither you nor Dan nor the PLANS site has actually done a reasonable job of backing up any of these smears.
Further, Daniel Hindes has demonstrated over and over and over again that various materials on the PLANS site include fake quotes, falsified quotes, purposeful mistranslations, distortions and other outrages against scholarship and truthfulness. Your response? To pretend that none of this material exists.
Serena was right when she talked about heads being buried in the sand.

PLANS – accurate? Responses and comments thereon

Dan Dugan quoted me (8-3, on WC)

Like most of the material on the PLANS site, the above remarks are not
backed up by any citations or documentation.

and then responded:

The claims made on Waldorf web sites are backed
up by citations and documentation?

PLANS claims, more than once, to be presenting the results of “research.” Research can be (and should be) backed up by citations and documentation.
Next I offered an example of 4th graders doing original designs in craft class. Dan responded:

OK, DK got us. Any categorical statement like
“fourth graders embroidering a purse must all use
the same pattern” is bound to be falsified by one

There are a lot of categorical statements on the PLANS website. I plan to spend the next few months falsifying them one by one. Unless Dan would like to change all the categorical statements into something less absolute?
Dan continues:

Of course not. My son’s teacher, for example,
wasn’t rigid at all. But you know, Detlef, that
it’s the rule in the early grades that all the
kids do the same art. This smoke screen is too
How about adding the word “usually” before
“fourth graders”? Would that be sufficient

Unfortunately he starts directing his comments to Detlef, who is an innocent bystander. Detlef simply copied my post to share with the WC.
Now Dan does raise an interesting point. Kids do similar artwork in the early grades. What is this about? Does something sinister lurk (weird music please)?
It is mostly about mastering technique. When I joined a waldorf class, in the 8th grade, everyone could draw really well: except me. As the beneficiary of many different public schools across several states I’d never learned how to draw. Once someone learns how to draw pictures it is quite difficult to keep them from drawing anything they want to draw. I know one waldorf kid who does super-heroes (exquisitely). However, if you never learn the basic techniques, only the kids with a natural, god-given (or hereditary) talent will be able to draw well. Same thing applies to painting, knitting, crochet, sewing, embroidery, felting. Before you can be creative you need to master the basic techniques.
My daughter learned how to knit in the first grade. Everybody knitted the same projects (but hey, they did get to choose their colors). Knitting was revisited in the third grade where everyone made hats and the super knitters got to make scarves too. This time they got to choose two colors and figure out their own stripe arrangement. Knitting was revisited again in (5th?) a higher grade where they did a project involving knitting in the round on multiple needles.
You can, I hope, see the development here. Increasing skill level, increasing complexity, increasing design freedom. My daughter, as an adult is a highly skilled knitter, capable of figuring out almost any pattern and also quite capable of designing a knitted item from scratch. She can work with incredibly complex color arrangements, too. One vest she created is such a work of art that no one ever believes she made it herself.
If you believe that the foundation to artistic creativity is handing kids a blank piece of paper and some crayons, then waldorf indeed stifles artistic creativity. So do all the art classes in the world because all of them (whoops, I’m getting categorical) involve training in technique. This applies to music, singing, drawing, painting, composing, dance…
I’ll continue my comments on Dan’s and Walden’s responses tomorrow or perhaps Saturday.

Barnaby and Selective Reading

Another poster that has been looking at my writing is someone who signs their work "Barnaby". Before I get into the detailed points that Barnaby makes, I would like to comment on the character of his post. Barnaby takes a mildly derisive stance in his comments, weaving just a few facts into a ringing indictment of my logic. This is classic polemic, delivered WC style. And as usual, it is based on a few illogical assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the basic facts.

Barnaby writes:

"I’d like to ask about völkisch conceptions of race and culture. Daniel Hindes, shining paladin of anthroposophy, writes on his website:

Steiner considered the term "Sub-Race" to be misleading since it implied a racial character to cultural development, so he renamed the time periods "Cultural Epochs".

Note the unnecessary "shining paladin of anthroposophy". Barnaby shows just how inbred the "Waldorf Critics" are; identifying someone as an anthroposophist – especially with a verbal flourish – is the first step to dismissing their entire argument.

I think he might be projecting his modern understanding of ‘race’ and ‘culture’ onto Steiner.

So this is the actual thesis, and a point that can be discussed. What is the meaning of ‘race’ and ‘culture’, today and in the past? Have they changed? How did Steiner understand the terms? Are we today misunderstanding Steiner when we bring modern assumptions of the possible meanings of these words to Steiner’s century-old texts?

In actual fact, the thesis (that Hindes is mistaken in claiming Steiner saw a difference between cultural development and racial evolution) has not yet been developed by Barnaby at all; at the end of his post he asks for help proving it. Typical of so-calledWaldorf Critics, Barnaby has his conclusion finished before he has even started his research!

Hindes, who ‘… has been systematically studying the works of Rudolf Steiner for over a decade’ also bizarrely claims that he never took a German nationalist stance:

The problematic noun-pronoun agreement notwithstanding (I assume Barnaby is not implying that Hindes takes a German nationalist stance) Barnaby is setting up his polemical argument. Hindes, who ought to know better if he has really studied Steiner for over a decade, seems to have missed something important. Here comes the fact that is to show Hindes’ ignorance, a fact so basic that any so-called scholar of Steiner ought to immediately know it:

How Steiner managed to write for and edit pan-Germanist journals without being a German nationalist is beyond me.

So here is the actual fact in question: what to make of Steiner’s editing of journals that, before Steiner’s involvement, was known to be pan-Germanist. Does this automatically mean that Steiner must have been a German nationalist, as Barnaby considers proven by the mere fact that Steiner was published in a specific forum?

Evidently Hindes’ systematic study hasn’t reached GA 31 and 32 yet, which contains Steiner’s writings from the Deutche Wochenschrift, a journal devoted to the ‘the pan-German cause in Austria’. See Staudenmaier and Zegers’ ‘Anthroposophy and its Defenders’:

With a polemical flourish, Hindes is dismissed for both failing to get to GA31 and GA32, and for failing to note that this was pointed out in an article called "Anthroposophy and its Defenders" by no less than Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Zegers. How Hindes could write a 60-page rebuttal to one Staudenmaier article and not be aware of Staudenmaier’s follow-up is not discussed. Further, since Barnaby admits he can’t read German, and GA’s 31 and 32 have never been published in English, Barnaby can’t possibly have investigated for himself what is actually written there, but this won’t stop him from snidely dismissing those who have.

First, Staudenmaier’s track record for accuracy in the one article that I did thoroughly review is absolutely abysmal. So relying uncritically on anything Staudenmaier writes about Steiner would be a mistake. If we look at Staudenmaier’s claims, it is indeed yet another litany of malfeasance of which Steiner is accused. And like the first article, Anthroposophy and Ecofascism, if the claims were established, it would leave Steiner a greatly diminished figure indeed. However, it is mostly fiction, spun heavily.

A few basic facts. Steiner edited and wrote for a journal known for its pan-German slant. When Steiner took over informally as editor (the point at which he started writing) he essentially co-opted it for his own purposes. In fact, the new direction was so unsuccessful that the journal folded in six months, and Steiner was involved in a lawsuit over its demise. Basically, Steiner was not writing pan-German nationalist articles, and this alienated the readership. The articles themselves are reprinted in GA31 and GA32, but Staudenmaier does his usual hatchet job misrepresenting their contents. If I ever have time I will translate them. However, the are decidedly not the pan-Germanist propaganda that Staudenmaier, using only the titles as evidence, makes them out to be. Those in doubt are encouraged to read the actual articles in question and decide for themselves.

Steiner’s concept of race owes a great debt to völkisch pan-Germanists.

This claim of Barnaby’s, I should point out, is not backed by anything. It is simply an assumption. I would consider the Waldorf Critics to be making useful contributions to Steiner scholarship and criticism if they were to write articles attempting to establish such points rather than simply take them as assumptions. Steiner’s concept of race and its historical context would indeed be an interesting topic to explore. I would suggest starting with Steiner’s writings on the subject. Then check the pan-Germanists, and compare. Perhaps the thesis will stand, as Barnaby so blithely assumes. Perhaps it will fall. But work through the source material before making up your mind!

I’d like to know what *they* meant by ‘race’ and ‘culture’, and what they thought was the relationship between the two. I suspect they, and consequently Steiner, believed that culture was determined by race. If that’s true then Hindes’ argument, and the related argument that Waldorf students learn about different cultures rather than racial-spiritual evolution in their lessons on Egyptians, Hebrews and so on, is nonsense.

Note the error of logic; once it is assumed that Steiner’s concept of race is the same as the pan-Germanists, then whatever can be attributed to the pan-Germanists automatically transfers to Steiner. That the two may actually have different views on race is overlooked. It is this type of sideways attack that Waldorf Critics are forced to rely on, since there is no real direct approach.

Here is the tie-in to Waldorf education. Should it be demonstrated that Steiner adopted a völkish pan-Germanist understanding of joint racial-cultural evolution, then it could conceivably be established that Waldorf schools are teaching racism instead of cultural history. However, even this does not necessarily follow logically; hypothetically, were Steiner to be proven a völkisch pan-Germanists in racial assumptions (whatever exactly is meant by these terms) it does not necessarily follow that thousands of classroom teachers today are imparting völkisch pan-Germanists in racial assumptions when the individually prepare and then present their blocks on, say, the Hebrews. Further, it does not follow logically that, in learning about different cultures in various classes, students are being indoctrinated in racial-spiritual evolution. Sometimes learning about a culture is simply learning about a culture. Only on the WC is it a sinister plot to impart century-old racist assumptions.

In actual fact, the material showing that Steiner did not believe that culture was determined by race has been posted online by several people. Consult:

And also my footnotes on my Root Races page:

“When people speak of races today they do so in a way that is no longer quite correct; in theosophical literature, too, great mistakes are made on this subject … Even in regard to present humanity, for example, it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of races. In the true sense of the word this development of the races applies only to the Atlantean epoch … thus everything that exists today in connection with the [different] races are relics of the differentiation that took place in Atlantean times. We can still speak of races, but only in the sense that the real concept of race is losing its validity."

Steiner, Rudolf. Universe, Earth and Man (GA 105), London 1987, lecture of 16 August 1908.

“For this reason we speak of ages of culture in contra-distinction to races. All that is connected with the idea of race is still a relic of the epoch preceding our own, namely the Atlantean. We are now living in the period of cultural ages … Today the idea of culture has superseded the idea of race. Hence we speak of the ancient Indian culture, of which the culture announced to us in the Vedas is only an echo. The ancient and sacred Indian culture was the first dawn of post-Atlantean civilization; it followed immediately upon the Atlantean epoch.”

Steiner, Rudolf. The Apocalypse of St John (GA 104), London 1977, lecture of 20 June 1908.

Explaining the issue at length in 1909, when he was still the General Secretary of the German section of the Theosophical Society in Germany, Steiner said:

”If we go back beyond the Atlantean catastrophe, we see how human races were prepared. In the ancient Atlantean age, human beings were grouped according to external bodily characteristics even more so than in our time. The races we distinguish today are merely vestiges of these significant differences between human beings in ancient Atlantis. The concept of races I only fully applicable to Atlantis. Because we are dealing with the real evolution of humanity, we [theosophists] have therefore never used this concept of race in its original meaning. Thus, we do not speak of an Indian race, a Persian race, and so on, because it is no longer true or proper to do so. Instead, we speak of an Indian, a Persian, and other periods of civilization. And it would make no sense at all to say that in our time a sixth "race" is being prepared. Though remnants of ancient Atlantean differences, of ancient Atlantean group-soulness, still exist and the division into races is still in effect, what is being prepared for the sixth epoch is precisely the stripping away of race. That is essentially what is happening.

"Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character.

"That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races, and each of these root races was divided into seven sub-races. These seven periods were said to repeat in a cycle so that one could always speak of seven races and seven sub-races. However, we must get beyond the illness of childhood and clearly understand that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time."

Rudolf Steiner. The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1990. Pages 12-13. Lecture of December 4th, 1909.

Misunderstanding Blavatsky II

Walden continues:

Looks like I might have found an answer to my question – but it seems confusing…

I previously wrote:

Trying to slowly make my way through a web site that Serena pointed out and I have a question regarding something the writer (Daniel Hindes) states:

"Blavatsky did indeed originate the term "Root Race". And she did declare that indigenous peoples are dying out. However, Staudenmaier has misunderstood (or never read) the explanation for how this is to be accomplished. Contrary to what Staudenmaier would have you believe, Blavatsky did not declare that those indigenous people who were alive ought to die for
karmic reasons. Rather, Blavatsky, accepting the scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility, declared that this sterility was due to the fact that souls no longer wished to be born into these races. The dying-out process she predicted would take another thousand years. The karmic necessity that Blavatsky talked about was that souls wishing to be born were choosing other races for karmic reasons, and not that indigenous peoples currently alive ought to die.26 Staudenmaier has treated Blavatsky with the same lack of scholarly care and accuracy that he brings to this study of Steiner."

Does anyone know of these "scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility?"

Later on in the same piece, the same author seems to contradict his claim of scientific reports:

I’m not quite sure what Walden is talking about; he appears to be an extremely careless reader. Firstly, I do not identify with Blavatsky or hold up her opinions as Truth. I merely stated that firstly, Blavatsky believed one thing (and I gave specific page numbers for where it could be found in "The Secret Doctrine") and second that Staudenmaier seriously misrepresented Blavatsky’s beliefs in writing about them, much as he seriously misrepresents Steiner’s beliefs when writing about Steiner. Again, I am not adopting Blavatsky’s position or even commenting on its accuracy. The entire point is that Peter Staudenmaier misunderstands and misrepresents both Blavatsky and Steiner. The point is not to determine whether Blavatsky or Steiner were correct, only to describe the positions of both writers.

[Daniel Hindes:]"The quote offered here is greatly helped by some context. Steiner wrote:

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

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

[Walden:] Makes me wonder: when Daniel Hindes tells us that Blavatsky accepted the *scientific reports* that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility, why does he later tell us that science of his (Steiner’s) day had no concepts to express why – and that Steiner "intuited this?"

So here is Walden’s quandary: how can Blavatsky accept so-called scientific reports about the sterility of Native peoples, and yet the science of Steiner’s day doesn’t know why the Native Americans died of disease in such numbers? This is then trumpted as a major flaw in the logic of the writer. Well Walden appears to be seriously confused on a few points. Firstly, sterility is not the same as immunological susceptibility. And Blavatsky’s concept of Native peoples dying out over the next 1000 years due to sterility is not the same as the historical extermination of Native peoples or the mass deaths due to disease. So there is no contradiction between reporting that Blavatsky claimed that she knew of scientific reports of sterility that would cause a gradual dying out of Native peoples over the next 1000 years (had Walden checked the reference, he would have noted that Blavatsky was talking as much about Pacific Islanders as Native Americans) and Steiner explaining that Native Americans were particularly weak physically and had been dying out.

If this is an example of Walden’s logical abilities, then I have to conclude that he can’t reason. He is simply fabricating contradictions because he would so very much like to find my writing in error. This type of "emotional logic" seems typical of the WC as a whole.

By the way, many of my First Nations friends take strong exception to this stuff and last I checked – they have not yet "died out."


The gratuitous "my First Nation friends" is an unnecessary and insulting. Neither I nor Steiner in any way approve of what was done to the Native Americans. Both he and I deplore it. The implication that we in any way approve is completely unjustified. Why Walden presumes that describing an event is equivalent to condoning it is beyond me. I believe I had the same argument with Diana Winters; just because it happened doesn’t make it good. And describing how or why it happened does not imply approval.

Misunderstanding Blavatsky

Howdy folks,

I’ve been on hiatus from my blog for a while; life has a way of filling up your time. My Defending Steiner is up for all to read, and some of the folks over at the WC (Waldorf Critics) have even been looking at it. It is a bit discouraging that they keep missing the point, but then, they don’t have a history of critical reading that is critical in anything but attitude. Someone emailed me some of the WC postings, so I thought I’d respond here.

In one post, Walden writes:

Trying to slowly make my way through a web site that Serena pointed out and I have a question regarding something the writer (Daniel Hindes) states:

"Blavatsky did indeed originate the term "Root Race". And she did declare that indigenous peoples are dying out. However, Staudenmaier has misunderstood (or never read) the explanation for how this is to be accomplished. Contrary to what Staudenmaier would have you believe, Blavatsky did not declare that those indigenous people who were alive ought to die for karmic reasons. Rather, Blavatsky, accepting the scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility, declared that this sterility was due to the fact that souls no longer wished to be born into these races. The dying-out process she predicted would take another thousand years. The karmic necessity that Blavatsky talked about was that souls wishing to be born were choosing other races for karmic reasons, and not that indigenous peoples currently alive ought to die.26 Staudenmaier has treated Blavatsky with the same lack of scholarly care and accuracy that he brings to this study of Steiner."

Does anyone know of these "scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility?"

I myself would be interested in learning the answer. Blavatsky has come under criticism over the years for improperly documented sources. So this claim of hers may stand, or may fall.

I should note that whether or not Blavatsky was correct about the sterility of indigenous peoples, this does not change my point one bit. My observation was firstly, that Blavatsky believed this (and I gave specific page numbers for where it could be found in "The Secret Doctrine") and second that Staudenmaierseriously misrepresented Blavatsky’s beliefs in writing about them, much as he seriously misrepresents Steiner’s beliefs when writing about Steiner. Should Blavatsky turn out to be misinformed about sterilization, my point about Staudenmaier’s accuracy still stands.

Another writer on the WC list has accused me of failing to prove Blavatsky free of racism with an example that is clearly racist. I’m not sure why Barnaby supposes that I ever attempted to defend Blavatsky of charges of racism. I should also note that nowhere do I propose that Blavatsky is free of racism. That some of Blavatsky’s concepts were blatantly racist is obvious and well established, and not a point that I would dispute. I am not a knee-jerk defender of all that is "occult". I try to look carefully at the facts of every case, and draw reasonable conclusions. And as a matter of fact, it was on the issue of the importance of race that Steiner differed most sharply with Blavatsky. And one of my major issues with Peter Staudenmaier is that he flagrantly conflates Anthroposophy with Theosophy where most other scholars see major differences between them. I would urge people over at the Waldorf Critics list to use a little more discernment and care in reading. Since they have an obvious bias they should be especially careful in reading things which they know they will automatically disagree with.

Daniel Hindes